iTunes is a library program for the iPod. Of course you can't use a third party MP3 player with it. You can't use the Logitech mouse driver with your Microsoft mouse either.

Nobody objects to Microsoft bundling their mouse driver with their MS Intellimouse. The fact that Microsoft's mouse driver gives you more functions than, say, Macally's mouse driver is just good competitive business practice on Microsoft's part, and nobody is going to be attacking them for THAT specific act of bundling. It is not the bundling that is the problem.

If a third party MP3 player was better, they would include their own music store. Doesn't Zune have their own library software and music store, for example? If they do, that would be good business practice on Microsoft's part. And wholly different than the bad business practices that they have where they leverage their monopoly in one area to gain a monopoly in another area.

Trevor

I hear you, and I think it would be great if Apple sold drivers for third-party MP3 players to work with iTunes. iPod sales are based more on the quality of the product and so I don't think sales would fall. As things stand, however, it is possible to purchase products from ITMS and load them onto 3rd party players, only an extra step or two is required. What 3rd party owners are missing is the convenience of a direct sync with iTunes; they're not missing out on ITMS products.

Re. MS -- as I recall the problem wasn't simply that they bundled IE and WMP with WinOS, it was that the way these two applications were coded, they prevented the installation of competing software (Real Player, Netscape), or broke them when they were installed. Reference. The issue of WinOS being bundled with WMP was part of the complaint, especially since Real Player was free. So was Netscape, Opera, and others, which were not included with WinOS; only IE was. So the virtual monopoly of WinOS insured that only IE and WMP were widely disseminated, thus edging other other free alternatives. These all being MS products, I can actually empathize with MS saying they were under no obligation to include competitor products with WinOS. I can't agree with them sabotaging the installation and performance of competitor products, which was part of the complaint, as was MS forbidding PC makers to bundle alternatives to IE and WMP.

Phil,

Another thing, if I recall correctly, was that MS got sued back in windows 98 for this same thing in the US. They were just then for the first time integrating explorer as part of the OS GUI, and IE was a huge part of it, and they tried to force you to use IE. However, that was a decade ago, and they lost their case in the USA. So, I am failing to understand how Windows XP, and Windows Vista forces you to use IE and WMP, because I don't ever use either in my windows machines. I hate IE with a passion and I think WMP is a chunky crappy resource hog. I almost exclusively use VLC and FireFox on all my machines across the board regardless of OS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Check out the pics of Billy on the wiki page, one of his facial expressions is priceless.

Now, is DRM into play with any of this?

That's because you think of yourself as an average user. What you're not understanding is that it doesn't mean anything that it is easy for you to avoid IE. What matters is that most users cannot avoid it. More importantly, there are many sites that even you cannot avoid using IE with, and that is because of Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly power to avoid real competition.

... and the fines imposed by the US court have yet to be paid.

The EU case relates to the same period and covers MS activities inside the EU - these were not covered by the US case. The latest fines have been imposed due to non-payment by MS of the original fines.

While denying your competitors access to your products/software may be perfectly legal in a free competitive market, it is usually illegal in most capitalist economies when you have a monopoly on the market. Apple does not have a monopoly - MS does/did(?).

um, firefox is the #1 used browser, so it seems the average user, uses firefox.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
IE 6 & 7 combine for more than 50%. So much for the average user.

*sigh*

It is still the number 1 used browser regardless and its numbers grow every month.

Just to throw in my random two since. Are you really popular just because you have to be used? I mean, we all have to go to the dentist sometimes, does that make the dentist popular?

...just attempting some tension diffusing humor, sorry :).

To be fair, iPods can work with software other than iTunes. People use iTunes because they like it best, can't be bothered changing their player's software, or can't be bothered researching available alternatives. On the other hand, iTunes users are, in theory, locked into using iPods as their portable players.

Similarly, Macs can run operating systems other than Mac OS X, but most Mac owners stick with OS X. Macs are not locked into OS X, even if OS X users are, in theory, locked into Macs.

There is some lock-in when it comes to ITMS and iTunes, but even that is limited, since DRMed files can be easily converted to DRM-free files with minimal quality loss, and as Apple offers a larger percentage of their offerings as DRM free iTunes Plus tracks.

Oh, really, I didn't think anyone else's DRM worked in an iPod and that is why there was that lawsuit against apple for it. Though I never followed up on it.

How could Apple be held responsible for not supporting someone else's DRM?

Photek, I think the "That's no... this is a..." has become such a culturally recognised phrase, most of us never even blinked at it. Sorry. :o

No, music from the ITMS only works on iPods, they dont allow anyone else access to that. So, they are doing the same thing because they have already cornered the market on online downloads.

I still don't see a difference from what MS did to what Apple is doing now.

What Apple is doing now:

If you go to almost any site that is not owned/operated by Apple, you can download music that will play on an iPod and/or some other mp3 player. You can also use that music in iTunes or any other music software, assuming it doesn't have somebody else's DRM in it.

Any complications in this system arise solely from DRM, which is imposed not by Apple or other mp3 player manufacturers, but by the recording labels.

What MS was doing and is still doing:

If you go to many sites not owned/operated by MS, they will not work properly unless you are using IE. There is no valid technical reason for this. It is and always has been Microsoft's intention to use proprietary software to lock out fair competition. They have the power to do this because of their monopoly, and for no other reason. It is classic abuse of that power.

Pardon my ignorance, but when someone downloads a song using Limewire, is that copyright infringement?

Usually. The only cases where it would not be copyright infringement would be

1. if the song is in the public domain. This is so rare as to be almost unheard of, but there are a very few songs that have been placed in the public domain. Note that public domain is different from people who allow you to freely copy their songs. People who let you freely copy their songs retain the copyright, but they have granted you a defacto license (see #2 below).

2. if the person downloading the song already has a valid license to the song in another format or has been granted a valid license. Note that some record label folks have made noises indicating that they don't believe that a license for a song in one medium (say, for example cassette) gives anyone a license to have this song in another medium (say, on your computer). This seems to be a minority opinion even in record labels, though, and is not shared by most copyright lawyers NOT in the employ of a record label. Also, US Supreme Court decisions regarding allowing you to make backups of software argues strongly against this minority opinion. It has not been fully tested in court, though.

But yes, 99% of songs downloaded from places like Limewire are pure and unadulterated copyright infringement.

Trevor

iTunes Plus tracks are DRM free 256 kbs AAC files. IIRC, these tracks make up about a quarter of the iTunes library.

FairPlay tracks do have DRM, and are only 128 kbs AAC. These can be burned to a CD and reimported to iTunes without DRM, as AAC, MP3 or lossless. There is a minimal loss of quality, but let's face it, audiophiles don't typically buy their music in a compressed format.

Nearly all players will play MP3 files, and most support the superior AAC format. DRM sucks, no doubt about it, but we can hardly blame Apple for that. How many other major corporations have taken a public stance against DRMed music like Apple has?

Thanks Trevor.

Yeah but if I get an iRiver or any other MP3 player I can't use the ITMS because its DRM only works with iPods. So, if I want to use the largest online store of music I am forced to use an iPod.

Every technology company does these things guys, and their DRMs aren't compatible with anyone else's.