Although we aren't inclined to believe that this is the first time such a suit has been brought upon Apple, a new one claiming that the Cupertino powerhouse has unlawfully
tied the iPod to its iTunes Store has made its way to the US District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint was filed by a Florida resident on behalf of all Florida-based iPod owners and iTunes Store customers, and it basically alleges that certain
limitations -- such as the inability to play content purchased through iTunes on anything not labeled an iPod -- is "unreasonable and illegal under Florida's antitrust and unfair trade laws." Furthermore, the plaintiff claims that Apple willfully disabled embedded support for rival formats, and stated that it was "in possession of monopoly power in the portable digital media player market, the online music market and the online video market." 'Course, it's not like those lawyers at 1 Infinite Loop aren't
used to this stuff by now, and we really can't see this being the beginning of the end (nor a catalyst for rule changes) for the
oh-so-mighty iTunes Store.
posted Nov 7th 2007 2:13PM
One day people will understand the difference between being a monopoly and being a strong market leader... Wishful thinking, in the meantime we get to see all these frivolous lawsuits.
If this was Microsoft you would still make the same comment?
I doubt it.
Its not frivolous, Apple has created a marketplace which only works with its own device. Good for them this market is pretty successful, but they should let other people in too.
The right question should more be : Did you backed up Microsoft the same way you're backing up Apple when the European Union forced Microsoft to remove Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player from Windows because they created a monopoly for these kinds of application?
Now the same is happening with Apple, they created something so big they can't keep it for themselves, they will have to share.
so... are you here for the cult meeting? :)
No I'm usually here to bask in the heightened sense of self righteousness and reverse fanboyism of my Engadget peers.
If it was Microsoft I'd be saying the same thing, in fact MS did exactly the same with Exchange and Outlook just as an example. What should be common sense by now is that if you want to break dominance in the market you don't do it through lawsuits, you compete. This is what MS is doing with the Zune, what Sansa is doing and so many others are starting to do.
Just because you are the dominant market force does not automatically make you a monopoly, last time I checked there were alternatives to the iPod and iTunes, so it hardly looks like a monopoly to me.
Thats not true... Exchange is easily accessible using other technologies and MS has APIs and such for people to write software to interface with Exchange. You simply CANNOT do anything with the iPod or iTunes... PERIOD.
I don't think zoesch said anything about microsoft. . . the article was about apple, so naturally the comment is too. Are we to a point where mentioning something good about apple must also involve saying something good about microsoft without spurring a plethora of anti-fanboy comments? People like Chris and Jonnyg0 make the engadget comment section suck.
In economic theory, one of the basic definitions of a monopoly is their ability to create barriers to entry to prevent new entrants into the market.
Selling tracks that will only work on your mp3 player sounds like a barrier to entry to me.
I see nothing monopolistic here at all. there are plenty of other software to use with ipods (i have been using anapod for years), and itunes allows you to burn to cd and also sells drm free tracks.
its just someone wanting a piece of apple's pie. :)
Andrew Horn : I'm sorry to see you define a "what happens to one must happen to the other" comment as fanboyism...
You're right, zoesch didn't said anything about microsoft, but when you call a lawsuit like that one frivolous, you need to compare it to (somewhat) similar cases, and this one just happened to be about Microsoft.
oh and also thanks for commenting oh how I'm part of the reasons comments sucks here, its really a nice way to spurs an intelligent unbiased discussion, which is what you look for right?...
Whoever suing Apple must love their break in
Dunkin' Donuts + Starbucks coffee
its constantly amazing how people forget that iTunes lets you burn CD's of anything you buy at the iTMS. Oh wait, its not amazing, its just proof that they are assmonkey wankers.
Hey, it worked on Microsoft/IE.
But, I think this issue is moot with Apple's inclusion of DRM-free MP3s for 99 cents.
It's constantly amazing how people forget that ripping CDs burned from the iTunes music store to play on rival MP3 players violates the DMCA. Oh wait, it's not amazing, it's just proof that the person I'm replying to is an iTard.
It's not HOW you do it, it's WHY you do it. FairPlay says you can listen to your legally purchased music in one of three ways: on an iPod or other FairPlay-compatible DAP, on one of five authorized computers running iTunes, or via burned CD-Rs and a standard CD player. In no way does it ever say you may rip your burned CD-Rs to play your songs on a rival DAP.
Which adds up to this: If you circumvent FairPlay to play your legally purchased music on a rival DAP, then it's illegal according to the DMCA. That's it! Legally, that's the end of the discussion and if you happen to do it you will have violated federal law in the United States.
Further, such a minor concession as being able legally transcode FairPlay protected music to other formats simply would not be good for Apple's well being. Despite what Mr. Jobs says about DRM, he's in the business to make money. He doesn't make massive profits through music sales -- he makes massive profits through iPod sales. iTunes is simply a funnel to pull in users to buy his iPod.
Nobody, not even Steve Jobs, honestly expects users to spend $0.99 per song to fill up an 80GB iPod. With a quick assumption of 4MB per song, it'd cost around $20,000 to do so. With the lack of an easily-cancelable subscription service, it should be fairly obvious that Steve Jobs couldn't care less about DRM as a means to protect copyright holders. Rather, he cares about DRM as a means to protect his own interests -- which is to restrict users that have already put money into his system into the purchase of an iPod.
So tell me, when iTMS consists of over 85% of online music sales and is now sitting only behind Best Buy and Wal-mart in terms of having the the most sales of ANY medium (counting both plastic CDs from a brick and mortar store and online), how can forcing the user into playing their music on only their DAP be anything BUT a monopoly?
You know, after first being lured in with free songs from that Pepsi bottle cap 1-in-3-wins game from several years ago, I ended up giving well over $100 to Apple to legally listen to music on my PC, even though I had no intentions of spending money on an MP3 player. When I decided I also wanted to listen to my legally purchased music on my recently purchased Windows Mobile phone it occurred to me what my options were -- I had to either buy an iPod or be happy with an annoyingly large CD player and many individual CDs.
Since I didn't want to play their game, I ended up sticking it to Apple by going with a Napster subscription plan and got a free PlaysForSure DAP for my Mom to listen with to boot. It's been just over a year and no, I really don't miss the iTunes Music Store.
JLTate....now that’s real talk ;-) You know now and days I just don’t even bother entertaining these cats anymore by playing these games. I like apple products but for the longest time I opted not to get caught up with iTunes because I knew how they wanted me to play that game and I didn’t like it at all. Apple did catch me being lazy tho 3-4 months ago. While I was at home that night I said to myself "OK its not 2002 anymore, maybe these guys have wised up with the whole DRM thing and I'll support Mr. Jobs and my favorite artists by buying some albums off of iTunes. After all, I work now so I'll show iTunes some love" All I can say is I enjoyed the simplicity of the user interface and the fact that some albums even came with a digital booklet and a music video. But man I was QUICKLY reminded why I had such a strong stance against buying music from iTunes. I mean unless the songs I BOUGHT played thru my iPod no other device would recognize the file format. And they really expect people to build whole music libraries off of this mess. I mean can they honestly be for real when they say the future is getting rid of all physical media like CDs and DVDs. Highly doubt it, the competition is so fierce that its obviously clouding their thoughts. No one is going to deal with building music of video libraries out of "Duh 1,000 different proprietary file formats!!!”
Calling the iPod + iTunes bond monopolistic is too strong of a term I'll say a better term to describe that bond is unfair. It would be monopolistic I think if no one else in the market was able to make a profit from it.
My lawyer only does law work! He refuses to do my sons math homework!
...what? Thats essentially the same thing as they're talking about here...
Sorry, but its not the same thing at all.
its more like- "I'm paying to get law work done (d/l song). But once I've paid for the law work- only one lawyer accepts that work (aka only playable on iPod). Other lawyers don't understand that law work. This is unfair. I should pay for law work that all lawyers understand."
Not at all what your example was.
As an attorney, allow me to say that, if you pay my hourly fee, I will do your son's homework.
He might as well claim that the iPhone can only use AT&T and help us legally unlock that ho.
Or you could argue that windows users should be able to install leopard.
people need to stop trying to make money off lawsuits!
"its constantly amazing how people forget that iTunes lets you burn CD's of anything you buy at the iTMS. Oh wait, its not amazing, its just proof that they are assmonkey wankers."
Indeed. Morons.
With all these lawsuits, it amazes me how no one ever questions "Microsoft+Zune+Playforsure" or "Sony+whatever-week-it-is" and their Mac compatibility...
apple-fanboy-ism
That's because
a) nobody gives a toss about what Sony or MS do in that field, especially when on a Mac.
b) the sue-happy don't care either because of a)
No one questions those relationships becasue you have to factor in market share when looking at monoploies or companies wielding monopoly like power. That's the way we look at monopolies in this country. It's more like the Microsoft to Internet Explorer relationship. If I build my own personal music player and software and sell it to two people, there is not much societal impact there. Several organizations have been hit with severe penalties for such situations, yet Apple has managed to avoid this issue for way too long. What then comes into play is the impact of this iPod to iTunes pairing on society. If this lawsuit goes through the courts will be faced with determining what societal benefit or damage comes from this pairing.
It wouldn't amaze you that much if you understood anything about monopoly law. You can't have a monopoly if you only have a tiny share of the market. Microsoft+zune+playsforsure isn't a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. Apple+iTunes very well might be.
That's because you can license PlaysForSure. It works with a bunch of different software services and mp3 players. You wouldn't have a monopolistic leg to stand on because you can choose your service and hardware independently. Novel idea, huh?
Another part of that, (in case this gets detached from the comment I am replying to, the OP said Microsoft should be sued for not having Zune Mac compatibility), is that Microsoft would need to go out of its way to support the Mac.
Apple goes out of its way to not support the Zune.
One is passive, the other is active.
Not necesarily. Market share does not have to always do with monopolies. Monoplies restrict access to the market. Apple is not restricting the market, you can download from any source and place that on your iPod as long as it is a supported format.
Simple, don't buy an iPod, buy a Zune or whatever. There is a choice. Is this guy that stupid.
Even simpler,
Free the music from the platform.
I'm going to sue Microsoft becuse the Zune isn't Mac Compatible.
Hmm, I like it. A pre-emptive strike against a possible monopoly. Count me in.
I like iPod/iTunes--but I too wish that they'd open up to more formats. That's not an unreasonable request at all.
I love how we already have people leaping to apple's defense but Microsoft can't even bundle an internet browser with their operating system.
If we consider the market for music to be distinct from the market of 'mp3' players then it's the same thing, leveraging market position in one market to effect another is monopolistic behavior.
I think comparing Ipod and Itunes to Microsoft Windows and Explorer is a bit flawed.
First of all there are only two OS choices for the general public, Windows and Macs, as opposed to hundreds of choices between mp3 players and lots of competing music services offering the same song selections.
IF a customer doesn't want the Itunes and Ipod tie-in then they they have a million choices to go elsewhere and they can still buy songs from other online music services.
The same cannot be said for Windows and Mac. If I don't like Windows, then I'll miss out on ALOT of software, games, and have issues with compatibility with incoming files from the other billions of people using Windows. Yes there is a choice between Macs and Windows but the consequences are far more greater when making it.
The choice between Ipod vs the other hundreds of competing services and its consequence is hardly comparable to choosing an OS.
I think comparing Ipod and Itunes to Microsoft Windows and Explorer is a bit flawed.
First of all there are only two OS choices for the general public, Windows and Macs, as opposed to hundreds of choices between mp3 players and lots of competing music services offering the same song selections.
IF a customer doesn't want the Itunes and Ipod tie-in then they they have a million choices to go elsewhere and they can still buy songs from other online music services.
The same cannot be said for Windows and Mac. If I don't like Windows, then I'll miss out on ALOT of software, games, and have issues with compatibility with incoming files from the other billions of people using Windows. Yes there is a choice between Macs and Windows but the consequences are far more greater when making it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why ignore linux in that case? If you want to compare the OS world to the mp3 world then leaving out linux is basically the same as saying there is the iPod and nothing else in the mp3 world.
You're only talking about the OS + the web browser though, how is Windows + IE any different than the fact that my iPod will only work with iTunes, or that my iTunes music will only play on my iPod.
Praev: Flawed you are.
First, as a Mac user, honestly, in OSX, i really don't have a choice, seeing as iTunes is pre-installed.
2nd.. and this is important. iTunes is the 3rd largest music store in the country. US, i mean. Apple bundles iTunes with all new macs, Apple used to bundle iTunes with quicktime, and quicktime is almost required in modern internet use.
And just like iTunes, MP3 players and services, you DO have choices in OSes. Just like Windows and OS, you have iTunes and Zune. You also have Plays4sure and Linux.
The monopoly with Windows is that Windows dominates the market. There are a ton of apps that use it because of it's market share, just like a bunch of labels in TV, music and movies supply content to iTunes due to its market share. And while yes, you can burn CDs for music content, There is nothing for Video Content.
Fanboys who defend the iPod+itunes monopoly always do it by dwnplaying it's impact and features. iTunes is not just a connected program anymore, it is it's own entity. it's the 3rd largest music store in the US, and only works with one device. How wuld you feel if WalMart only supported the Zune.
Never owned an iPod but love iTunes, seems to be a much better music management app than Windows Media Player or any other I've come across. I burn CDs with my "greatest hits" & watch TV episodes I've missed or otherwise can't get (like Dexter). Agree with Zoesch above, this sets yet another standard of frivolity.
I was in your exact situation. And when you decide that you want to watch Dexter or listen to any of the music you've downloaded on a digital media player without a computer you'll be sorry to find that you can only use an iPod. The monopoly comes in in that either you stick with Apple or you lose your prior investment.
How come nobody remembers Ma Bell anymore, and also isn't it just a tad bit ironic that you can only get the iPhone for AT&T Wireless? :P
I guess Nintendo should get sued for unfairly virtual console games to the Wii.
Unfairly tying, that is.
Standard "Internet Explorer" type lawsuit =)
who the hell in florida owns an ipod? outside of miami isn't florida one big retirement home? theres no way the old folks are that hip....
Amazing Floridians they dont know how to fill out a ballot form properly, but they know how to file a lawsuit.
unfortunately, people are duped into buying apple's mp3 player before they realise the drawbacks.. if i paid 100k for (essentially) a ford escort, then could only use ford's gas.. i think i would want something done about it.
what if you could also use any physical gas you currently own, or you could go to the store and buy physical gas from anywhere, or you could get gas from emusic, yahoo, amazon that would also work... wait, i think i've gone too far.
protected itunes tracks aren't the only thing that will play on ipods. you can buy cds, or buy unprotected content from a number of vendors.
Flawed Analogy!
It would be more like spending 100K on a Ford Mustang that came bundled with Fords own Special Gas (iTunes Store). Not only is it special, it is very popular with the cool and hip kids. But Ford is not forcing you to use their Special Gas (iTunes Store) to fill your car, you can also use the less hip and old fashion pumps all over the city (CDs). I also heard Sony and Microsoft also have their own Special Gas for their Car. Nevertheless the latest data shows that the majority (97%) of Mustang owners still prefer to fill their Car the old fashion way (CD's).
dave95:
In your analogy, the gas wouldn't be iTunes, it would be the music. iTunes would be the gas station (the place that you use to put the gas/music into your car/ipod). You can rip cd's for use with ipod, but you have to use iTunes to put the music on your iPod.
@ 0150r
My point was you don't have to use iTunes Store to fill your iPod it just came bundled, there are other alternatives like CD's which the majority of us still use to fill our DAP. There are alternatives online digital music store (eMusic, Amazon), alternatives for managing your music besides iTunes (Winamp, Ephpod, vPod, Sharepod etc). Now in what way do Apple force you to use iTunes or their store?
F iPods!!!!! Creative ZEN FTW!!!!!