A dominate player, yes - but they aren't actively restraining others from competing. That word is often thrown around and it's obvious those doing so don't understand the true meaning of the word.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I smell an anti-trust lawsuit in the making. This is the beginning of the anti-competitive legal battles for Apple. Intentionally inhibiting a consumer's use of non-Apple products. Here comes the legal pain. They deserve the lawsuit.
Won't ever happen. There are other stores so their not locked into iTunes. iTunes was written to support Apple products and there is nothing in the law that says they have to support a competitor player. The Palm can write their own transfer program to transfer songs to the Pre and Apple won't stop them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncee
You lucky dog. The local AT&T store here DOES NOT offer roll-over minutes with the iPhone
What??? A local store can't tell you that you can't have roll-over minutes. That's a corporate decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by holywarrior007
This is a clear case of monopoly from the Apple, which is bad. What if tomorrow the MS doesn't allow the iTunes and Safari to run on the Windows. Will the Apple then cry foul?
Totally different. MS sells a OS that anyone can write software for. If they blocked a single vendor it's illegal. If they sold an OS which only they wrote software for then it would be OK to block other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe in miami
Your bill is a lot lower than mine, for the same equipment:
My family plan is the Unity 2100 minutes for $100.
My data plan is $30
2nd iphone is $10/line + $20 for data plan
Third phone is $10/line
Unlimited text is $30
Taxes are $40
Total for me is $240
You pay $40 in taxes Where the heck do you live and remind me to never live there
excuse my ignorance, can you explain what they did with these situations? I'm curious... Perhaps a link explaining?
I don't really want to go looking for links right now. But this is all well known.
MS was accused of, and was found guilty of, hiding information from these companies about Windows (they were originally DOS programs) that they needed to, in a timely fashion, re-write their programs for proper, and enhanced use under Windows 3.0 and up.
It was also found that MS's own developers were using advance information about the OS, which violated the wall they must maintain. They were also found to have been using API's that were not available to third party developers that were crucial to the operation of those apps. As a result all those apps were well behind MS's own on the 3.1 platform, and ended up in their demise to the benefit of MS's own apps, now known as Office.
If that had not occurred, its very possible that Office would just be one suite among several. It also could have hindered MS's growth and profits, as well as their subsequent power in the industry.
Being more recent, you should be familiar with the Netscape case. One of the main problems Netscape had was MS bullying the computer manufacturers with a lack of early release information for their OS if they installed Netscape on their machines.
Computer manufacturers need this pre-release info in order to come out with computers with the proper specs. MS was saying that if a company cooperated, they would get the info, and those that did not, wouldn't. This would have put the non-cooperating companies at a severe disadvantage, so they cooperated.
That was just one of their tactics. They also used their monopoly profits to give IE away for free when Netscape needed to charge.
It's a complex situation, but you get the point.
They also threatened Apple about Quicktime. They said they would stop producing Office for the Mac, a required program for Apple, if Apple continued to produce Quicktime. They came to arrangements when Apple caught them using Apple's code in their own video playback software that ended in the five year commitment to produce new versions of Office and the $150 million non voting investment in Apple. Before MS stole that code, videos in Windows would just play jerkily. Many people noticed the sudden improvement, and now you know why it happened.
Over the years, MS has stolen code from more than a few "partners". You may not like that this is being said, but it's true.
A long time sentiment in the MS world of partners is that MS will eventually steal your code if they want it. You even sign agreements stating that they can see your code. It's a tough business.
The lawsuit would fail. The only possible grounds for a lawsuit would be from the other direction. Apple forcing people who buy ipods to use itunes to load music onto them, thus using their strong mp3 player market share to minimize the use of non itunes media players.
I partly agree. There's still a strong DRM coupling between iTunes non-music content and Apple devices and thus iTunes can be still leveraged to exclude competitors. Apple was wise to get rid of the worst offender though: DRM on music files and thus of the coupling between iPods and iTunes as it was a clear (and rightful) invitation for monopoly lawsuits.
Wow, what's with all the hate against both Palm and Apple?
Listen, I think Apple could be a bit more open with their platform (using other devices with their software, or using other software for their own devices), but they are not required to support hardware they don't own or code for. iTunes is Apple's product, made specifically to work with their own devices. There's no "monopoly" or "anti-trust" issue here -- its simply a business decision. Apple owns iTunes, and Apple will decide what runs with iTunes.
Palm did a disservice to their customers by allowing their product to sync with a competitor's platform, letting the news hit the web for a couple months, only to have those customers angry and outraged when Apple did what they said they would do months ago -- block it. How many customers do you think were told by the Sprint sales rep. that the Pre works perfectly with their existing iTunes library? How many phones were sold on that promise?
That said, I think Apple gets away with a lot of bullcrap that no one calls them on. Seriously, when Microsoft acts the slightest bit anti-competitive, they're spanked until the cows come home. But when Apple does it, its "good for them." I don't understand that logic.
**EDIT**: I'd like to point out one last thought. YOU CAN STILL SYNC MUSIC AND VIDEO OVER TO THE PALM PRE! Its not like this move actually cripples the phone. In fact, its drag-and-drop model is BETTER in many respects than Apple's one-library-per-device model. Seriously, Pre owners have no reason to care. I'd *KILL* to be able to just drag and drop songs to my iPhone from any computer.
I partly agree. There's still a strong DRM coupling between iTunes non-music content and Apple devices and thus iTunes can be still leveraged to exclude competitors. Apple was wise to get rid of the worst offender though: DRM on music files and thus of the coupling between iPods and iTunes as it was a clear (and rightful) invitation for monopoly lawsuits.
But that DRM isn't the fault of Apple. It's a requirement of the content companies. Wherever that content is sold, there is DRM.
Wow, what's with all the hate against both Palm and Apple?
Listen, I think Apple could be a bit more open with their platform (using other devices with their software, or using other software for their own devices), but they are not required to support hardware they don't own or code for. iTunes is Apple's product, made specifically to work with their own devices. There's no "monopoly" or "anti-trust" issue here -- its simply a business decision. Apple owns iTunes, and Apple will decide what runs with iTunes.
Palm did a disservice to their customers by allowing their product to sync with a competitor's platform, letting the news hit the web for a couple months, only to have those customers angry and outraged when Apple did what they said they would do months ago -- block it. How many customers do you think were told by the Sprint sales rep. that the Pre works perfectly with their existing iTunes library? How many phones were sold on that promise?
That said, I think Apple gets away with a lot of bullcrap that no one calls them on. Seriously, when Microsoft acts the slightest bit anti-competitive, they're spanked until the cows come home. But when Apple does it, its "good for them." I don't understand that logic.
**EDIT**: I'd like to point out one last thought. YOU CAN STILL SYNC MUSIC AND VIDEO OVER TO THE PALM PRE! A simple drag-and-drop into the Pre works just as well, if not BETTER, than the sync-with-only-one-library model that Apple follows. Seriously, Pre owners have no reason to care. I'd *KILL* to be able to just drag and drop songs to my iPhone from any computer.
MS is called on anything they have a monopoly on, which is Windows. Apple has no monopoly, so they and all other companies who don't have monopolies aren't held to a monopoly standard.
They should have done it before Pre was released. Palm cannot piggyback on the iTunes without Apple's agreement.
Palm is a one-trick pony. It has to be fully ready before coming out to play. Palm shouldn't have rushed to the market so early without the juice. So let them make their own software. iTunes is for Apple hardware, not a shareware.
Is there a real reason why a user should update for those of us that don't care about the Pre one way or another? Most of the people here don't have a Pre so they are not affected by this "fix".
MS is called on anything they have a monopoly on, which is Windows. Apple has no monopoly, so they and all other companies who don't have monopolies aren't held to a monopoly standard.
What are you talking about?? "Apple has no monopoly."
They're the #1 distributor of all digital music sold in the US, they're the #1 distributor of ALL music sold in the US, and they have over 70% of the MP3 player marketshare for Q1 of 2009.
Apple *IS* a monopoly in those fields, and yet they are still held to a different standard than Microsoft.
Is there a real reason why a user should update for those of us that don't care about the Pre one way or another? Most of the people here don't have a Pre so they are not affected by this "fix".
Not really. All this update did, most likely, was bork the Pre and probably did some tweaks to fix some careless mistakes regarding the iPhone 3GS jailbreak. They're closing up holes, not improving functionality.
If you don't care either way, don't worry about it. Personally, I wouldn't bother unless there was a reason to upgrade.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Please look up the definition of a monopoly. Cross reference with the word dominant.
Dude, relax. Use the word dominant if you'd like, then. Microsoft is "dominant" in the desktop operating system market. Google is "dominant" in the web services market. And Apple is "dominant" in the MP3 player market.
The point is, one of those three companies is always held to a different standard than the rest, and its rare when anyone calls out the crap from the other two. I'm not saying I hate any of these companies -- quite the contrary, as I sit in front of my gaming PC running Windows 7 with my iPhone 3GS -- but they're all in it for themselves, ultimately. That's how you run a successful business.
Point is this:
--Microsoft acts anti-competitively in *ANY* field, not just OS, they're smacked around.
--Apple acts anti-competitively in *ANY* field, they're given a free pass.
Why SHOULD Apple be working on a platform for sync, that I suppose you mean would work with competitors devices?
That's not something they should be working on. It's something they might think about working on, but I don't see why. Apple is a hardware company as we continually state, and iTunes is a service for their hardware customers. Now that their music is DRM-free, they have done their bit. We can hope that other industries will eventually allow DRM-free content, but I won't hold my breath.
Other than that, Apple doesn't have to do anything.
Apple isn't trying to crush competition. What have they done to other player manufacturers that was an attempt to crush them other than to make better software and hardware?
Is it Apple's fault that they had the foresight to approach the music industry they way they did and convince them to sell music at decent prices?
Others could have done that first. Surely Sony, with a big music company and Walkmen could have done it by themselves.
MS did some nasty things that resulted in their monopolies. Apple hasn't.
Apple just expands its ecosystem by coming out with better products and services, which is fine and perfectly legal. MS expanded theirs by doing illegal things to others, and preventing others from doing what they should have been allowed to do, often with under the table threats. This has been established in TWO ant-trust cases against them here in the US.
First, thanks to Melgross for stating his arguments clearly and with logic. Also, thanks for his business experience. I don't have any issue with his opinion, but will express my own opinion which tends to go to the exact opposite.
First, why should the iTunes Store and iTunes software be an open platform for everyone who installs either the Windows or the Mac version of iTunes?
Because iTunes is a public internet store which sells unprotected music tracks (and other programs and software) to anyone with a credit card, provided that they install either the Windows or the Mac version of iTunes.
Apple doesn't own or licence the unprotected music (and other programs) it sells, and guarantee that they will play within iTunes, either on its own Apple devices or on any Windows PC. To restrict the number of devices the iTunes content can play on is illegal, discriminatory against a singled-out manufacturer, anti-competitive, and a breach of antitrust provisions.
Success breads success, and pettiness, resentful, anti-competitive actions bread failure.
As Apple makes a profit out of the unprotected content it sells to the general public, it cannot restrict the devices it can be played on. iTunes is no longer restricted to the Mac OS platform, but extends to the Windows ecosystem.
What Apple tries to do is just like phone companies or internet providers trying to filter the content of phone conversations or web browsing. Once an unprotected music track is out the door, sold, Apple looses any control it had on it. It should be played on any device with iTunes or a competing software enabling the playback of iTunes unprotected music tracks.
Sorry, Apple, but you damage your reputation as you persist with these anti-competitive actions. And you will bring on yourself further investigation by the anti-trust authorities. Is that really what you want?
Comments
This is a clear case of monopoly from the Apple
Where, exactly, is Apple a monopoly?
A dominate player, yes - but they aren't actively restraining others from competing. That word is often thrown around and it's obvious those doing so don't understand the true meaning of the word.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Princess Bride
Awesome Movie
I smell an anti-trust lawsuit in the making. This is the beginning of the anti-competitive legal battles for Apple. Intentionally inhibiting a consumer's use of non-Apple products. Here comes the legal pain. They deserve the lawsuit.
Won't ever happen. There are other stores so their not locked into iTunes. iTunes was written to support Apple products and there is nothing in the law that says they have to support a competitor player. The Palm can write their own transfer program to transfer songs to the Pre and Apple won't stop them.
You lucky dog. The local AT&T store here DOES NOT offer roll-over minutes with the iPhone
What??? A local store can't tell you that you can't have roll-over minutes. That's a corporate decision.
This is a clear case of monopoly from the Apple, which is bad. What if tomorrow the MS doesn't allow the iTunes and Safari to run on the Windows. Will the Apple then cry foul?
Totally different. MS sells a OS that anyone can write software for. If they blocked a single vendor it's illegal. If they sold an OS which only they wrote software for then it would be OK to block other.
Your bill is a lot lower than mine, for the same equipment:
My family plan is the Unity 2100 minutes for $100.
My data plan is $30
2nd iphone is $10/line + $20 for data plan
Third phone is $10/line
Unlimited text is $30
Taxes are $40
Total for me is $240
You pay $40 in taxes
excuse my ignorance, can you explain what they did with these situations? I'm curious... Perhaps a link explaining?
I don't really want to go looking for links right now. But this is all well known.
MS was accused of, and was found guilty of, hiding information from these companies about Windows (they were originally DOS programs) that they needed to, in a timely fashion, re-write their programs for proper, and enhanced use under Windows 3.0 and up.
It was also found that MS's own developers were using advance information about the OS, which violated the wall they must maintain. They were also found to have been using API's that were not available to third party developers that were crucial to the operation of those apps. As a result all those apps were well behind MS's own on the 3.1 platform, and ended up in their demise to the benefit of MS's own apps, now known as Office.
If that had not occurred, its very possible that Office would just be one suite among several. It also could have hindered MS's growth and profits, as well as their subsequent power in the industry.
Being more recent, you should be familiar with the Netscape case. One of the main problems Netscape had was MS bullying the computer manufacturers with a lack of early release information for their OS if they installed Netscape on their machines.
Computer manufacturers need this pre-release info in order to come out with computers with the proper specs. MS was saying that if a company cooperated, they would get the info, and those that did not, wouldn't. This would have put the non-cooperating companies at a severe disadvantage, so they cooperated.
That was just one of their tactics. They also used their monopoly profits to give IE away for free when Netscape needed to charge.
It's a complex situation, but you get the point.
They also threatened Apple about Quicktime. They said they would stop producing Office for the Mac, a required program for Apple, if Apple continued to produce Quicktime. They came to arrangements when Apple caught them using Apple's code in their own video playback software that ended in the five year commitment to produce new versions of Office and the $150 million non voting investment in Apple. Before MS stole that code, videos in Windows would just play jerkily. Many people noticed the sudden improvement, and now you know why it happened.
Over the years, MS has stolen code from more than a few "partners". You may not like that this is being said, but it's true.
A long time sentiment in the MS world of partners is that MS will eventually steal your code if they want it. You even sign agreements stating that they can see your code. It's a tough business.
The lawsuit would fail. The only possible grounds for a lawsuit would be from the other direction. Apple forcing people who buy ipods to use itunes to load music onto them, thus using their strong mp3 player market share to minimize the use of non itunes media players.
I partly agree. There's still a strong DRM coupling between iTunes non-music content and Apple devices and thus iTunes can be still leveraged to exclude competitors. Apple was wise to get rid of the worst offender though: DRM on music files and thus of the coupling between iPods and iTunes as it was a clear (and rightful) invitation for monopoly lawsuits.
Quicktime is another.
I didn't see your post yet, but I mentioned that in my response to Chronster.
Listen, I think Apple could be a bit more open with their platform (using other devices with their software, or using other software for their own devices), but they are not required to support hardware they don't own or code for. iTunes is Apple's product, made specifically to work with their own devices. There's no "monopoly" or "anti-trust" issue here -- its simply a business decision. Apple owns iTunes, and Apple will decide what runs with iTunes.
Palm did a disservice to their customers by allowing their product to sync with a competitor's platform, letting the news hit the web for a couple months, only to have those customers angry and outraged when Apple did what they said they would do months ago -- block it. How many customers do you think were told by the Sprint sales rep. that the Pre works perfectly with their existing iTunes library? How many phones were sold on that promise?
That said, I think Apple gets away with a lot of bullcrap that no one calls them on. Seriously, when Microsoft acts the slightest bit anti-competitive, they're spanked until the cows come home. But when Apple does it, its "good for them." I don't understand that logic.
**EDIT**: I'd like to point out one last thought. YOU CAN STILL SYNC MUSIC AND VIDEO OVER TO THE PALM PRE! Its not like this move actually cripples the phone. In fact, its drag-and-drop model is BETTER in many respects than Apple's one-library-per-device model. Seriously, Pre owners have no reason to care. I'd *KILL* to be able to just drag and drop songs to my iPhone from any computer.
I partly agree. There's still a strong DRM coupling between iTunes non-music content and Apple devices and thus iTunes can be still leveraged to exclude competitors. Apple was wise to get rid of the worst offender though: DRM on music files and thus of the coupling between iPods and iTunes as it was a clear (and rightful) invitation for monopoly lawsuits.
But that DRM isn't the fault of Apple. It's a requirement of the content companies. Wherever that content is sold, there is DRM.
You lucky dog. The local AT&T store here DOES NOT offer roll-over minutes with the iPhone
Skip
that's strange, I also have 2 iPhones on our plan and we have rollover. We accumulated over 2000 already.
Wow, what's with all the hate against both Palm and Apple?
Listen, I think Apple could be a bit more open with their platform (using other devices with their software, or using other software for their own devices), but they are not required to support hardware they don't own or code for. iTunes is Apple's product, made specifically to work with their own devices. There's no "monopoly" or "anti-trust" issue here -- its simply a business decision. Apple owns iTunes, and Apple will decide what runs with iTunes.
Palm did a disservice to their customers by allowing their product to sync with a competitor's platform, letting the news hit the web for a couple months, only to have those customers angry and outraged when Apple did what they said they would do months ago -- block it. How many customers do you think were told by the Sprint sales rep. that the Pre works perfectly with their existing iTunes library? How many phones were sold on that promise?
That said, I think Apple gets away with a lot of bullcrap that no one calls them on. Seriously, when Microsoft acts the slightest bit anti-competitive, they're spanked until the cows come home. But when Apple does it, its "good for them." I don't understand that logic.
**EDIT**: I'd like to point out one last thought. YOU CAN STILL SYNC MUSIC AND VIDEO OVER TO THE PALM PRE! A simple drag-and-drop into the Pre works just as well, if not BETTER, than the sync-with-only-one-library model that Apple follows. Seriously, Pre owners have no reason to care. I'd *KILL* to be able to just drag and drop songs to my iPhone from any computer.
MS is called on anything they have a monopoly on, which is Windows. Apple has no monopoly, so they and all other companies who don't have monopolies aren't held to a monopoly standard.
Palm is a one-trick pony. It has to be fully ready before coming out to play. Palm shouldn't have rushed to the market so early without the juice. So let them make their own software. iTunes is for Apple hardware, not a shareware.
Playing with the big boys is not easy.
MS is called on anything they have a monopoly on, which is Windows. Apple has no monopoly, so they and all other companies who don't have monopolies aren't held to a monopoly standard.
What are you talking about?? "Apple has no monopoly."
They're the #1 distributor of all digital music sold in the US, they're the #1 distributor of ALL music sold in the US, and they have over 70% of the MP3 player marketshare for Q1 of 2009.
Apple *IS* a monopoly in those fields, and yet they are still held to a different standard than Microsoft.
Is there a real reason why a user should update for those of us that don't care about the Pre one way or another? Most of the people here don't have a Pre so they are not affected by this "fix".
Not really. All this update did, most likely, was bork the Pre and probably did some tweaks to fix some careless mistakes regarding the iPhone 3GS jailbreak. They're closing up holes, not improving functionality.
If you don't care either way, don't worry about it. Personally, I wouldn't bother unless there was a reason to upgrade.
Apple *IS* a monopoly in those fields
Sigh...
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Please look up the definition of a monopoly. Cross reference with the word dominant.
Sigh...
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Please look up the definition of a monopoly. Cross reference with the word dominant.
Dude, relax. Use the word dominant if you'd like, then. Microsoft is "dominant" in the desktop operating system market. Google is "dominant" in the web services market. And Apple is "dominant" in the MP3 player market.
The point is, one of those three companies is always held to a different standard than the rest, and its rare when anyone calls out the crap from the other two. I'm not saying I hate any of these companies -- quite the contrary, as I sit in front of my gaming PC running Windows 7 with my iPhone 3GS -- but they're all in it for themselves, ultimately. That's how you run a successful business.
Point is this:
--Microsoft acts anti-competitively in *ANY* field, not just OS, they're smacked around.
--Apple acts anti-competitively in *ANY* field, they're given a free pass.
--Apple acts anti-competitively in *ANY* field, they're given a free pass.
Citation, please.
Dude, relax. Use the word dominant if you'd like, then. Microsoft is "dominant" in the desktop operating system market.
They are also a convicted monopolist.
Not apples to oranges at all.
But hey, if it makes you feel better to throw around unfounded accusations, please continue. Just don't get defensive when you are called on it.
One other point
They are also a convicted monopolist.
Not apples to oranges at all.
But hey, if it makes you feel better to throw around unfounded accusations, please continue. Just don't get defensive when you are called on it.
My favorite M$ move was to use the code KNOWINGLY for quicktime in their own media application
Why SHOULD Apple be working on a platform for sync, that I suppose you mean would work with competitors devices?
That's not something they should be working on. It's something they might think about working on, but I don't see why. Apple is a hardware company as we continually state, and iTunes is a service for their hardware customers. Now that their music is DRM-free, they have done their bit. We can hope that other industries will eventually allow DRM-free content, but I won't hold my breath.
Other than that, Apple doesn't have to do anything.
Apple isn't trying to crush competition. What have they done to other player manufacturers that was an attempt to crush them other than to make better software and hardware?
Is it Apple's fault that they had the foresight to approach the music industry they way they did and convince them to sell music at decent prices?
Others could have done that first. Surely Sony, with a big music company and Walkmen could have done it by themselves.
MS did some nasty things that resulted in their monopolies. Apple hasn't.
Apple just expands its ecosystem by coming out with better products and services, which is fine and perfectly legal. MS expanded theirs by doing illegal things to others, and preventing others from doing what they should have been allowed to do, often with under the table threats. This has been established in TWO ant-trust cases against them here in the US.
First, thanks to Melgross for stating his arguments clearly and with logic. Also, thanks for his business experience. I don't have any issue with his opinion, but will express my own opinion which tends to go to the exact opposite.
First, why should the iTunes Store and iTunes software be an open platform for everyone who installs either the Windows or the Mac version of iTunes?
Because iTunes is a public internet store which sells unprotected music tracks (and other programs and software) to anyone with a credit card, provided that they install either the Windows or the Mac version of iTunes.
Apple doesn't own or licence the unprotected music (and other programs) it sells, and guarantee that they will play within iTunes, either on its own Apple devices or on any Windows PC. To restrict the number of devices the iTunes content can play on is illegal, discriminatory against a singled-out manufacturer, anti-competitive, and a breach of antitrust provisions.
Success breads success, and pettiness, resentful, anti-competitive actions bread failure.
As Apple makes a profit out of the unprotected content it sells to the general public, it cannot restrict the devices it can be played on. iTunes is no longer restricted to the Mac OS platform, but extends to the Windows ecosystem.
What Apple tries to do is just like phone companies or internet providers trying to filter the content of phone conversations or web browsing. Once an unprotected music track is out the door, sold, Apple looses any control it had on it. It should be played on any device with iTunes or a competing software enabling the playback of iTunes unprotected music tracks.
Sorry, Apple, but you damage your reputation as you persist with these anti-competitive actions. And you will bring on yourself further investigation by the anti-trust authorities. Is that really what you want?