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 November 7th 2007 2:13PM
Apple sells select tracks without DRM which will play on any player that supports AAC. It's not Apple that requires DRM, it's the record companies. If someone should be sued, it should be them!
I have a monopoly on the Wax-Pencil Broccoli Sunglasses Teabag PVC Knee Warmer market. Someone sue me, already.
If Sony did that and people didn't like it none should buy music from them, right? Then Sony wouldnt make any money and they would realise their mistake.
Also, having 90% of the market and then deciding to lock it down is different from taking 90% of the market from scratch "thanks to" locked down CDs.
Until they stop selling CD's how is iTunes a monopoly?
First: Let's skip the Microsoft Apple debate.
WHY??? Does this have to come up again?!?!?
No one is being forced anything here. Other than: If you want to put music on and iPod you're supposed to use iTunes. Notice the word 'supposed'. As in Apple says you have to but you really don't there's software, google it.
But that is not a monopoly. If that is a monopoly then a printer driver, OS X, Garmin's GPS devices (and some others), and every other peripheral the requires a drive or special software to make it where there is only 1 supported solution for the manufacturer of said peripheral.
iTunes is simply the driver for the iPod. Just as MapSource is the only supported way to put maps on a Garmin GPS. You can put songs on an iPod from other online stores (Amazon MP3, Audible) and you can convert unprotected WMAs in iTunes. You can't play 'protected' AACs on anything but an iPod, but this is the same as the Zune. And PlaysForSure is only selected devices from selected companies (what if they are in cahoots [they're not as far as I know, but the point is…]). Oh and you can use good ol' CDs if you want too.
So is this a Monopoly no? Is the Zune -Zune store a monopoly? No it isn't. Is the GPS a monopoly? It's more sketchy, but no it isn't.
And for the sake of god STOP SUEING PEOPLE IT DOESN'T HELP ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh and on the stuff from the iTMS only working on an iPod. So what? OS X only runs on Macs. There are more options for buying music online so if you want you can buy somewhere else. And if this is a monopoly the sue Microsoft already. Sue Garmin (see my above comment). But really no one is forcing anyone to do, to buy, or to use anything. NO monopoly that's it.
this is all the biggest load of rubbish i've read all day
fact: drm is enforced by music labels of this industry, i believe it was Apple with EMI that kicked it all off for drm free music
fact: online stores that sell drm free music are compatible with the iPod, amazon online being a good example.
fact: wma and the drm is propriety, buying into this format inforces monopolistic policies of one Microshaft
fact: aac is not owned by a single company and is a true standard however the drm is not, simply because Apple control everything to make sure everything works and is able to maintain it when it gets broken
fact: drm free music from itunes will play on anything that supports aac
therefore itunes and ipod do not equal monopoly
Oh yes, this is what the world has been waiting for. It is time to finally take a stand against the monopolistic Apple and allow competition from smaller, disadvantaged companies like Microsoft, and Sony.
Seriously, people. I don't like Apple that much either, but come on. The argument in this case is whether or not Apple has a monopoly on the market for audio players that play Apple-formatted music. It's not like this music isn't available anywhere else, it's just that it's not available anywhere else in a format that currently only works for iPods. If you don't have an iPod, don't get your music in Protected AAC format.
And really think about who you're trying to let in on the market. Comparisons to Microsoft's monopoly suits aren't really valid because Microsoft's competitors were actually smaller than Microsoft. The companies that Apple is keeping from competing with are companies like Microsoft, Sony, and a dozen other electronics companies that are already as big as Apple or bigger. They aren't going to lose anything or go out of business if they can't get in on Apple's iTunes and iPod market. Even relative market underdog Creative isn't going to starve because their Zens can't use FairPlay encoded songs, they already have the market cornered on high-end computer sound cards, recording interfaces, and scores of other computer accessories.
As for the people who prefer other DAPs but want iTunes Store music. Tough luck. If you like Volkswagen, are you going to sue Ford for not making Ford F-150 snow tires that fit a Jetta? No, if you want them that badly, you'll buy what they work with. You can get the same album that is on iTunes at either of the two music sellers that still top Apple, or any of the multitude that Apple outsells. Not like you can't get Green Day and U2 anywhere else. Nobody is suffering because they can't use their AACs on a Zen. You're moderately inconvenienced, get the hell over it. If you really want the exact song files you bought, you can burn them onto a disk, and then re-import them, no matter how time-consuming this is, that is the price you pay for putting yourself in this situation. Someone earlier mentioned that this method causes sound quality loss, but honestly, if you're really so obsessed with the audio quality, you'd be better off getting everything on CD and vinyl and listening through a vacuum-tube stereo system like the other audiophiles, wouldn't you? To echo the words of my grandfather(and most other peoples' grandfathers), people just keep getting softer and softer. You've confused annoyance for adversity. You are hopefully aware that some people used to reserve going to court for things like the right for women to have abortions and the right for black people to attend whites-only public schools? I'm sorry if I don't stand behind people who devote their time to campaigning against the need to maybe push a few more buttons to hear music.
Aside from being baseless, this is entirely inconsequential.
Hell, who cares? It's Florida.
psst!
you can still buy music elsewhere!!
it's just called competition...Toys R Us isn't being sued for offering toys that you can only buy at Toys R Us
stop crying your pixelated tears, and either pirate you music or buy it at a place that supports your mp3 player
#451
OK.. Monopolies can only be obtained by coersive force (read: governments)
Example: the water and sewage in your small town. you have no choice of providers and cannot even provide it yourself (well & septic tank) or go together with a bunch of neighbors (say 100) and build your own water treatment plant and pumping station. Local laws are on the books to keep this from happening (in the interest of "public good")
That is a monopoly.
If the Fed or any other government said that you cannot buy or play back music on anything other than an iTunes and an iPod, then that would be a monopoly. Even if Apple got 100% of the MP3 player and marketshare, it would not be a monopoly because people have a choice between buying music from them, or buying it on CD and playing back the music on a discman.
If there were no other medium or distribution system for music, and the government did not allow other companies to develop their own medium for audio playback (no matter how poor the quality) then you would then have a TRUE monopoly.
Remember CABLE TV ? - Thankfully satellite came in or we'd be stuck with $200/month, or really poor service/channel selections. - those were monopolies. Ever think what would happen if you tried to string cables up in a network of consenting property owners and hooked yourselves up to a common antenna and satelite feed? You bet your ass that the local authorities would bust it up because the cable company has a sweetheart deal with the town council. (the small town I grew up in did not even have MTV until DSS came along, on half of the highschool had kids that new what video's were, the rest of us were clueless until NBC did Friday Night Video's - now I'm showing my age..) but I digress.
The most important thing to remember is that governments don't protect us from monopolies, they create them.
I agree with JLTate on every point, but most people are simply forgetting that Apple is, first and foremost, a hardware maker. Other products such as Mac OS, itunes are simply supplementaries to help push the sale of the hardware products. Hence it's no surprise to me why Apple ties these softwares and products to their hardware. Besides other companies are doing it. MS with Xbox, Sony with PlayStation, software developers that just develop for windows or mac platforms. Monopoly? I don't think so. Unfair? definitely yes.
Because of the iPod's unfair dominace, Creative doesn't get any recogition for it's Zen Players. Creative invented the GUI, which Apple stole, which caused Creative has lost money. The Zen is a better player.
iTunes should be available to all players, not just the iPod.