BTW: I wonder what the IT policies of those European Governments involved require their Government Departments to use in the way of PCs; surely we won't find any of them restricting them to Windows-only PCs will we? Now that would be anti-competitive!
Governments cannot make other governments submit to their anti-trust laws -- that would violate the commonly accepted international law of sovereignty. (Ever wonder why entitites like OPEC haven't been busted?)
Sure it's going to hurt apple's little ecosystem, but then again, evolution is still widely held to be a self-evident truth in Europe, and in the end the fittest mp3 player will survive. And I personally have no doubt which that will be.
This will be a fight to the death. I don't see Apple relenting on this one bit.
Don't be so sure. People said the same when the US dropped its suit against Microsoft, but the EU persisted (and does so to this day). And, MSFT tried its best to play hardball with the EU.
But it looks like Vista is finally going to play by the EU rules -- i.e., even Ballmer seems to have relented.
This will become an EU-wide issue soon, in my judgment.
I'm not paying for songs that have built-in limits, while downloading Limewire songs or converting CD's to MP3 do not contain those limits.
DRM = punishing fair buyers = encouraging them to get songs the illegal way = bad for the industry including Apple.
People are buying more and more songs the legal way. The next step for Apple is to start trusting their (potential) customers.
And you've written a cheque to the music companies for all the songs you've downloaded? Come off it dacloo! I think you should have stopped after the 5th word!
Non purchase of songs due to DRM is a lame excuse for people who were going to steal them anyway - it doesn't affect the majority of fair buyers
(cue the usual comments about - Don't push me I'm an audiophile, bit-rate's too low, I like to configure my own audio system so I can convince myself I know what I'm doing - vote with your feet and buy the music from those common-architecture/non-DRM music stores that offer such an awesome solution, you probably get more thrill out of the chase anyway)
BTW: I wonder what the IT policies of those European Governments involved require their Government Departments to use in the way of PCs; surely we won't find any of them restricting them to Windows-only PCs will we? Now that would be anti-competitive!
You might be onto something there. International trade agreements like NAFTA (North
American Free Trade Agreement) and GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade)
include the concept of non-Tariff barriers to trade. A company can allege that a
country has a non-Tariff trade barrier and bring it before an unelected, secretive
arbitration board formed under the agreement. The board can impose penalties on
the offending country if the complaint is agreed upon. Two examples I can think of
related to NAFTA are when Ethyl Corp, who makes makes lead gasoline additives in
Canada, was denied by the US to sell their product because it violated environmental
laws; also a Mexican company, whose name escapes me at the moment, was
prevented from selling their tuna in the US because it contained too much dolphin
meat, in violation of US law. Both companies brought cases to the NAFTA board
and won. (sovereignty is not all it used to be.)
If any of the countries vexing Apple right now have non-tariff trade barriers
against Apple computers, Apple should bring a suit before the World Trade
Don't be so sure. People said the same when the US dropped its suit against Microsoft, but the EU persisted (and does so to this day). And, MSFT tried its best to play hardball with the EU.
But it looks like Vista is finally going to play by the EU rules -- i.e., even Ballmer seems to have relented.
This will become an EU-wide issue soon, in my judgment.
But as I alluded earlier. This goes to the heart of Apple's business model. Apple makes the hardware and the software. They want to control the user experience. If itunes is forced open to work on other hardware, why not OSX? Do you think Apple will just relent to this? I'm not saying that the EU won't make an issue of this, bit I do think Apple would(will) fight this to the bitter end. It destroys the Steve Jobs' business model for Apple.
Europe should try it. Then again, so should the U.S.
I guess it never occurred to the brilliant idiots that Apple hurts themselves by limiting what you can do with the downloads. I, for one, won't buy anything from the Apple store for that reason. The free market works, people.
Not that I would have asked, but funny how these people weren't enraged that Microsoft Widnows didn't work on Mac hardware. How about all those other software manufacturers that snub the Mac? Funny these fascists didn't force them to write a version for the Mac (again, something I wouldn't ask government to "give" me.)
Interesting notion. It makes one wonder if Microsoft's DRM works with Apple iPods. If not then we might need to go after Microsoft next...
I think both companies should be free to do business in a free market (this includes no government support for their DRM.) Nevertheless, yes, it seems out of balance.
I think that was basically the thrust of MSFT's argument too -- but it failed.
And, note that the problem that the Europeans seem to have is with iTunes, not the iPod ( i.e., Apple's software, not hardware).
OS X is a different issue: It is seen as competition to Windows/Vista, and hence a source of competitive discipline for MSFT -- i.e., worthy of being preserved/protected in whatever form!
Yeah, if I want the whole album (or most of the tracks), that's the best option. But if I want only one or two tracks?
Does the concept of a minimum acceptable quality make sense to you? If 128 kbps AAC is your minimum acceptable quality, you don't what to go under that, by definition. Re-compressing 128 kbps with any lossy codec, at any bit-rate, will result in additional quality loss.
You think it's just me who doesn't like DRM?
So? I said that Apple being forced to licence FairPlay was possibly bad for Apple (I actually think it would be good for them in the long run, but that's a different debate), and definitely good for the consumer. You have failed to demonstrate otherwise.
Please explain how my reasoning implies I want things for free? I want to pay for my music, and then be able to play it on any device I choose, without having to compromise file size or quality.
Then guess what , tough luck . Before iTMS , I have to buy the whole CD to get the songs I want . After iTMS , I still have to buy CDs of artists the music store does not carry . You see , pal , common sense is the thing here . If I want a much better bitrate , I buy the CDs. If I want convenience , I go to iTMS , screw the bitrate . Does that make sense to you ?
2nd. Nobody likes DRM , that said , nobody is forcing you to buy songs in iTMS or loading DRM loaded songs in your iPod . If you don't want the damn service , check Emusic or other music sites. The iPod as well as the iTunes application will accept any music file as long it's not wma or ogg.
3rd The only winners if Apple licenses their Fairplay are the record companies. The biggest losers are both Apple and the consumers
4) You want to pay for your music and get then to play to any device you choose at the best filesize and quality ? The answer to that is very simple , get the music industry to grow up and see that DRM and other industry induced limitations on digital music downloads is a self defeating strategy . In fact , they are suffering financially as of now.
If itunes is forced open to work on other hardware, why not OSX?
Because iTunes is dominating the digital music purchase market. OSX is not dominating any market. Anti-trust means just that - taking action against companies that use their market-dominating position to squash competition. No such danger on the OS market.
And by the way, this is also the reason why the idea of appealing to the WTO is completely ridiculous. The reason the EU is taking action against Apple is because the iTunes/iPod model is limiting competition, it has nothing to do with trade barriers. As far as the Europeans are concerned, they couldn't care less whether iPods or music are imported or sold, but they have a - legitimate, I believe - concern about HOW that's done.
Again, calm down, just because it's Apple doesn't make it the gospel. I own AAPL stock and I don't mind them making more money, but I'm also a consumer who doesn't see why I shouldn't be able to play my iTunes on other devices.
If the ability for me to remove FairPlay disappears, I'll be pretty pissed.
That's the crux of the argument. The fact that Apple allows FairlyPlay to be removed means the song is not locked to the iPod forever.
Quote:
I guess it never occurred to the brilliant idiots that Apple hurts themselves by limiting what you can do with the downloads. I, for one, won't buy anything from the Apple store for that reason. The free market works, people.
Those brilliant idiots have 75% of the music download market. Can you really argue with success?
Quote:
The reason the EU is taking action against Apple is because the iTunes/iPod model is limiting competition,
How exactly does iTunes or iPod limit competition?
Part 1: The license fee to other manufactuer's is 100 Million USD per year, per device model.
Part 2: The price per song for EVERYBODY on iTS is $49.99 USD per song. If you purchase an iPod, then Apple will give you an instant $49 credit towards each song that you purchase. The iPod has to be registered to the same name as the iTS account, any fraud discovered will result in any credit towards that indiviual's name being removed.
Everybody's happy, you can officially buy songs off of iTS to use on you POS player.
I think that was basically the thrust of MSFT's argument too -- but it failed.
Apple wouldn't use that as a defense against the EU, but it is the Apple business model under Steve Jobs. Remember who killed the clones? While the EU might might see Apple as a competitor to Windows and Vista and not initiate action against Apple in regards to OSX, what happens if Dell sues Apple in a European court in order to unlock OSX? Admittedly that could happen now but if the Eu were to succeed against Apple in iTunes that would seem to be a strong legal precedent and might embolden someone like Dell. Hell Michael Dell might do it just to spite Steve Jobs.
Because iTunes is dominating the digital music purchase market. OSX is not dominating any market. Anti-trust means just that - taking action against companies that use their market-dominating position to squash competition. No such danger on the OS market.
And by the way, this is also the reason why the idea of appealing to the WTO is completely ridiculous. The reason the EU is taking action against Apple is because the iTunes/iPod model is limiting competition, it has nothing to do with trade barriers. As far as the Europeans are concerned, they couldn't care less whether iPods or music are imported or sold, but they have a - legitimate, I believe - concern about HOW that's done.
Again, calm down, just because it's Apple doesn't make it the gospel. I own AAPL stock and I don't mind them making more money, but I'm also a consumer who doesn't see why I shouldn't be able to play my iTunes on other devices.
I mentioned the WTO in the context of another post which referenced the possibility that
some countries might have rules requiring the use of Windows computers, to the exclusion
of Apple computers. I did not make any statement about the WTO in the context of
iTunes, although, since you brought it up, I think consumer laws which limit the ability
of companies to trade internationally might actually be considered non-tariff barriers
to trade. (not saying I agree with it, quite the contrary I prefer each country to make
its own laws.) However, if the European countries in question are signatories to GATT,
they should take their obligations under the treaty into account (or better still repeal
their support of it)
Again, as many have already pointed out, you ARE able to play your iTunes on other
devices. It is just not as convenient as playing them on Apple devices.
I agree that this if being lobbied by those who simply can't compete with a great solution. And, I'm sorry, but it is typical of Europe to go after any successful american enterprise with gov't backed approaches - Airbus.
None of the people or groups in this report are backed by any government. The closest you get is the Norwegian Ombudsmen who despite being paid by Norwegian tax payers, is independent of government. Norway's government actually went as far as saying they would not investigate Apple's practices.
The rest are consumer groups with no teeth.
I fail to see how anyone can be of the position that DRM is a good thing for consumers be they idealistic Europeans or xenophobic American capitalistic lackeys.
Guess what? You have still failed to demonstrate this is true. How is buying a song on iTunes and being able to play it on any device that supports AAC worse for the consumer than only being able to play that file on an iPod?
A number of people have posted in this thread that it's "Apple v the EU" in this argument. Please, that's not the case. The complaint has not been brought before the EU Parliament, council or courts. Norway isn't even a member of the EU.
I fail to see how anyone can be of the position that DRM is a good thing for consumers be they idealistic Europeans or xenophobic American capitalistic lackeys.
Some people might be saying that DRM is not good,
but it is less bad than some other alternatives (e.g.
downloading tunes illegally, having Apple close down the
Comments
BTW: I wonder what the IT policies of those European Governments involved require their Government Departments to use in the way of PCs; surely we won't find any of them restricting them to Windows-only PCs will we? Now that would be anti-competitive!
Governments cannot make other governments submit to their anti-trust laws -- that would violate the commonly accepted international law of sovereignty. (Ever wonder why entitites like OPEC haven't been busted?)
And, no government will hold itself accountable.
So, your argument is moot, I am afraid.
Sure it's going to hurt apple's little ecosystem, but then again, evolution is still widely held to be a self-evident truth in Europe, and in the end the fittest mp3 player will survive. And I personally have no doubt which that will be.
This will be a fight to the death. I don't see Apple relenting on this one bit.
Don't be so sure. People said the same when the US dropped its suit against Microsoft, but the EU persisted (and does so to this day). And, MSFT tried its best to play hardball with the EU.
But it looks like Vista is finally going to play by the EU rules -- i.e., even Ballmer seems to have relented.
This will become an EU-wide issue soon, in my judgment.
great news.
I'm not paying for songs that have built-in limits, while downloading Limewire songs or converting CD's to MP3 do not contain those limits.
DRM = punishing fair buyers = encouraging them to get songs the illegal way = bad for the industry including Apple.
People are buying more and more songs the legal way. The next step for Apple is to start trusting their (potential) customers.
And you've written a cheque to the music companies for all the songs you've downloaded? Come off it dacloo! I think you should have stopped after the 5th word!
Non purchase of songs due to DRM is a lame excuse for people who were going to steal them anyway - it doesn't affect the majority of fair buyers
(cue the usual comments about - Don't push me I'm an audiophile, bit-rate's too low, I like to configure my own audio system so I can convince myself I know what I'm doing - vote with your feet and buy the music from those common-architecture/non-DRM music stores that offer such an awesome solution, you probably get more thrill out of the chase anyway)
McD
BTW: I wonder what the IT policies of those European Governments involved require their Government Departments to use in the way of PCs; surely we won't find any of them restricting them to Windows-only PCs will we? Now that would be anti-competitive!
You might be onto something there. International trade agreements like NAFTA (North
American Free Trade Agreement) and GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade)
include the concept of non-Tariff barriers to trade. A company can allege that a
country has a non-Tariff trade barrier and bring it before an unelected, secretive
arbitration board formed under the agreement. The board can impose penalties on
the offending country if the complaint is agreed upon. Two examples I can think of
related to NAFTA are when Ethyl Corp, who makes makes lead gasoline additives in
Canada, was denied by the US to sell their product because it violated environmental
laws; also a Mexican company, whose name escapes me at the moment, was
prevented from selling their tuna in the US because it contained too much dolphin
meat, in violation of US law. Both companies brought cases to the NAFTA board
and won. (sovereignty is not all it used to be.)
If any of the countries vexing Apple right now have non-tariff trade barriers
against Apple computers, Apple should bring a suit before the World Trade
Organization.
Don't be so sure. People said the same when the US dropped its suit against Microsoft, but the EU persisted (and does so to this day). And, MSFT tried its best to play hardball with the EU.
But it looks like Vista is finally going to play by the EU rules -- i.e., even Ballmer seems to have relented.
This will become an EU-wide issue soon, in my judgment.
But as I alluded earlier. This goes to the heart of Apple's business model. Apple makes the hardware and the software. They want to control the user experience. If itunes is forced open to work on other hardware, why not OSX? Do you think Apple will just relent to this? I'm not saying that the EU won't make an issue of this, bit I do think Apple would(will) fight this to the bitter end. It destroys the Steve Jobs' business model for Apple.
I guess it never occurred to the brilliant idiots that Apple hurts themselves by limiting what you can do with the downloads. I, for one, won't buy anything from the Apple store for that reason. The free market works, people.
Not that I would have asked, but funny how these people weren't enraged that Microsoft Widnows didn't work on Mac hardware. How about all those other software manufacturers that snub the Mac? Funny these fascists didn't force them to write a version for the Mac (again, something I wouldn't ask government to "give" me.)
Interesting notion. It makes one wonder if Microsoft's DRM works with Apple iPods. If not then we might need to go after Microsoft next...
I think both companies should be free to do business in a free market (this includes no government support for their DRM.) Nevertheless, yes, it seems out of balance.
They [Apple] want to control the user experience.
I think that was basically the thrust of MSFT's argument too -- but it failed.
And, note that the problem that the Europeans seem to have is with iTunes, not the iPod ( i.e., Apple's software, not hardware).
OS X is a different issue: It is seen as competition to Windows/Vista, and hence a source of competitive discipline for MSFT -- i.e., worthy of being preserved/protected in whatever form!
Yeah, if I want the whole album (or most of the tracks), that's the best option. But if I want only one or two tracks?
Does the concept of a minimum acceptable quality make sense to you? If 128 kbps AAC is your minimum acceptable quality, you don't what to go under that, by definition. Re-compressing 128 kbps with any lossy codec, at any bit-rate, will result in additional quality loss.
You think it's just me who doesn't like DRM?
So? I said that Apple being forced to licence FairPlay was possibly bad for Apple (I actually think it would be good for them in the long run, but that's a different debate), and definitely good for the consumer. You have failed to demonstrate otherwise.
Please explain how my reasoning implies I want things for free? I want to pay for my music, and then be able to play it on any device I choose, without having to compromise file size or quality.
Then guess what , tough luck . Before iTMS , I have to buy the whole CD to get the songs I want . After iTMS , I still have to buy CDs of artists the music store does not carry . You see , pal , common sense is the thing here . If I want a much better bitrate , I buy the CDs. If I want convenience , I go to iTMS , screw the bitrate . Does that make sense to you ?
2nd. Nobody likes DRM , that said , nobody is forcing you to buy songs in iTMS or loading DRM loaded songs in your iPod . If you don't want the damn service , check Emusic or other music sites. The iPod as well as the iTunes application will accept any music file as long it's not wma or ogg.
3rd The only winners if Apple licenses their Fairplay are the record companies. The biggest losers are both Apple and the consumers
4) You want to pay for your music and get then to play to any device you choose at the best filesize and quality ? The answer to that is very simple , get the music industry to grow up and see that DRM and other industry induced limitations on digital music downloads is a self defeating strategy . In fact , they are suffering financially as of now.
If itunes is forced open to work on other hardware, why not OSX?
Because iTunes is dominating the digital music purchase market. OSX is not dominating any market. Anti-trust means just that - taking action against companies that use their market-dominating position to squash competition. No such danger on the OS market.
And by the way, this is also the reason why the idea of appealing to the WTO is completely ridiculous. The reason the EU is taking action against Apple is because the iTunes/iPod model is limiting competition, it has nothing to do with trade barriers. As far as the Europeans are concerned, they couldn't care less whether iPods or music are imported or sold, but they have a - legitimate, I believe - concern about HOW that's done.
Again, calm down, just because it's Apple doesn't make it the gospel. I own AAPL stock and I don't mind them making more money, but I'm also a consumer who doesn't see why I shouldn't be able to play my iTunes on other devices.
Anyway whats the problem give your money to Apple. They will just keep bring us more cool products.
If you have a problem just buy else where.
If the ability for me to remove FairPlay disappears, I'll be pretty pissed.
That's the crux of the argument. The fact that Apple allows FairlyPlay to be removed means the song is not locked to the iPod forever.
I guess it never occurred to the brilliant idiots that Apple hurts themselves by limiting what you can do with the downloads. I, for one, won't buy anything from the Apple store for that reason. The free market works, people.
Those brilliant idiots have 75% of the music download market. Can you really argue with success?
The reason the EU is taking action against Apple is because the iTunes/iPod model is limiting competition,
How exactly does iTunes or iPod limit competition?
Part 1: The license fee to other manufactuer's is 100 Million USD per year, per device model.
Part 2: The price per song for EVERYBODY on iTS is $49.99 USD per song. If you purchase an iPod, then Apple will give you an instant $49 credit towards each song that you purchase. The iPod has to be registered to the same name as the iTS account, any fraud discovered will result in any credit towards that indiviual's name being removed.
Everybody's happy, you can officially buy songs off of iTS to use on you POS player.
I think that was basically the thrust of MSFT's argument too -- but it failed.
Apple wouldn't use that as a defense against the EU, but it is the Apple business model under Steve Jobs. Remember who killed the clones? While the EU might might see Apple as a competitor to Windows and Vista and not initiate action against Apple in regards to OSX, what happens if Dell sues Apple in a European court in order to unlock OSX? Admittedly that could happen now but if the Eu were to succeed against Apple in iTunes that would seem to be a strong legal precedent and might embolden someone like Dell. Hell Michael Dell might do it just to spite Steve Jobs.
Because iTunes is dominating the digital music purchase market. OSX is not dominating any market. Anti-trust means just that - taking action against companies that use their market-dominating position to squash competition. No such danger on the OS market.
And by the way, this is also the reason why the idea of appealing to the WTO is completely ridiculous. The reason the EU is taking action against Apple is because the iTunes/iPod model is limiting competition, it has nothing to do with trade barriers. As far as the Europeans are concerned, they couldn't care less whether iPods or music are imported or sold, but they have a - legitimate, I believe - concern about HOW that's done.
Again, calm down, just because it's Apple doesn't make it the gospel. I own AAPL stock and I don't mind them making more money, but I'm also a consumer who doesn't see why I shouldn't be able to play my iTunes on other devices.
I mentioned the WTO in the context of another post which referenced the possibility that
some countries might have rules requiring the use of Windows computers, to the exclusion
of Apple computers. I did not make any statement about the WTO in the context of
iTunes, although, since you brought it up, I think consumer laws which limit the ability
of companies to trade internationally might actually be considered non-tariff barriers
to trade. (not saying I agree with it, quite the contrary I prefer each country to make
its own laws.) However, if the European countries in question are signatories to GATT,
they should take their obligations under the treaty into account (or better still repeal
their support of it)
Again, as many have already pointed out, you ARE able to play your iTunes on other
devices. It is just not as convenient as playing them on Apple devices.
I agree that this if being lobbied by those who simply can't compete with a great solution. And, I'm sorry, but it is typical of Europe to go after any successful american enterprise with gov't backed approaches - Airbus.
None of the people or groups in this report are backed by any government. The closest you get is the Norwegian Ombudsmen who despite being paid by Norwegian tax payers, is independent of government. Norway's government actually went as far as saying they would not investigate Apple's practices.
The rest are consumer groups with no teeth.
I fail to see how anyone can be of the position that DRM is a good thing for consumers be they idealistic Europeans or xenophobic American capitalistic lackeys.
Then guess what…
3rd … The biggest losers are … the consumers
Guess what? You have still failed to demonstrate this is true. How is buying a song on iTunes and being able to play it on any device that supports AAC worse for the consumer than only being able to play that file on an iPod?
I fail to see how anyone can be of the position that DRM is a good thing for consumers be they idealistic Europeans or xenophobic American capitalistic lackeys.
Some people might be saying that DRM is not good,
but it is less bad than some other alternatives (e.g.
downloading tunes illegally, having Apple close down the
iTunes store, having the availability of recorded
music decrease overall)