Apple's been hit with
antitrust lawsuits over the dominance of the iPod / iTunes system
before, but there's a new case brewing down California way that argues not that Apple has illegally tied the iPod to iTunes, but that Apple has abused its dominant market position by not supporting WMA. That's right, we've come full circle -- Apple is now being accused of locking Microsoft out of the market. The case, brought by San Diego attorney Stacie Somers, claims that since Apple disables the WMA functionality of the PortalPlayer chip inside many iPods, it's shipping "crippleware," and that it's doing so deliberately to abuse its position as the market leader. Of course, unprotected WMA files import into iTunes on Windows
just fine, so this is really a DRM compatibility issue -- and given Apple's
official position on DRM and the fact that Microsoft's own Zunes don't exactly
play nice with all the flavors of WMA DRM, this suit could be over sooner than expected.
Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis, and should not be taken as such.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Ellianth @ Jan 4th 2008 4:18PM
"and given Apple's official position on DRM..." - You don't really believe that letter do you?
bob e @ Jan 4th 2008 4:20PM
I didn't realize Apple was crippling the chips... that is pathetic behavior
zorg @ Jan 4th 2008 4:28PM
Umm, no, actually pathetic behavior is making an end run around customers and forcing them to use your platform---Microsoft's business model. Apple is not in a position to force me to use iPod or iTunes. Yet it's still very difficult to send a document not in Word or find a computer without Windows, not because consumers want these things, but because OEMs have been beaten into submission and fear offering anything else. That's pathetic. What Apple does is not a problem for consumers. How do I know? Because I don't have an iPod. Never have. Don't haveta.
Carbonize @ Jan 4th 2008 4:32PM
Hmm so you could use any OS on pre intel macs?
It's easy to send a document that's not in word. You just install Open Office like the entire Dutch government is doing.
Microsoft does not force anyone to use Windows. It just happens to be the easiest one to write software for therefore the most supported and therefore the one most people prefer and most manufacturers install.
Andir3.0 @ Jan 4th 2008 4:57PM
"Hmm so you could use any OS on pre intel macs?"
Well, Linux ;)
Elliot @ Jan 4th 2008 5:20PM
Carbonize:
"Microsoft does not force anyone to use Windows. It just happens to be the easiest one to write software for therefore the most supported and therefore the one most people prefer and most manufacturers install."
You weren't very old in the mid-late nineties when these things got sorted out, were you?
Carbonize @ Jan 4th 2008 5:06PM
The same could be said for Windows machines but did any company sell Macs with Linux installed on them? You can buy PC's with Linux preinstalled but show me a Mac that comes installed with anything other than the Mac OS.
Andir3.0 @ Jan 4th 2008 5:13PM
Sure thing... when you show me a Windows PC today with Firefox installed. ;) (Actually, I'm hoping you can prove me wrong...)
markw @ Jan 4th 2008 6:14PM
my pc came with firefox and thunderbird installed, and no crapware besides a free antivirus. i got it from portable one, it was actually nice to have a pc that you can actually use right when you get it.
Shadow08 @ Jan 4th 2008 5:31PM
In addition, Apple locks out PC users from installing OSX on anything except for an Apple Computer. I wonder what their excuse is now that PCs and Macs use the SAME Intel chips!
Carbonize @ Jan 4th 2008 5:38PM
Elliot - Actually I was in my late twenties. care to explain what you are referring to by "these things got sorted out"?
Andir - I could cheat and point to the new machines that have a cut down version of Linux on the bios that you can boot into it seconds and has Firefox preinstalled.
SteveMB @ Jan 4th 2008 5:53PM
Why you've never had an iPod is because you know they're pieces of crap. But since everyone else has one, they;re going to beat you into submission.
Luigi193 @ Jan 4th 2008 6:17PM
It would sorta be bad for business to allow OS X to easily be installed on any machine...
Carbonize @ Jan 4th 2008 6:50PM
Yes because Microsoft has almost bankrupted it's self by making it's OS easy to install on any PC.
Twitchy @ Jan 4th 2008 6:59PM
You're a bit dense Carbonize aren't you? Luigi was referring to the fact that Apple makes a bundle from it computer sales, and it would loose those sales if they released an OS that would work on any PC.
shiftyeyedgoat @ Jan 4th 2008 8:02PM
Twitchy, I'm fairly certain you just proved the main point that Apple is locking people out of freely used software to force them to buy their products, or vice-versa.
I think that's the point of the lawsuit at hand.
Carbonize @ Jan 4th 2008 10:27PM
Yes Twitchy appears to be a bit dense.
Zorque @ Jan 5th 2008 2:30AM
Shadow08: Though it would be really nice if we could use OSX on regular PC's, there is a pretty simple explanation: Macs only have a particular set of hardware that needs to be supported by the OS, whereas Windows computers have countless possible setups.
Of course, it doesn't hurt them that they can use that to sell you a >$1000 computer.
WXsniper @ Jan 5th 2008 1:28PM
Ummm... ever hear of a hackintosh?
Sure, you can't run OS X out of the box on a non-Mac, but it is possible.
BTW, I'm on a real Mac... not a hacked one.
mabedan @ Jan 4th 2008 4:23PM
the windows version of itunes accepts perfectly WMA, actually it can convert the WMA
SolidStar @ Jan 4th 2008 4:23PM
Do I have to give up my iPod if Apple looses? I say if you don't want to download anything to use an iPod, don't get one.
Carbonize @ Jan 4th 2008 4:28PM
Yes they said that in the article if you had actually read it all. What they are saying though is it doesn't like DRM protected WMA files.
mabedan @ Jan 4th 2008 4:57PM
oh sorry, now i get it
AlexL @ Jan 4th 2008 5:12PM
"Of course, unprotected WMA files import into iTunes on Windows just fine, so this is really a DRM compatibility issue"
Baloney! Since when does importing = supporting? iPod doesn't work with WMA, simple as that. iTunes importing WMA files involves transcoding, which leads to a decline in quality. This is the same reason why writing FairPlay-DRMed files to CD and encoding back into AAC is not a desirable way to get rid of FairPlay DRM - because decoding and encoding back into a lossy format leads to a loss in quality.
Malren @ Jan 4th 2008 9:56PM
Conversion loses quality. It is NOT importing, as the author of this article claimed. It is importing and re-compressing an already-compressed file.
You know, we're all supposed to be paying for our music...so if you bought WMA files in the last five or so years, Apple doesn't want you to be able to use them. It;s just bullying customers into the closed loop that is Apple. That having been said, a lawsuit like this is ridiculous. The fact is there are other music stores and other players. Apple is by no definition a monopoly. Consumer-hating control freaks? Yes. Monopoly? No.
Carbonize @ Jan 4th 2008 4:29PM
OK why did my response to Mabedan end up here? Blogsmith your commenting system is totally and utterly shite. And you sell this?
Student Driver @ Jan 5th 2008 1:10AM
Exactly! Transcoding is not importing, otherwise Sony would have been "successful" in everyone's eyes for using only their ATRAC (8-Track?) compression and their craptacular application transcoded everything you wanted on it. Lame then, and lame now. This is why I gave up on Apple; they originally met my requirements (mass storage with no driver installation needed) but their insistence on "shielding" customers from useful things (more formats, Bluetooth stereo) and canning support of existing items (5G video docking solutions) in new devices is ridiculous.
Mike10010100 @ Jan 4th 2008 4:26PM
So then are all of the players that don't support AAC format or other formats being mean to the parent companies of those formats? Come on people! Think! WMA is called WINDOWS MEDIA AUDIO. They brand their own name on it and then expect their major competitor to support it? Not likely.
Get a brain, Microsoft.
Andir3.0 @ Jan 4th 2008 4:35PM
I'd counter sue for not allowing including the ability to view/listen to MOVs and iTunes in Windows native.
Christian Martin @ Jan 4th 2008 4:41PM
This suit isn't being filed by anyone directly affiliated with Microsoft.
Get a brain, fanboy.
Miguel @ Jan 4th 2008 4:45PM
1. Microsoft isn't the one filing the lawsuit.
2. @Andir--the inability to play .mov files isn't a hardware lockout on Windows end. They don't license the codec, so it's a software issue--a free software issue, as any moron with a mouse and/or keyboard can install QuickTime. The iPod, on the other hand, has the hardware capbility to play .wma files, and Apple obviously licenses the codec at some level because iTunes can read and convert the file to an AAC file. (Without the software ability to read the .wma algorithms, it wouldn't be able to convert said algorithms to the AAC algorithms.) Ergo, Apple has intentionally blocked functionality with the iPod. Does that justify a lawsuit? Maybe, maybe not, but it's completely different than Windows Media Player support for .mov files.
Andir3.0 @ Jan 4th 2008 4:51PM
So what your saying is that it would be like me (just an average Joe) suing Tivo for not allowing my to load and play and MPEG movie on the hard drive...
I see two problems with this. One: I have no affiliation with either party and I'm making money? (I need to be a lawyer is this passes) Two: iTunes (according to you) has the ability to convert WMAs to a proper format and they've paid the licensing fees, so there should be no issue here.
Andir3.0 @ Jan 4th 2008 4:54PM
I'm also assuming that there are ways to transfer files to said device other than iTunes? (I really have to admit, I have never owned an iPod.) If there is another way, wouldn't the lawsuit passing mean that every transfer software known to man HAS to convert files to every format or it violates this ruling?
shiftyeyedgoat @ Jan 4th 2008 8:07PM
@Andir: To your TiVo analogy: No, this would be akin to suing a DVD player for specifically forbidding the use of a certain brand of DVD, or perhaps a distributor.
Which WOULD be grounds for a suit or grievance against the company at the very least.
DJWhiplash2001 @ Jan 4th 2008 4:27PM
Let me start off by saying I do not like Apple. Many of you have probably already clicked the red minus sign.
Now that that's out of the way - I do think it's up to the company to determine what codecs their player will support. If people feel the need to have other formats, they may buy a player which is superior. They can't be forced to support any format. They could make it play .APPLE files if they wanted.
This is in the hands of the consumer, not the legal system.
zorg @ Jan 4th 2008 4:29PM
You're completely wrong. I waited until I read your entire post before I clicked on the minus sign. Not that I was sensitively considering what you were saying, but because it would have interrupted the flow of the words.
kL @ Jan 5th 2008 2:03PM
Once company has monopoly, it can be forced to do anything that allows competition, including support of other formats.
However, I don't think Apple has monopoly here. They do hold majority of the market, but others are free to compete, shops can offer iPod-compatible DRM-less AAC and MP3. iTunes Plus tracks can be played on other players.
If WMA was so desirable, Apple's lack of support for it would actually be good for competitors!
AutomagV @ Jan 4th 2008 4:27PM
Someone needs a punch in the face. Unlike this case, a little violence is something to sue someone over. Funny how it's MS on the other side of the fence now. Unfortunately, they will never come out with a superior product. The can't think outside the box like Apple.
melloncollie @ Jan 4th 2008 4:43PM
Yeah, Apple's really outside of the box.
Tool.
The only :outside of the box" thinking I've really come across is from the little guys.
AutomagV @ Jan 4th 2008 5:07PM
Settle down smallfry. No need to get all riled and regurgitate the names mommy called you because something thinks something other than you.
ethana2 @ Jan 4th 2008 9:59PM
OSX boot failure: TPM not detected.
You are outside the box.
Halt.
patty @ Jan 4th 2008 4:28PM
microsoft is sad
Christian Martin @ Jan 4th 2008 4:43PM
Microsoft. Isn't. The. Plaintiff.
Read the damned story.
Andrew Campbell @ Jan 4th 2008 5:44PM
@Christian: How does that change fact?
michael @ Jan 4th 2008 7:27PM
@Andrew: Fact? Or just yours and patty's opinion?
patty @ Jan 14th 2008 5:43PM
microsoft is sad
asphixiated @ Jan 4th 2008 4:30PM
why is this only surfacing now? IIRC, the original first gen ipod shuffles used a processor which also supported WMA, but was disabled at chip level. It also supported a LCD display, which apple chose to disable. Maybe this attourney should sue apple for that?
Plus iTunes has always supported WMA, it jsut converted them into AAC.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all a fanboy of apple, but i'm also not a fan of frivolous lawsuits.
rp @ Jan 4th 2008 5:41PM
They should sue Apple for not supporting Windows at all in the 1st gen iPods, even though they clearly had the ability to do so. Just like Microsoft supports Macs with their Zu.... nevermind.
Don Corleone @ Jan 4th 2008 4:31PM
MS still hasn't updated their player for Macs, should they be sued for isolating Macs?
michael @ Jan 4th 2008 7:26PM
Well I remember how the first iPods didn't work for Windows until after a while.
Need I say anymore?