Judge Gives Green Light to Monopolization Suit Against Apple
 

Well, I can't say I didn't totally see this coming.

http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/20...lifornia_judge

Here is the article. I guess I never realized how much of the hand held digital audio player market apple actually had. It seems they have just about or possibly over 80% of it. Which raises a few questions about creating a closed market.

It is not the itunes music store that is actually in question here. It is the iPod itself. You do not need an iPod to use the music store and download music. However, you have to use their service and you have to use itunes to transfer that music you paid for onto your ipod. You also have to use an iPod, you cannot use any other kind of digital music player with iTunes.

The ironic thing is, that is pretty much the exact reason I never bought an iPod. I like the iPod, and I think they are cool, I just didn't want to be limited to iTunes. I wanted my digital music player to work on winxp, linux, and mac os x, since I use all three at home. I know there are hacks out there that make your ipod compatable with linux, and you can even load linux on your ipod. However, those are hacks and not supported by apple by any means. This is going to be interesting how it pans out. MS has not offered any other alternative either, but then again MS doesn't have 80% of the market.

No, they've got 90%. It's odd that 80% market share for Apple in what amounts to a niche market is monopolization, but MS with 90% of the market for general purpose machines is ok. Making the difference even more dramatic are the major security issues MS has created with its monopoly, while no such problems exist with iPods.

I think that since MS is an open market, meaning you can load windows on any x86 based PC makes it okay. Plus there are other alternatives to windows, you have linux, unix, qnix, BeOS (if that even still exists), lindows (now called linspire)etc etc. At least that is what I get from the article. 80% of the music download market is what I was saying, and yeah I did notice that is has 90% of the digital music player hardware market. Which I find hard to believe, that means that 9 out of 10 people have ipods over any other digital music player out there. I think 90% may be stretching it. If it is that large of a market share then why are other companies even trying to compete with the iPod?

I thinkthe whole case against apple is the fact that they are creating a closed market, which in some cases is good and in some cases bad. It depends on your definition of capitalism and free market.

To add to the security idea... Apple uses iTunes because it was setup so you can safely and securely purchase your music online, do your transactions and such... No ther music player offers that... They all have you go to a "secure" (seriously security levels vary and its scary how many places have security flaws that make it possible for others to pickup your credit card info and such) web site on which you enter your info and then you can go ahead an purchase music... With iTunes you don't have to transmit your personnal info every time...

What about real audio? They made a secure way to purchase music off their website and tried making it iPod compatable, and they got sued by Apple for doing so. Then they were forced to take down that feature.

Not that I am a fan of Real Audio, and I would probably from the the apple online store over them any day, but that is the whole point of this case.

I think in the end almost everyone who owns an ipod will not want to switch to a different service, unless they offer a betterd deal, but Apple feels the need to make it a closed market on their device.

One thing I don't understand is how they got rejected on their Pattent claim for the iPod. Apparently someone had already pattented that idea before them. With the new video iPod on its way, it is suppose to make a big enough difference from the previous pattent for apple to patent their technology finally. I think that may have a reason for this suit as well.

In the end it is just pretty much another excuse to give a lawyer a job I suppose.

Thanks goodness, that's all I have to say. Maybe now all digital audio player manufacturors will rethink how they do things. I don't like only being able to use an iPod with my m4p's, and I don't like the idea of never putting .wma on my iPod. Granted, at the moment I don't think I'd do either of those, but maybe that's because the technological boundries have made viable competition impossible.

Thanks for correcting me ! I did not know about the Real Audio one... Bu then again there are so many law suits back and forth between all the computer companies that you easily lose track :o

The only reason I remember the real audio one, is because I really don't like real audio. you know how people say you always remember what you don't like about certain things, not neccisarily what do you like about them?

Well, I have hated real player for a long time now, and that is probably why I remember it, lol.

I wouldn't buy music from them, ever!!!!

My personal big problem with apple and DRM, is that you are purchasing a song for 1 dollar of your hard earned money. Therefore, IMHO, since you own it, you should be allowed to transfer that media to any other devices you wish for your own personal use.

I haven't read the EULA for purchasing music online, I suspect though, that perhaps you do not own the music you download. You are probably technically just leasing it. Which is a problem I have with Napster, you get all those downloads for $X/month but you don't own your music, you lease it. It is something that I admit I do not fully understand but what I do understand about it, I don't really like.

I don't buy the idea that Windows is open. If it were, they wouldn't be having trouble with Europe. To me, open means that I can easily change my default browser, for example.

The iPod has more alternatives than Windows does, and the iPod doesn't have most (all?) of the Fortune 1000 corporations IT departments pushing it on people.

I think iTunes should work with other Digital Music Players.

The thing that confuses me is that people choose to buy the product, and can load music from CDs, one of the many free and legal mp3 sites out there, or from the iTunes Music Store.

I know many iPod users, including myself, who never use the iTMS.

The one area I could see them abusing their position is in the flash memory market. I don't know enough about monopoly laws to see how that would jive...but the constant reports of Apple buying out a flash mfgr's inventory have been common.

By the same logic, OS X should work with other computers, but that's a significant threat to the quality and stability that Mac users have come to expect. If Apple opens up either the iPod or the OS to other hardware, they're going to be blamed when it doesn't work on that hardware whether or not it is their fault.

I think many people would probably be ok with the fact that they can play music purchased at the ITMS on other mp3 players even if it means creating their own folders and drag/drop files on them... But then again, Apple wouldn't like that as it may reduce the iPod sales...

I can easily change my default browser in windows, to lets say firefox, which just happens to be my default browser.

iPods have no options what so ever. You are forced to use apple software and apple's music store. I personally don't like itunes, it is kind of a resource hog, and I don't need all the bells and whistles that come with itunes. Like burning software, I just use nero to burn everything it is easier that way for me. It departments pushing it on people? Sorry, I work IT and for the most part we use things that work smoothly with little hassle. Which is why, I must admit, we use novell. It is stable, secure, and it just works and its super easy to configure. Yes, I am sorry to say that is in fact easier to configure for large networks over Mac OS X. With things like eDirectory and iPrint make it a great solution for enterprise level companies. I do not know where you get this information from, other than maybe your own opinion.

One thing about macintosh elitists that always crack me up, is how much apple products work so well together is because of its closed market. People don't want third party products because it will be too much of a hassle and make apple a less reliable product? At least that is the impression I get from people. Computers are computers and I don't see either MS or Apple disappearing any time soon. I also don't ever see apple getting the corner on the market share for computers. Apple does not have very good enterprise solutions as other companies offer, which makes up for a lot of the computers on earth.

Now that apple has a corner on the digital music market they don't want to give it up. Well, anti-trust laws say different, and I am not lawyer nor am I a judge so I can't say how serious this will actually ever become.

Apple already gets blamed for tons of older third party devices not working or being compatable with OS X. They also get railed when they don't offer support for products that are successful and work well on the PC side. Peripherals and accessories do not make up a system, but the ability to add them to the system makes up the value of the system.

It would be tough, but is that too much of us to ask?

Most consumers know that aftermarket products are not suggested/recommended by the manufacturer, and they're to be used at your own risk.

Apple could take the same stance. Much like a corporate IT department which only supports the standard build. Anything outside those line is your own responsibility.

This will be an interesting case to follow. Steve being as bullish as he is...with a team of lawers...fighting for the flagship of the company. I hope the hearings are in San Francisco...maybe I can sit it on a day.

It should be noted that implementing methods to properly run a sound file is significantly easiar than makeing an entire OS run correctly.

I don't think drawing comparisons between OS's and media files is going to be very beneficial because they are very different technologies. And I, for one, think media compatability across the board wouldn't be all that difficult.

But it isn't just about sound files. There's video and other data like address books and calendars. While these may not add much complexity to the iPod, it's important to remember that in the early days of computer operating systems, most systems weren't doing as much as the iPod does today.

These devices are in their infancy, and Apple needs to be able to do the same kinds of things they were able to do with the Mac in the mid 80's. Dramatic changes were possible because they retained control of the system. One example: the Mac was 32-bit at least 6 years before the PC began to make that transition.

The monopoly laws were intended to protect us from gouging in regards to essential services. Now, you could maybe argue that computers are essential today (I'd say you're wrong, as far as life basics go), but I'd love to hear the argument on how an iPod is essential to life.

Does iTunes not support USB based MP3 players anymore? I haven't tried it, but back in the 2.0 era, I had a USB rio that worked just fine with iTunes.

I think you've got it wrong. Apple never sued Real, and Real was never forced to take down any features. All Apple did was change the code a bit to break Real's "solution".

Chris

This is hogwash! Simply not true. You can are not forced to use Apple's music store. If you remember the early days, the iPod existed before the music store. Own any CDs? Put them on your iPod. The only music you can't put onto your iPod is music in Microsoft's proprietary(!) Windows Media format.

Chris

Sure, you can. That doesn't count. I'm talking about the average user. Even when you do it, I seriously doubt that IE doesn't find a way to horn its way in. MS used to try to force IE as the default browser on the Mac!

Hmm...perhaps we aren't on the same page. I wasn't talking about syncing calender and the like (though that might be nice, and I thought was already possible.) I just don't like proprietary media formats. I don't mind people protecting their stuff, but I'd like to be able to run a protected .wma on an iPod and a .m4p on a Creative Zen. All the other functionalities are frivolous to me, I just want the music.

Hmm, the above seems similar to what we've heard from PC owners:
"I'd like to be able to run OS X and its apps on my PC. ... I just want the software."

And it's irrelevant how easy or hard it might be to make some software work on some different hardware. If Apple doesn't want to do it, that's their right.

And I can. And my mother can. And if my grandma had a computer I am sure she could too.

All browsers want to be the default. It's funny that you say you seriously doubt that IE doesn't find a way to horn its way in, when one has to open Safari to choose another default browser, unless they are using, what 10.2? So, to make Firefox,Opera, etc one has to have Safari installed and open it to make something else the default.

I was working on a Windows machine yesterday and all I had to do was check the "Make this default" Firefox opened, and check the "Don't ask me again" when IE opened to stop it from forcing itself as the default browser. The only way it will go back is by user choice, or by some spyware infestation.

I never said it wasn't, I said I'd like to be able to do it, that's all.

But, for the record, making an .m4p work on a Creative Zen, and making a protected .wma work on an iPod, is not nearly as hard as, say, making Final Cut Studio, iLife '06, iCal, Mail, Safari, etc etc etc, work on a PC. Nor is it as hard as making, say, Adobe Premier, Far Cry, 3D Studio Max or AutoCad run on a Macintosh.

Yes, my argument may sound similar, but the devil is in the details. I'm only a novice programmer, but I'm pretty sure the work involved in decoding an audio file is considerably less than a 2gb program (which might have to decode many many different kinds of files, audio and otherwise.)

Comparing an OS and all of it's programs to a single audio encoder/decoder is kind of silly. And while I respect Apple's right to want to control their work (even though I'd like them to cut it out), that doesn't mean that if they decided to make it available it would be hard.

It would be too good to be true if finally the actors in this sorry play ended all the DRM-, rootkit and closed file-format sillyness and instead just sold what everybody wants: plain music in open, documented formats all devices can just play without any fussing around.

And Apple is in a very good position to start doing that, especially since Steve is now in a position where he could start freeing content from Pixar and Disney of digital restrictions as soon as he feels like it.

Uh not really. How about Ephpod?

So who here bought an iPod because you needed to use the iTMS and iTunes

I think most people buy an iPod because the want a good portable music player (if not the best) and hey its cool unlike any other moblie mp3 player

I live in South Africa we dont have a iTMS, I use iTunes because I like iTunes. and I had my windows box running iTunes way back when. then I got my PowerBook its 1.33Ghz so its not too recent as you can imagine and only after all that I got my iPod

I feel that Apple should keep with the iTMS and the iPod and iTunes
if 3rd party apps start popping up that can access iTMS and the iPod Apple cant be held resonsible for piracy then its not their code running the 3rd party apps

Also I dont see why any company should give away their advantage

Read the article I linked in the first post. It mentions that Apple threatened Real Audio with lawsuits so they pulled out ipod support.

That is because IE is intergrated into the OS as part of the GUI, which apple is kind of doing with safari. You do not have to use IE, in fact there was a lawsuit against MS for this a while ago, like back in the mid 90s maybe. Companies like netscape and other internet browser developers sued them for trying to corner their market. I bet with more and more releases of OS X, you will see a similiar thing with safari, it will probably be intergrated into the OS as IE is in WinXP.

Under internet options in control panels in windows you can set your default browser. It is that simple.

Never heard of this, but to me it seems like its a third party app and not offically supported by apple or anyone else. Which means that any kind of iPod update could make that third party app that worked previously, now incompatable. Not to mention that application is for windows users, and thats all. There are also other hack like programs out for the iPod and you can even load linux on it and get your normal color ipod to play avi files.

Apple did not threaten any lawsuits. Here's an extract from Apple's press release at that time:
And in fact it wasn't too long before an iPod update came along that broke Real's "hack". As far as I know, that is the extent of Apple's reaction. No lawsuits threatened or otherwise.

And it seems that Real is currently claiming compatibility with the iPod - they haven't "pulled out support" - see: http://service.real.com/musicstore/s...tion=iPodandRP

I have read articles that say otherwise. It is all propaganda and I will for that reason withdrawl my remark from earlier. Apple could have threatened them with lawsuits and real audio could've stolen the technology using hacker tactics, whatever. I read things that stated different facts about the situation. Honestly, at this point, I could care less what is true and what is not. Simply, because I will never know.

I think real audio sucks and they have been using proprietary closed market tactics since they have been around. They are just calling the kettle black on this one. I am by no means defending Apple or anyone else for that matter, I just find this whole lawsuit interesting.

Well, the reason I posted was to point out that the articles that you have read were wrong. The existence or non-existence of lawsuits (or threats thereof) is not a matter for speculation - it is in the public record.