I will agree and say that Apple does effectively have a monopoly on media downloads. The misconception that seems to continue, is that a monopoly is illegal. Monopolies that have been earned through fair and open competition are not illegal. What is illegal is abuse of a monopolistic position to limit competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brosamond
How about a source for your numbers? Estimates agree with you that Apple probably has a 20% market share. The problem is that is all music, while the gentleman your admonishing is talking about digital downloads which is probably at around 80%. Yes, that is a monopoly.
iTunes is more or less break even for Apple, they do make a small profit from it, but its not intended to be a profit center. Apple makes its money from selling iPods and iPhones.
You answered your own question. Palm Pre users have other choices they are not forced to use iTunes at all. They want to use iTunes because it is the most popular media service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
But if someone already decided to get different phone/player, why wouldn't Apple still grab couple of hundreds from them selling them music from iTunes store..?
It is not like they can't get their music elsewhere, they are not doomed by this Apple's move - only question is who will get their money for selling them music.
I can't see any reason based on economy. Ego - that's completely different story.
I will agree and say that Apple does effectively have a monopoly on media downloads.
What are you basing this on? There are lots of other alternatives to iTunes. Amazon, Best Buy, Microsoft, Rhapsody and MP3.com are just a few that come to mind. iTunes may be the most popular, but, it's hardly a monopoly.
This is one more anti-competitive, senseless, move by Apple, only meant to inforce an ILLEGAL monopoly. In fact, Apple acts just as if it were led by an ignorant, resentful high school graduate, instead of being the large multinational it should be. Success breeds success, and small-minded actions bring ultimate failure. R.I.P., Apple.
Your kinda missing the point.
Palm has hired (poached) a load of Apple iPod employees and rather than create their own sync software or even a plug-in they thought they would be a bunch of smug pricks and by using their insider knowledge of how the iPods work they enabled syncing with iTunes natively by making the Pre appear to itunes like an iPod. Plenty of other companies have had the decency to write their own sync programs and plug-ins. Why should it be any different for Palm?
Apple has closed this loophole and now they are the bad guy? Palm had to borrow 400 million dollars to save their asses and have poached talent from Apple to rush out a half assed piece of hardware.
In 2008, 87% of US digital downloads were from iTunes, 16% from Amazon, everyone else makes up the rest. The iPod holds roughly 70% of the mp3 market. Because of iTunes dominance Apple was able to force 99 cents as the standard single price, and music labels had no leverage to change the price. Because of iPod popularity and dominance has forced competitors to design their players around the functionality of the iPod. That effectively is a monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory
What are you basing this on? There are lots of other alternatives to iTunes. Amazon, Best Buy, Microsoft, Rhapsody and MP3.com are just a few that come to mind. iTunes may be the most popular, but, it's hardly a monopoly.
Do you understand that it's the content companies that have demanded DRM?
Have they also demanded that the content can only be synced to iPods? Thanks for dodging my central question: Why did Apple not specify a way to sync with iTunes while retaining the DRM protection? Since iTunes was the only way of getting your music on a music player they pretty much abused their monopoly to shut out competitors on the player market.
Quote:
You do know that, right?
Sure I do, it's just irrelevant. Your long-winded rant afterwards does not take into account that there is no coupling between content and output device other than that the output device has to fulfil some specifications.
Quote:
As for the coupling, so what? This has nothing to do with the selling of music. There are various ways of getting that music on to another device.
It is possible *now* and only for music. For the longest time iTunes was the only way to get protected music onto players and, surprise, it only worked with Apple provided players. Since Apple had a monopoly in both the player as well as the content seller market it was just a matter of time before lawsuits against them would have started. Removing the copy protection from the music sure did take the wind out of such endeavours sails.
Have they also demanded that the content can only be synced to iPods? Thanks for dodging my central question: Why did Apple not specify a way to sync with iTunes while retaining the DRM protection? Since iTunes was the only way of getting your music on a music player they pretty much abused their monopoly to shut out competitors on the player market.
Apple did address the reason they did not license Fairlplay DRM. Apple is under contractual obligation to keep Fairplay secure and unbroken. Apple felt the most effective way to abide by this obligation was not licensing Fairplay out, where it is out of their control and is more difficult to ensure it remains unbroken. Microsoft's Plays For Sure which was licensed widely and had been broken on a number of occasions.
Quote:
It is possible *now* and only for music. For the longest time iTunes was the only way to get protected music onto players and, surprise, it only worked with Apple provided players. Since Apple had a monopoly in both the player as well as the content seller market it was just a matter of time before lawsuits against them would have started. Removing the copy protection from the music sure did take the wind out of such
The problem with this line of thinking is that you cannot be accused of having a monopoly over your own product. Apple is under no obligation to share iTunes or the iPod with anyone else.
The entire time of iTunes and iPod there have been other options that consumers were free to choose. Outside of free choice there has been no reason anyone has had to use iPod or iTunes. Apple fairly and freely beat everyone else in this market there is no breach of antitrust.
In 2008, 87% of US digital downloads were from iTunes, 16% from Amazon, everyone else makes up the rest. The iPod holds roughly 70% of the mp3 market. Because of iTunes dominance Apple was able to force 99 cents as the standard single price, and music labels had no leverage to change the price. Because of iPod popularity and dominance has forced competitors to design their players around the functionality of the iPod. That effectively is a monopoly.
Apple was the market leader and most successful innovator in online digital music distribution, so, it's no surprise they are the most popular. But, being popular is not the same as a monopoly.
Maybe instead they should fix the BUG of high CPU usage in Safari when a Flash is played. That my dearest ppl at 1 Infinty Loop is bug fixing. This bug is know for YEARS !!!!!!!
That's a bug in Flash itself. Flash always was a hog.
I can't wait till Youtube drops Flash. Some other video sites are already practicing with HTML5 versions of their site.
Bad move by Apple I would say. Now they just look like Microsoft using there advantage as the PC and OS maker to give them an advantage over things connecting to it.
Not only that they've also made themselves look like they could be scared of the Pre. It's like all the things you read about Microsoft spending money on pointless ad campaigns that lead to reports bringing more attention to Apple. Apple blocking the Pre is just going to lead to loads of reports on them doing it, which will just fuel hatred for them and support for the Pre.
That is not an accurate comparison. If Palm had bothered to create a software called "PreTunes" for Mac OSX and Apple prevented that software from running in OSX, that would be comparable to your MS example above.
I would disagree, you can't buy a Mac without iTunes installed on it. This effectively makes iTunes part of the OS. So it is in effect restricting part of the machine to only work with Apple hardware.
It's seems very very unlikely that the Pre could have been stopped from syncing if Palm had made it identify itself the same way as an iPOD does. It seems a lot more likely apple have built in an extra check that would recognize part of the Pre and block that.
I would disagree, you can't buy a Mac without iTunes installed on it. This effectively makes iTunes part of the OS. So it is in effect restricting part of the machine to only work with Apple hardware.
It's seems very very unlikely that the Pre could have been stopped from syncing if Palm had made it identify itself the same way as an iPOD does. It seems a lot more likely apple have built in an extra check that would recognize part of the Pre and block that.
That argument assumes that Apple also has a monopoly in operating systems or PCs, but, they are FAR from that.
I will agree and say that Apple does effectively have a monopoly on media downloads. The misconception that seems to continue, is that a monopoly is illegal. Monopolies that have been earned through fair and open competition are not illegal. What is illegal is abuse of a monopolistic position to limit competition.
But it's an artificial category right now. It's not a monopoly since mist people don't purchase their music that way yet. If a company has a large majority of a fairly small minority of a category, that's not a monopoly.
The category is music sales.
It's possible that some stores had a monopoly in selling cassette recordings, so what?
I don't feel comfortable with people making up categories that aren't considered to be material to the overall market.
Let's give it another four or five years and see what happens. Right now, Apple has no monopoly in this.
They do have a monopoly in handheld digital music players in the US, and possibly close to it in Japan and a couple of other places.
In 2008, 87% of US digital downloads were from iTunes, 16% from Amazon, everyone else makes up the rest. The iPod holds roughly 70% of the mp3 market. Because of iTunes dominance Apple was able to force 99 cents as the standard single price, and music labels had no leverage to change the price. Because of iPod popularity and dominance has forced competitors to design their players around the functionality of the iPod. That effectively is a monopoly.
It still isn't a monopoly, because digital downloads is just one way of buying music, and not even the most popular.
Have they also demanded that the content can only be synced to iPods? Thanks for dodging my central question: Why did Apple not specify a way to sync with iTunes while retaining the DRM protection? Since iTunes was the only way of getting your music on a music player they pretty much abused their monopoly to shut out competitors on the player market.
I didn't doge your question. All Apple did was to prevent the Pre from being erroneously depicted as an Apple iPod to iTunes. Palm has already stated publicly that they will either look at third party software, or write their own. They know very well that Apple hasn't prevented them from doing what they want to do. They just now have to do it themselves, which is what I told you. Do you read? There are more than a few posts here, by myself and others that have explained this.
On to the rest of the question. You seem to think that Apple is responsible to make sure every other manufacturer can sync to a product that Apple made specifically to work with its own products. Apple doesn't have to do any such thing. There has never been a lawsuit about this from any other company because they all know that.
Palm was being cute in trying what they knew Apple wouldn't allow them to do, just so that people like you would make the statements you have made, thus hoping to stir up a hornets next of criticism.
Apple has no monopoly in iTunes. It doesn't matter that Apple sells most of the downloaded music in the US because that's jut about 20% of the music sold in this country, and that's what counts when calling a monopoly. You can say whatever you like, but again, there's been no call to get Apple's music download service labeled a monopoly, because other companies know that it isn't.
And itunes isn't even the only way to get your music on a digital player. The music doesn't reside in one big file the way Outlook holds its e-mails (unless they've changed that dumb idea). Each song resides in your computer individually. It can be gotten to. And now that it's not DRM'd anymore, there's no excuse.
Quote:
Sure I do, it's just irrelevant. Your long-winded rant afterwards does not take into account that there is no coupling between content and output device other than that the output device has to fulfill some specifications.
It's very relevant as it;s one of the reasons you've been ranting yourself. You just don't understand the issues. You're so locked up on one trivial point you can't see beyond it. You are the one who brought up Apple and DRM in the first place, but I guess you forgot that.
As I've already stated, a device doesn't have to pretend it's an Apple product to get at the music on the machine. There are other ways.
Quote:
It is possible *now* and only for music. For the longest time iTunes was the only way to get protected music onto players and, surprise, it only worked with Apple provided players. Since Apple had a monopoly in both the player as well as the content seller market it was just a matter of time before lawsuits against them would have started. Removing the copy protection from the music sure did take the wind out of such endeavours sails.
You are so wrong again about the latter part of this. What lawsuits are you talking about? No company that makes devices has sued Apple over this.
The only question was that Apple used their own DRM rather that MS's DRM. It was also found to be the fault of the music companies and their licensing restrictions in Europe that were at fault. It was even decided that Apple had been coerced into using DRM and having separate stores. Once Apple convinced the content owners to drop the DRM, everything was fine.
And you keep using the word monopoly as though you know what it means. as far as music sales go, the word doesn't apply.
I would disagree, you can't buy a Mac without iTunes installed on it. This effectively makes iTunes part of the OS. So it is in effect restricting part of the machine to only work with Apple hardware.
It's seems very very unlikely that the Pre could have been stopped from syncing if Palm had made it identify itself the same way as an iPOD does. It seems a lot more likely apple have built in an extra check that would recognize part of the Pre and block that.
No. This doesn't "effectively" make iTunes part of the OS. You can remove iTunes, and use any other Mac compatible music playing/organizing software you want to. And there are others.
Other forms of media purchase don't influence the way digital downloading works. Seeing as how digital services are killing brick and mortar stores, the contorlling interst in digit downloads is the controlling interest the future in media sales. Right now iTunes controls how everyone can distribute digital media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It still isn't a monopoly, because digital downloads is just one way of buying music, and not even the most popular.
I wouldn't equate selling CD's and selling downloads as the same business. Both are different business models, used by different companies, and have different solutions. It's true iTunes is not the most popular way to buy music. But that's only because the old business model is dying slowly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It still isn't a monopoly, because digital downloads is just one way of buying music, and not even the most popular.
I wouldn't equate selling CD's and selling downloads as the same business. Both are different business models, used by different companies, and have different solutions. It's true iTunes is not the most popular way to buy music. But that's only because the old business model is dying slowly.
I don't think you can have a monopoly on a distribution method for product widely available elsewhere and by other methods. By that logic, HMV has a monopoly on music distributed on CDs because there aren't many other stores still selling CDs. Which doesn't make much sense.
If the ONLY way to buy music was to download it digitally from an online service, then the iTunes Store might be considered a monopoly. But that's not the case right now.
Comments
How about a source for your numbers? Estimates agree with you that Apple probably has a 20% market share. The problem is that is all music, while the gentleman your admonishing is talking about digital downloads which is probably at around 80%. Yes, that is a monopoly.
And how did Apple create iTunes- again?
C&G created the music manager/player SoundJam - the root of iTunes. You can't re-write history and claim otherwise.
Apple buys it and changes the name of it- and that's creating it? Puh-leeze.
I should know- I owned and used a copy SoundJam - way back when, in the days of OS9. It's basic features haven't changed.
You answered your own question. Palm Pre users have other choices they are not forced to use iTunes at all. They want to use iTunes because it is the most popular media service.
But if someone already decided to get different phone/player, why wouldn't Apple still grab couple of hundreds from them selling them music from iTunes store..?
It is not like they can't get their music elsewhere, they are not doomed by this Apple's move - only question is who will get their money for selling them music.
I can't see any reason based on economy. Ego - that's completely different story.
I will agree and say that Apple does effectively have a monopoly on media downloads.
What are you basing this on? There are lots of other alternatives to iTunes. Amazon, Best Buy, Microsoft, Rhapsody and MP3.com are just a few that come to mind. iTunes may be the most popular, but, it's hardly a monopoly.
This is one more anti-competitive, senseless, move by Apple, only meant to inforce an ILLEGAL monopoly. In fact, Apple acts just as if it were led by an ignorant, resentful high school graduate, instead of being the large multinational it should be. Success breeds success, and small-minded actions bring ultimate failure. R.I.P., Apple.
Your kinda missing the point.
Palm has hired (poached) a load of Apple iPod employees and rather than create their own sync software or even a plug-in they thought they would be a bunch of smug pricks and by using their insider knowledge of how the iPods work they enabled syncing with iTunes natively by making the Pre appear to itunes like an iPod. Plenty of other companies have had the decency to write their own sync programs and plug-ins. Why should it be any different for Palm?
Apple has closed this loophole and now they are the bad guy? Palm had to borrow 400 million dollars to save their asses and have poached talent from Apple to rush out a half assed piece of hardware.
What are you basing this on? There are lots of other alternatives to iTunes. Amazon, Best Buy, Microsoft, Rhapsody and MP3.com are just a few that come to mind. iTunes may be the most popular, but, it's hardly a monopoly.
Do you understand that it's the content companies that have demanded DRM?
Have they also demanded that the content can only be synced to iPods? Thanks for dodging my central question: Why did Apple not specify a way to sync with iTunes while retaining the DRM protection? Since iTunes was the only way of getting your music on a music player they pretty much abused their monopoly to shut out competitors on the player market.
You do know that, right?
Sure I do, it's just irrelevant. Your long-winded rant afterwards does not take into account that there is no coupling between content and output device other than that the output device has to fulfil some specifications.
As for the coupling, so what? This has nothing to do with the selling of music. There are various ways of getting that music on to another device.
It is possible *now* and only for music. For the longest time iTunes was the only way to get protected music onto players and, surprise, it only worked with Apple provided players. Since Apple had a monopoly in both the player as well as the content seller market it was just a matter of time before lawsuits against them would have started. Removing the copy protection from the music sure did take the wind out of such endeavours sails.
Have they also demanded that the content can only be synced to iPods? Thanks for dodging my central question: Why did Apple not specify a way to sync with iTunes while retaining the DRM protection? Since iTunes was the only way of getting your music on a music player they pretty much abused their monopoly to shut out competitors on the player market.
Apple did address the reason they did not license Fairlplay DRM. Apple is under contractual obligation to keep Fairplay secure and unbroken. Apple felt the most effective way to abide by this obligation was not licensing Fairplay out, where it is out of their control and is more difficult to ensure it remains unbroken. Microsoft's Plays For Sure which was licensed widely and had been broken on a number of occasions.
It is possible *now* and only for music. For the longest time iTunes was the only way to get protected music onto players and, surprise, it only worked with Apple provided players. Since Apple had a monopoly in both the player as well as the content seller market it was just a matter of time before lawsuits against them would have started. Removing the copy protection from the music sure did take the wind out of such
The problem with this line of thinking is that you cannot be accused of having a monopoly over your own product. Apple is under no obligation to share iTunes or the iPod with anyone else.
The entire time of iTunes and iPod there have been other options that consumers were free to choose. Outside of free choice there has been no reason anyone has had to use iPod or iTunes. Apple fairly and freely beat everyone else in this market there is no breach of antitrust.
In 2008, 87% of US digital downloads were from iTunes, 16% from Amazon, everyone else makes up the rest. The iPod holds roughly 70% of the mp3 market. Because of iTunes dominance Apple was able to force 99 cents as the standard single price, and music labels had no leverage to change the price. Because of iPod popularity and dominance has forced competitors to design their players around the functionality of the iPod. That effectively is a monopoly.
Apple was the market leader and most successful innovator in online digital music distribution, so, it's no surprise they are the most popular. But, being popular is not the same as a monopoly.
Maybe instead they should fix the BUG of high CPU usage in Safari when a Flash is played. That my dearest ppl at 1 Infinty Loop is bug fixing. This bug is know for YEARS !!!!!!!
That's a bug in Flash itself. Flash always was a hog.
I can't wait till Youtube drops Flash. Some other video sites are already practicing with HTML5 versions of their site.
Not only that they've also made themselves look like they could be scared of the Pre. It's like all the things you read about Microsoft spending money on pointless ad campaigns that lead to reports bringing more attention to Apple. Apple blocking the Pre is just going to lead to loads of reports on them doing it, which will just fuel hatred for them and support for the Pre.
That is not an accurate comparison. If Palm had bothered to create a software called "PreTunes" for Mac OSX and Apple prevented that software from running in OSX, that would be comparable to your MS example above.
I would disagree, you can't buy a Mac without iTunes installed on it. This effectively makes iTunes part of the OS. So it is in effect restricting part of the machine to only work with Apple hardware.
It's seems very very unlikely that the Pre could have been stopped from syncing if Palm had made it identify itself the same way as an iPOD does. It seems a lot more likely apple have built in an extra check that would recognize part of the Pre and block that.
I would disagree, you can't buy a Mac without iTunes installed on it. This effectively makes iTunes part of the OS. So it is in effect restricting part of the machine to only work with Apple hardware.
It's seems very very unlikely that the Pre could have been stopped from syncing if Palm had made it identify itself the same way as an iPOD does. It seems a lot more likely apple have built in an extra check that would recognize part of the Pre and block that.
That argument assumes that Apple also has a monopoly in operating systems or PCs, but, they are FAR from that.
I will agree and say that Apple does effectively have a monopoly on media downloads. The misconception that seems to continue, is that a monopoly is illegal. Monopolies that have been earned through fair and open competition are not illegal. What is illegal is abuse of a monopolistic position to limit competition.
But it's an artificial category right now. It's not a monopoly since mist people don't purchase their music that way yet. If a company has a large majority of a fairly small minority of a category, that's not a monopoly.
The category is music sales.
It's possible that some stores had a monopoly in selling cassette recordings, so what?
I don't feel comfortable with people making up categories that aren't considered to be material to the overall market.
Let's give it another four or five years and see what happens. Right now, Apple has no monopoly in this.
They do have a monopoly in handheld digital music players in the US, and possibly close to it in Japan and a couple of other places.
In 2008, 87% of US digital downloads were from iTunes, 16% from Amazon, everyone else makes up the rest. The iPod holds roughly 70% of the mp3 market. Because of iTunes dominance Apple was able to force 99 cents as the standard single price, and music labels had no leverage to change the price. Because of iPod popularity and dominance has forced competitors to design their players around the functionality of the iPod. That effectively is a monopoly.
It still isn't a monopoly, because digital downloads is just one way of buying music, and not even the most popular.
Have they also demanded that the content can only be synced to iPods? Thanks for dodging my central question: Why did Apple not specify a way to sync with iTunes while retaining the DRM protection? Since iTunes was the only way of getting your music on a music player they pretty much abused their monopoly to shut out competitors on the player market.
I didn't doge your question. All Apple did was to prevent the Pre from being erroneously depicted as an Apple iPod to iTunes. Palm has already stated publicly that they will either look at third party software, or write their own. They know very well that Apple hasn't prevented them from doing what they want to do. They just now have to do it themselves, which is what I told you. Do you read? There are more than a few posts here, by myself and others that have explained this.
On to the rest of the question. You seem to think that Apple is responsible to make sure every other manufacturer can sync to a product that Apple made specifically to work with its own products. Apple doesn't have to do any such thing. There has never been a lawsuit about this from any other company because they all know that.
Palm was being cute in trying what they knew Apple wouldn't allow them to do, just so that people like you would make the statements you have made, thus hoping to stir up a hornets next of criticism.
Apple has no monopoly in iTunes. It doesn't matter that Apple sells most of the downloaded music in the US because that's jut about 20% of the music sold in this country, and that's what counts when calling a monopoly. You can say whatever you like, but again, there's been no call to get Apple's music download service labeled a monopoly, because other companies know that it isn't.
And itunes isn't even the only way to get your music on a digital player. The music doesn't reside in one big file the way Outlook holds its e-mails (unless they've changed that dumb idea). Each song resides in your computer individually. It can be gotten to. And now that it's not DRM'd anymore, there's no excuse.
Sure I do, it's just irrelevant. Your long-winded rant afterwards does not take into account that there is no coupling between content and output device other than that the output device has to fulfill some specifications.
It's very relevant as it;s one of the reasons you've been ranting yourself. You just don't understand the issues. You're so locked up on one trivial point you can't see beyond it. You are the one who brought up Apple and DRM in the first place, but I guess you forgot that.
As I've already stated, a device doesn't have to pretend it's an Apple product to get at the music on the machine. There are other ways.
It is possible *now* and only for music. For the longest time iTunes was the only way to get protected music onto players and, surprise, it only worked with Apple provided players. Since Apple had a monopoly in both the player as well as the content seller market it was just a matter of time before lawsuits against them would have started. Removing the copy protection from the music sure did take the wind out of such endeavours sails.
You are so wrong again about the latter part of this. What lawsuits are you talking about? No company that makes devices has sued Apple over this.
The only question was that Apple used their own DRM rather that MS's DRM. It was also found to be the fault of the music companies and their licensing restrictions in Europe that were at fault. It was even decided that Apple had been coerced into using DRM and having separate stores. Once Apple convinced the content owners to drop the DRM, everything was fine.
And you keep using the word monopoly as though you know what it means. as far as music sales go, the word doesn't apply.
I would disagree, you can't buy a Mac without iTunes installed on it. This effectively makes iTunes part of the OS. So it is in effect restricting part of the machine to only work with Apple hardware.
It's seems very very unlikely that the Pre could have been stopped from syncing if Palm had made it identify itself the same way as an iPOD does. It seems a lot more likely apple have built in an extra check that would recognize part of the Pre and block that.
No. This doesn't "effectively" make iTunes part of the OS. You can remove iTunes, and use any other Mac compatible music playing/organizing software you want to. And there are others.
It still isn't a monopoly, because digital downloads is just one way of buying music, and not even the most popular.
It still isn't a monopoly, because digital downloads is just one way of buying music, and not even the most popular.
I wouldn't equate selling CD's and selling downloads as the same business. Both are different business models, used by different companies, and have different solutions. It's true iTunes is not the most popular way to buy music. But that's only because the old business model is dying slowly.
I don't think you can have a monopoly on a distribution method for product widely available elsewhere and by other methods. By that logic, HMV has a monopoly on music distributed on CDs because there aren't many other stores still selling CDs. Which doesn't make much sense.
If the ONLY way to buy music was to download it digitally from an online service, then the iTunes Store might be considered a monopoly. But that's not the case right now.