They need to throw this case out. People are just being allowed to sue for the sake of suing and costing people money. I'm sure Apple factors in the cost of litigation into their products. It takes away from employee salaries and from the consumer having to defend all these frivolous law suits or law suits without any merit.
1. Your numbers are wrong. Most estimates I've seen say that Apple has about 80%.
2. The bolded is incorrect. Many actions are illegal even if you don't have a monopoly. Many actions are legal even if you do.
3. Please look up what Microsoft as convicted of and show us where Apple has done the same thing. The fact that it is possible to use your music without iTunes is pretty clear evidence that you're wrong.
Had a quick Google and in 2004 Apple was estimated to have 92% of the US hdd mp3 player market. But even with just 80% it can still be argued that Apple had a dominate position.
Microsoft was convicted of using their dominate position in desktop OSes to gain an unfair advantage in browsers and media players by tying the products together. It was Microsoft's standard MO for years: add functionality into the OS and therefore drive competing products out of the market thereby destroying competition and consumer choice. It was this tactic that left us with IE6 as the biggest browser for years and since there was no competition Microsoft let it to stagnate.
In this case Apple tied iTunes and the iTunes Store to the iPod preventing Real from effectively competing. Who was going to buy music from Real if it doesn't work on ~80% of the mp3 players out there at the time?
In this case Apple tied iTunes and the iTunes Store to the iPod preventing Real from effectively competing. Who was going to buy music from Real if it doesn't work on ~80% of the mp3 players out there at the time?
But Real was the one who decided to make their files not work by putting DRM on them. If they were standard MP3s or AACs, they'd have worked fine. Real could turn around and blame their content providers, I guess, but ultimately it was still their decision go forward with a business model that wouldn't work.
The complaint alleges that you can not play songs that weren't bought on iTunes. That is total nonsense. You can play songs that you buy just about anywhere.
not totally true. IF the store that sold them put on DRM that restricted playback then you couldn't. But that type of action if taken by say Amazon or Microsoft isn't Apple's fault.
You could totally rip stuff off your CDs and play them on your iPod, that was actually all you could do in the beginning and that function is still in the iTunes software.
As for the whole 'you had to have an iPod' that's not true. you could play them on your Mac computer and then very shortly later on your Windows computer via the iTunes software. And it has been ruled several times that vertical integration is not anti-trust or illegal, particularly when you make it clear before customers buy. Which Apple did in the terms and conditions that these folks probably didn't bother to read just like most folks don't even today
So was Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. Microsoft was still found guilty.
It only becomes illegal when you have a monopoly. Apple had something like 95% of the portable music player market.
market share isn't the only factor in calling a monopoly illegal. Crossing market lines is another factor. The whole iPod/iTunes issue has been deemed vertical integration in other suits, which Apple will use as precedent to get this toss (and very possibly win on that argument). Which means they didn't cross market lines. Unlike the classic example of Microsoft's games with IE and their OEMs. They tried to argue vertical integration even claiming that IE was vital for Windows to run correctly but the courts didn't buy it. They deemed that an OS and a web browser are two different markets and telling the OEMs they had to install IE and no other web browser or lose their license was crossing market lines and illegal use of monopoly power. A similar example in the Apple world might be if they had not ever released iTunes for Windows so if you want to have an iPod, iPhone or iPad then you have to buy a Mac computer (well at least in the pre iOS 5 years). This is one reason why Apple likely did release that software, to avoid such an anti trust allegation. Because they would have been crossing the line from the media player to the personal computer markets. And with 95% of that market there would be strength to be abusing.
Unfortunately, I suspect that opting out doesn't mean much, only that the lawyers will get to hang on to your settlement portion.
The lawyers get only what is agreed upon. something like a set fee plus $XXX per claim
The law firm handling the lawsuit does handle nor dole out the money. This is done by a separate (usually an accounting) firm. Any unclaimed funds after the settlement period is over gets sent to the state as unclaimed money. See -> http://www.unclaimed.org/ (yes, unclaimed money is real).
After some time frame, this almost always gets turned over to charities. The lawyers and the state don't get to keep it.
market share isn't the only factor in calling a monopoly illegal. Crossing market lines is another factor. The whole iPod/iTunes issue has been deemed vertical integration in other suits, which Apple will use as precedent to get this toss (and very possibly win on that argument). Which means they didn't cross market lines. Unlike the classic example of Microsoft's games with IE and their OEMs.
This suit also involves the iTunes Store so that could be considered crossing market lines.
Again, please understand this concept, At the time, Apple was the one restricting this content, wanting it to not be an open source for files. This is something that I'm sure they had no intentions of doing maliciously, they just want to be able to ensure their devices work well. In recent years that has been opened up in terms of music but, again, this is Apple restricting the files going to and from it's players not the Microsoft or anyone else. DRM is another matter entirely. You can buy Music from Zune Marketplace and put in on your iPod if you wanted to as long as you download it in MP3 format. That option is not available in iTunes circa 2006, hence the lawsuit.
Uh, no. When iTunes was first introduced there was no iTunes Music Store. iTunes, originally derived from SoundJam MP in 2001, began by giving users the ability to (then) easily digitalize music CDs and load that music (without DRM) to an iPod. The iTunes Store, introduced in 2003, was made possible when Apple added DRM to the music being sold as contractually required by the music industry for access to their music libraries. iTunes always had the ability to import and play non-DRM'd MP3s from any other source. The Harmony technology developed by RealNetworks allowed users to add their music to iTunes-- now pay attention, important point here--that music was DRM'd music using RealNetworks' proprietary Helix DRM system, not open MP3 files. iTunes was always a companion product to the iPod and was never intended to be used with other MP3 players nor to use DRM'd music from other online music stores. Some people had a hard time understanding that.
Had a quick Google and in 2004 Apple was estimated to have 92% of the US hdd mp3 player market. But even with just 80% it can still be argued that Apple had a dominate position.
Microsoft was convicted of using their dominate position in desktop OSes to gain an unfair advantage in browsers and media players by tying the products together. It was Microsoft's standard MO for years: add functionality into the OS and therefore drive competing products out of the market thereby destroying competition and consumer choice. It was this tactic that left us with IE6 as the biggest browser for years and since there was no competition Microsoft let it to stagnate.
In this case Apple tied iTunes and the iTunes Store to the iPod preventing Real from effectively competing. Who was going to buy music from Real if it doesn't work on ~80% of the mp3 players out there at the time.
In reality Apple only had about 56% market share of all music players. Apple only had a dominate share of in the name brand player market. But even at 80% of name brand players, it's a far cry from Microsoft dominance. Microsoft Windows was on over 95% on ALL computers. Including the ones with no name on it, store brand name and the ones consumers built themselves.
And the other factor is choice. With Microsoft, consumers really had only one other choice. And that was Apple OSX. But with the iPod, there were plenty of other choices (at the time). There were a least a dozen quality music players by name brands like Rio, Creative, Sony, Microsoft, etc.. Not to mention all the no brand name music players and cell phones. So even if Apple iPods had a dominate share of the music player market, they were far from being the only choice for consumers.
It wasn't the "tying" that got Microsoft in trouble with the DOJ. It was Microsoft demanding that PC venders pre install IE and not include any other competitors browsers with the PC's they sold or risk losing their Microsoft OS license. This was Microsoft abusing their monopoly in the OS market. When the DOJ demanded that Microsoft unbundle IE from the OS, Microsoft tried to claim that IE was integrated into the OS. Which was proven to be hogwash. Microsoft finally complied by letting the PC purchaser install the browser of his choice, with IE still being one of several choices included with the PC.
The other thing that got Microsoft in trouble with the DOJ was that they were sabotaging competitors browsers by rewriting some of the Java codes in Windows and not letting the competitors browsers programers know about it in a timely matter. Thus competitors browser were viewed as "buggy" and often crashed. Which cause many PC users to stick with IE.
iTunes is tied to the iPod. But not the iTunes Store. You don't need the iTunes Store to get music into your iPod. Never did. iTunes on the other hand is the software that managed and organized your music on an iPod.
You got to remember that back when all of this was taking place, online music purchases accounted for less than 5% of all the music purchased. 95% of music was still purchased on CD's. It wasn't until they removed the DRM that online music purchases took off. It highly unlikely that Real would have survived even if they had access to the iPod. iTunes only survived because Apple mad a ton of money selling iPods. Apple was lucky if they broke even selling music. And as soon as the DRM was removed from online music, Amazon had their own software that put Amazon music purchases into iTunes. With no complaint from Apple. Apple complaint at the time had to do with Real "hacking" Fairplay to get their music on to an iPod. Fairplay is the DRM that Apple wrote to comply with the Music industry requirement that online music must have some form of protection against piracy. Apple was also required to maintain it in case of hacking, so Apple did not license out Fairplay. Since it was much easier to maintain it if it's only on one player, their iPod.
Feel free to explain what illegal tying Apple is doing.
Since iTunes works on both Windows and Macs, even if they were to use their market power in media players to try to improve their computer market position, it wouldn't apply.
Lets not forget that third party players and plugins can allow other software to interact with iPods as well. There is a plugin for WIndows Media Player, Songbird can interact with iPods, as can Rhythm Box on Ubuntu. If you download music through the Windows Media or Ubuntu One music store, you can then use iTunes or one of the other 3rd party utilities to transfer said music to your iPod/Pad/Phone without a hitch.
Using an iPod with Ubuntu is just as easy as iTunes. Just click the pretty picture of it in the right hand tool bar.
Comments
They need to throw this case out. People are just being allowed to sue for the sake of suing and costing people money. I'm sure Apple factors in the cost of litigation into their products. It takes away from employee salaries and from the consumer having to defend all these frivolous law suits or law suits without any merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
1. Your numbers are wrong. Most estimates I've seen say that Apple has about 80%.
2. The bolded is incorrect. Many actions are illegal even if you don't have a monopoly. Many actions are legal even if you do.
3. Please look up what Microsoft as convicted of and show us where Apple has done the same thing. The fact that it is possible to use your music without iTunes is pretty clear evidence that you're wrong.
Had a quick Google and in 2004 Apple was estimated to have 92% of the US hdd mp3 player market. But even with just 80% it can still be argued that Apple had a dominate position.
Microsoft was convicted of using their dominate position in desktop OSes to gain an unfair advantage in browsers and media players by tying the products together. It was Microsoft's standard MO for years: add functionality into the OS and therefore drive competing products out of the market thereby destroying competition and consumer choice. It was this tactic that left us with IE6 as the biggest browser for years and since there was no competition Microsoft let it to stagnate.
In this case Apple tied iTunes and the iTunes Store to the iPod preventing Real from effectively competing. Who was going to buy music from Real if it doesn't work on ~80% of the mp3 players out there at the time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
In this case Apple tied iTunes and the iTunes Store to the iPod preventing Real from effectively competing. Who was going to buy music from Real if it doesn't work on ~80% of the mp3 players out there at the time?
But Real was the one who decided to make their files not work by putting DRM on them. If they were standard MP3s or AACs, they'd have worked fine. Real could turn around and blame their content providers, I guess, but ultimately it was still their decision go forward with a business model that wouldn't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The complaint alleges that you can not play songs that weren't bought on iTunes. That is total nonsense. You can play songs that you buy just about anywhere.
not totally true. IF the store that sold them put on DRM that restricted playback then you couldn't. But that type of action if taken by say Amazon or Microsoft isn't Apple's fault.
You could totally rip stuff off your CDs and play them on your iPod, that was actually all you could do in the beginning and that function is still in the iTunes software.
As for the whole 'you had to have an iPod' that's not true. you could play them on your Mac computer and then very shortly later on your Windows computer via the iTunes software. And it has been ruled several times that vertical integration is not anti-trust or illegal, particularly when you make it clear before customers buy. Which Apple did in the terms and conditions that these folks probably didn't bother to read just like most folks don't even today
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
So was Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. Microsoft was still found guilty.
It only becomes illegal when you have a monopoly. Apple had something like 95% of the portable music player market.
market share isn't the only factor in calling a monopoly illegal. Crossing market lines is another factor. The whole iPod/iTunes issue has been deemed vertical integration in other suits, which Apple will use as precedent to get this toss (and very possibly win on that argument). Which means they didn't cross market lines. Unlike the classic example of Microsoft's games with IE and their OEMs. They tried to argue vertical integration even claiming that IE was vital for Windows to run correctly but the courts didn't buy it. They deemed that an OS and a web browser are two different markets and telling the OEMs they had to install IE and no other web browser or lose their license was crossing market lines and illegal use of monopoly power. A similar example in the Apple world might be if they had not ever released iTunes for Windows so if you want to have an iPod, iPhone or iPad then you have to buy a Mac computer (well at least in the pre iOS 5 years). This is one reason why Apple likely did release that software, to avoid such an anti trust allegation. Because they would have been crossing the line from the media player to the personal computer markets. And with 95% of that market there would be strength to be abusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
Unfortunately, I suspect that opting out doesn't mean much, only that the lawyers will get to hang on to your settlement portion.
The lawyers get only what is agreed upon. something like a set fee plus $XXX per claim
The law firm handling the lawsuit does handle nor dole out the money. This is done by a separate (usually an accounting) firm. Any unclaimed funds after the settlement period is over gets sent to the state as unclaimed money. See -> http://www.unclaimed.org/ (yes, unclaimed money is real).
After some time frame, this almost always gets turned over to charities. The lawyers and the state don't get to keep it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
market share isn't the only factor in calling a monopoly illegal. Crossing market lines is another factor. The whole iPod/iTunes issue has been deemed vertical integration in other suits, which Apple will use as precedent to get this toss (and very possibly win on that argument). Which means they didn't cross market lines. Unlike the classic example of Microsoft's games with IE and their OEMs.
This suit also involves the iTunes Store so that could be considered crossing market lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JsongPovision
Again, please understand this concept, At the time, Apple was the one restricting this content, wanting it to not be an open source for files. This is something that I'm sure they had no intentions of doing maliciously, they just want to be able to ensure their devices work well. In recent years that has been opened up in terms of music but, again, this is Apple restricting the files going to and from it's players not the Microsoft or anyone else. DRM is another matter entirely. You can buy Music from Zune Marketplace and put in on your iPod if you wanted to as long as you download it in MP3 format. That option is not available in iTunes circa 2006, hence the lawsuit.
Uh, no. When iTunes was first introduced there was no iTunes Music Store. iTunes, originally derived from SoundJam MP in 2001, began by giving users the ability to (then) easily digitalize music CDs and load that music (without DRM) to an iPod. The iTunes Store, introduced in 2003, was made possible when Apple added DRM to the music being sold as contractually required by the music industry for access to their music libraries. iTunes always had the ability to import and play non-DRM'd MP3s from any other source. The Harmony technology developed by RealNetworks allowed users to add their music to iTunes-- now pay attention, important point here--that music was DRM'd music using RealNetworks' proprietary Helix DRM system, not open MP3 files. iTunes was always a companion product to the iPod and was never intended to be used with other MP3 players nor to use DRM'd music from other online music stores. Some people had a hard time understanding that.
Check it out. Wikipedia. Good site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
Had a quick Google and in 2004 Apple was estimated to have 92% of the US hdd mp3 player market. But even with just 80% it can still be argued that Apple had a dominate position.
Microsoft was convicted of using their dominate position in desktop OSes to gain an unfair advantage in browsers and media players by tying the products together. It was Microsoft's standard MO for years: add functionality into the OS and therefore drive competing products out of the market thereby destroying competition and consumer choice. It was this tactic that left us with IE6 as the biggest browser for years and since there was no competition Microsoft let it to stagnate.
In this case Apple tied iTunes and the iTunes Store to the iPod preventing Real from effectively competing. Who was going to buy music from Real if it doesn't work on ~80% of the mp3 players out there at the time.
In reality Apple only had about 56% market share of all music players. Apple only had a dominate share of in the name brand player market. But even at 80% of name brand players, it's a far cry from Microsoft dominance. Microsoft Windows was on over 95% on ALL computers. Including the ones with no name on it, store brand name and the ones consumers built themselves.
And the other factor is choice. With Microsoft, consumers really had only one other choice. And that was Apple OSX. But with the iPod, there were plenty of other choices (at the time). There were a least a dozen quality music players by name brands like Rio, Creative, Sony, Microsoft, etc.. Not to mention all the no brand name music players and cell phones. So even if Apple iPods had a dominate share of the music player market, they were far from being the only choice for consumers.
It wasn't the "tying" that got Microsoft in trouble with the DOJ. It was Microsoft demanding that PC venders pre install IE and not include any other competitors browsers with the PC's they sold or risk losing their Microsoft OS license. This was Microsoft abusing their monopoly in the OS market. When the DOJ demanded that Microsoft unbundle IE from the OS, Microsoft tried to claim that IE was integrated into the OS. Which was proven to be hogwash. Microsoft finally complied by letting the PC purchaser install the browser of his choice, with IE still being one of several choices included with the PC.
The other thing that got Microsoft in trouble with the DOJ was that they were sabotaging competitors browsers by rewriting some of the Java codes in Windows and not letting the competitors browsers programers know about it in a timely matter. Thus competitors browser were viewed as "buggy" and often crashed. Which cause many PC users to stick with IE.
iTunes is tied to the iPod. But not the iTunes Store. You don't need the iTunes Store to get music into your iPod. Never did. iTunes on the other hand is the software that managed and organized your music on an iPod.
You got to remember that back when all of this was taking place, online music purchases accounted for less than 5% of all the music purchased. 95% of music was still purchased on CD's. It wasn't until they removed the DRM that online music purchases took off. It highly unlikely that Real would have survived even if they had access to the iPod. iTunes only survived because Apple mad a ton of money selling iPods. Apple was lucky if they broke even selling music. And as soon as the DRM was removed from online music, Amazon had their own software that put Amazon music purchases into iTunes. With no complaint from Apple. Apple complaint at the time had to do with Real "hacking" Fairplay to get their music on to an iPod. Fairplay is the DRM that Apple wrote to comply with the Music industry requirement that online music must have some form of protection against piracy. Apple was also required to maintain it in case of hacking, so Apple did not license out Fairplay. Since it was much easier to maintain it if it's only on one player, their iPod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Feel free to explain what illegal tying Apple is doing.
Since iTunes works on both Windows and Macs, even if they were to use their market power in media players to try to improve their computer market position, it wouldn't apply.
Lets not forget that third party players and plugins can allow other software to interact with iPods as well. There is a plugin for WIndows Media Player, Songbird can interact with iPods, as can Rhythm Box on Ubuntu. If you download music through the Windows Media or Ubuntu One music store, you can then use iTunes or one of the other 3rd party utilities to transfer said music to your iPod/Pad/Phone without a hitch.
Using an iPod with Ubuntu is just as easy as iTunes. Just click the pretty picture of it in the right hand tool bar.
http://www.simplehelp.net/2007/07/03/how-to-manage-your-ipod-using-rhythmbox-in-ubuntu/