A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market= APPLE:MUSIC:ITUNES:IPOD
So you think your so-called "monopoly" is OK for a game platform but not a music player? Why do you have the double standard?
Since there are plenty of providers of music content and plenty of providers of music players, then ipod/itunes does NOT fit the definition you just gave. You seem to think that big market share constitutes a monopoly, even though the definition you posted says otherwise.
If you don't like the ipod/itunes relationship, there are plenty of other music players you can buy and plenty of other sources of music. Why waste the effort on incessant online complaining, why don't you just buy a different player and get on with your life?
A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market= APPLE:MUSIC:ITUNES:IPOD
Or...microsoft, music, windows media player, zune? Or random company x, music, random jukebox software y, random player z? That's a bad definition, and really not the question at all. The question isn't so much that Apple has a monopoly on the music market, or even digital music market. They don't. You can buy thousands of devices that will play music from CDs or stolen music or hundreds of online stores. Going back to the telephone analogy, the problem there was that you had to buy a telephone and service from Bell to make a phone call. You don't have to buy an iPod from Apple to listen to music.
The question is whether Apple is being anti-competitive in its practices and deliberately shutting out other devices and content providers from its industry-leading itunes or ipod platform with the intent of creating a monopoly.
Apple has a pretty good case that they're not anti-competitive, they just make a better product than everyone else, given:
a) the music industry is forcing them to lock iTMS-bought songs to iTunes and the iPod, and every other online store with DRM locks music to a certain type of player. iTunes is one of the few stores that lets you burn CDs from these songs, rendering them DRM-free and transportable to another system of your choosing at a later date. Jobs has also repeatedly said that he would like to get rid of DRM altogether if the industry would let him, which lead to;
b) iTunes plus, now provided at no extra charge, proving that it would be the music companies who would have to be deemed anti-competitive, not Apple.
c) Also consider that nearly any unlocked audio file can be put on to the iPod, some with conversion to another unlocked format, but most natively. This means you can buy music on a CD from any retailer that sells them, steal music or buy music from any retailer that sells downloads in a compatible format. Those stores can even install music directly into iTunes a la Amazon's new service. And it's not like Apple is unfairly licensing those compatible formats, because MP3, AAC, AIFF, etc. are all compatible. This means no one, not even the pirates, are locked out of the iPod. Some formats aren't supported, but several are, and most of them aren't even licensed by Apple.
So when you look at it...no one is forced to buy an iPod in the first place. There are thousands of other music players. No one is forced to buy music from the iTunes store, there are thousands of retailers and competing online stores to choose from that are compatible with the iPod. Finally, no one is locked into Apple once they buy music from the iTMS. You can put music from the iTMS on other players and use it with other software jukeboxes, you just have to burn it to a CD and re-rip it first. This isn't Apple's doing, it's the record companies which are choosing to provide their content with DRM (and not in the iTunes plus model), making it harder for the consumer.
The only argument someone might have is that Apple is forcing people to use iTunes software to manage their iPod, thus excluding competitors who sell competing software packages (though this isn't entirely true, see my other post in this thread), and that only the iPod is compatible with iTunes, not other players. iTunes also excludes other stores from selling content directly in iTunes, but as was previously discussed, no store is actually excluded from selling content that is compatible with iTunes and the iPod. In fact, competitors can seamlessly place their music into iTunes like Amazon is doing. I'm not a legal expert, so I don't know how you would evaluate the above claims. My guess is that you wouldn't get very far along the competing stores line because Apple has the right to package software the way they want to as long as they don't limit the ability of other competing stores to interoperate with it. As far as a monopoly goes, the closest Apple comes is the claim that iTunes only works with the iPod - but again, seeing how music from iTunes and the iTMS is completely portable and it would be impossible for Apple to incorporate third-party drivers and the kind of custom-engineered easy syncing tools for every MP3 player on the market, there probably isn't much to go on there, either.
The disturbing aspect of the Schiller video is that Schiller needs handlers to defuse the situation. A situation where Schiller is obviously disturbed. One would think that Schiller would be better able to handle himself given his position in Apple? You cannot hide behind lawyers and handlers all your life.
Cut the guy some slack. In his position most people wouldn't have been as nice and would have melted down. You need people to do the dirty work in a company that size. I think he handled well and he genuinely seemed to have the look that he answered the question earlier.
So you think your so-called "monopoly" is OK for a game platform but not a music player? Why do you have the double standard?
Since there are plenty of providers of music content and plenty of providers of music players, then ipod/itunes does NOT fit the definition you just gave. You seem to think that big market share constitutes a monopoly, even though the definition you posted says otherwise.
If you don't like the ipod/itunes relationship, there are plenty of other music players you can buy and plenty of other sources of music. Why waste the effort on incessant online complaining, why don't you just buy a different player and get on with your life?
Who's complaining? Who said I don't like ipods or itunes or their relationship? And I never stated that it's Ok for a game platform! I just stated that it's a monopoly and Apple's been lucky to get away for it for so long.
Get your facts straight and stop WHINING that it's not a monopoly when it is.
And I never stated that it's Ok for a game platform! I just stated that it's a monopoly and Apple's been lucky to get away for it for so long.
The point is there is nothing monopolistic about iTunes/iPod. You, like the other wags and misinformed people, are witchhunting Apple because they are successful, not because they illegally destroyed competition like MS did with Netscape.
Huh? That's ridiculous. Meltdown? Nice? So manners are not requisite when you get to Phil's position? LOL
I am in that corporate world and yes, most people can't handle positions and the pressures because they are on edge about to crack. Think of the pressure a person in his same position like Intel, MS, Wal-Mart, etc. has. If you think it is a big party for him, I would think maybe Phil has a great time at work because of his situation, but it can't be the easy life all the time. I imagine Steve himself gets pissed quite a bit dealing with the music industry and such.
Let's face it, people get pushed into positions like that all the time they don't belong in or don't want (i.e. see Adobe's guy stepping down, they shoved that man into the spot). It happens everyday and everyday some poor person handles a situation wrong and causes bad PR causing more grief for themselves in their work and personal lives.
At the end of the day, people are people, and most people can't handle people coming at them in an attacking way trying to twist words. It is easy to get flustered and loose your composure in a situation like that.
I am in that corporate world and yes, most people can't handle positions and the pressures because they are on edge about to crack. Think of the pressure a person in his same position like Intel, MS, Wal-Mart, etc. has. If you think it is a big party for him, I would think maybe Phil has a great time at work because of his situation, but it can't be the easy life all the time. I imagine Steve himself gets pissed quite a bit dealing with the music industry and such.
Let's face it, people get pushed into positions like that all the time they don't belong in or don't want (i.e. see Adobe's guy stepping down, they shoved that man into the spot). It happens everyday and everyday some poor person handles a situation wrong and causes bad PR causing more grief for themselves in their work and personal lives.
At the end of the day, people are people, and most people can't handle people coming at them in an attacking way trying to twist words. It is easy to get flustered and loose your composure in a situation like that.
Having myself been groomed in two major international corporations, Phil is going have to do more to keep getting paid the big bucks. Investors, like myself, expect more. No pity for Phil here, as he is assigned to make money (the credo of the corporation), and had better answer the call. I cannot see Phil replacing Jobs if something were to happen to Jobs.
You sound compassionate, and I applaud you for it, but corporations could care less about compassion.
Having myself been groomed in two major international corporations, Phil is going have to do more to keep getting paid the big bucks. Investors, like myself, expect more. No pity for Phil here, as he is assigned to make money (the credo of the corporation), and had better answer the call. I cannot see Phil replacing Jobs if something were to happen to Jobs.
You sound compassionate, and I applaud you for it, but corporations could care less about compassion.
I don't disagree with you as I too have a vested interest as an Apple stockholder. But with Phil, it is a little different because he is a loveable icon to the Apple fan base that has been around since the beginning.
As investors, we don't care who gets fired or replaced as long as the best job gets done, but we both know that does not happen a majority of the time to people who have "put in their time" for a company with a history like Apple's. It payday for these guys and they want the glory and the money while the getting is good.
Comments
music is music, IDIOT- GAMES ARE NOT.
YOU PROBABLY THINK MONOPOLY IS A BOARD GAME!
FYI:
A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market= APPLE:MUSIC:ITUNES:IPOD
So you think your so-called "monopoly" is OK for a game platform but not a music player? Why do you have the double standard?
Since there are plenty of providers of music content and plenty of providers of music players, then ipod/itunes does NOT fit the definition you just gave. You seem to think that big market share constitutes a monopoly, even though the definition you posted says otherwise.
If you don't like the ipod/itunes relationship, there are plenty of other music players you can buy and plenty of other sources of music. Why waste the effort on incessant online complaining, why don't you just buy a different player and get on with your life?
music is music, IDIOT- GAMES ARE NOT.
YOU PROBABLY THINK MONOPOLY IS A BOARD GAME!
FYI:
A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market= APPLE:MUSIC:ITUNES:IPOD
Or...microsoft, music, windows media player, zune? Or random company x, music, random jukebox software y, random player z? That's a bad definition, and really not the question at all. The question isn't so much that Apple has a monopoly on the music market, or even digital music market. They don't. You can buy thousands of devices that will play music from CDs or stolen music or hundreds of online stores. Going back to the telephone analogy, the problem there was that you had to buy a telephone and service from Bell to make a phone call. You don't have to buy an iPod from Apple to listen to music.
The question is whether Apple is being anti-competitive in its practices and deliberately shutting out other devices and content providers from its industry-leading itunes or ipod platform with the intent of creating a monopoly.
Apple has a pretty good case that they're not anti-competitive, they just make a better product than everyone else, given:
a) the music industry is forcing them to lock iTMS-bought songs to iTunes and the iPod, and every other online store with DRM locks music to a certain type of player. iTunes is one of the few stores that lets you burn CDs from these songs, rendering them DRM-free and transportable to another system of your choosing at a later date. Jobs has also repeatedly said that he would like to get rid of DRM altogether if the industry would let him, which lead to;
b) iTunes plus, now provided at no extra charge, proving that it would be the music companies who would have to be deemed anti-competitive, not Apple.
c) Also consider that nearly any unlocked audio file can be put on to the iPod, some with conversion to another unlocked format, but most natively. This means you can buy music on a CD from any retailer that sells them, steal music or buy music from any retailer that sells downloads in a compatible format. Those stores can even install music directly into iTunes a la Amazon's new service. And it's not like Apple is unfairly licensing those compatible formats, because MP3, AAC, AIFF, etc. are all compatible. This means no one, not even the pirates, are locked out of the iPod. Some formats aren't supported, but several are, and most of them aren't even licensed by Apple.
So when you look at it...no one is forced to buy an iPod in the first place. There are thousands of other music players. No one is forced to buy music from the iTunes store, there are thousands of retailers and competing online stores to choose from that are compatible with the iPod. Finally, no one is locked into Apple once they buy music from the iTMS. You can put music from the iTMS on other players and use it with other software jukeboxes, you just have to burn it to a CD and re-rip it first. This isn't Apple's doing, it's the record companies which are choosing to provide their content with DRM (and not in the iTunes plus model), making it harder for the consumer.
The only argument someone might have is that Apple is forcing people to use iTunes software to manage their iPod, thus excluding competitors who sell competing software packages (though this isn't entirely true, see my other post in this thread), and that only the iPod is compatible with iTunes, not other players. iTunes also excludes other stores from selling content directly in iTunes, but as was previously discussed, no store is actually excluded from selling content that is compatible with iTunes and the iPod. In fact, competitors can seamlessly place their music into iTunes like Amazon is doing. I'm not a legal expert, so I don't know how you would evaluate the above claims. My guess is that you wouldn't get very far along the competing stores line because Apple has the right to package software the way they want to as long as they don't limit the ability of other competing stores to interoperate with it. As far as a monopoly goes, the closest Apple comes is the claim that iTunes only works with the iPod - but again, seeing how music from iTunes and the iTMS is completely portable and it would be impossible for Apple to incorporate third-party drivers and the kind of custom-engineered easy syncing tools for every MP3 player on the market, there probably isn't much to go on there, either.
The disturbing aspect of the Schiller video is that Schiller needs handlers to defuse the situation. A situation where Schiller is obviously disturbed. One would think that Schiller would be better able to handle himself given his position in Apple? You cannot hide behind lawyers and handlers all your life.
Cut the guy some slack. In his position most people wouldn't have been as nice and would have melted down. You need people to do the dirty work in a company that size. I think he handled well and he genuinely seemed to have the look that he answered the question earlier.
So you think your so-called "monopoly" is OK for a game platform but not a music player? Why do you have the double standard?
Since there are plenty of providers of music content and plenty of providers of music players, then ipod/itunes does NOT fit the definition you just gave. You seem to think that big market share constitutes a monopoly, even though the definition you posted says otherwise.
If you don't like the ipod/itunes relationship, there are plenty of other music players you can buy and plenty of other sources of music. Why waste the effort on incessant online complaining, why don't you just buy a different player and get on with your life?
Who's complaining? Who said I don't like ipods or itunes or their relationship? And I never stated that it's Ok for a game platform! I just stated that it's a monopoly and Apple's been lucky to get away for it for so long.
Get your facts straight and stop WHINING that it's not a monopoly when it is.
And I never stated that it's Ok for a game platform! I just stated that it's a monopoly and Apple's been lucky to get away for it for so long.
The point is there is nothing monopolistic about iTunes/iPod. You, like the other wags and misinformed people, are witchhunting Apple because they are successful, not because they illegally destroyed competition like MS did with Netscape.
Get your facts straight and stop WHINING that it's not a monopoly when it is.
Facts? Don't try and confuse us with the facts!
In his position most people wouldn't have been as nice and would have melted down.
Huh? That's ridiculous. Meltdown? Nice? So manners are not requisite when you get to Phil's position? LOL
Huh? That's ridiculous. Meltdown? Nice? So manners are not requisite when you get to Phil's position? LOL
I am in that corporate world and yes, most people can't handle positions and the pressures because they are on edge about to crack. Think of the pressure a person in his same position like Intel, MS, Wal-Mart, etc. has. If you think it is a big party for him, I would think maybe Phil has a great time at work because of his situation, but it can't be the easy life all the time. I imagine Steve himself gets pissed quite a bit dealing with the music industry and such.
Let's face it, people get pushed into positions like that all the time they don't belong in or don't want (i.e. see Adobe's guy stepping down, they shoved that man into the spot). It happens everyday and everyday some poor person handles a situation wrong and causes bad PR causing more grief for themselves in their work and personal lives.
At the end of the day, people are people, and most people can't handle people coming at them in an attacking way trying to twist words. It is easy to get flustered and loose your composure in a situation like that.
I am in that corporate world and yes, most people can't handle positions and the pressures because they are on edge about to crack. Think of the pressure a person in his same position like Intel, MS, Wal-Mart, etc. has. If you think it is a big party for him, I would think maybe Phil has a great time at work because of his situation, but it can't be the easy life all the time. I imagine Steve himself gets pissed quite a bit dealing with the music industry and such.
Let's face it, people get pushed into positions like that all the time they don't belong in or don't want (i.e. see Adobe's guy stepping down, they shoved that man into the spot). It happens everyday and everyday some poor person handles a situation wrong and causes bad PR causing more grief for themselves in their work and personal lives.
At the end of the day, people are people, and most people can't handle people coming at them in an attacking way trying to twist words. It is easy to get flustered and loose your composure in a situation like that.
Having myself been groomed in two major international corporations, Phil is going have to do more to keep getting paid the big bucks. Investors, like myself, expect more. No pity for Phil here, as he is assigned to make money (the credo of the corporation), and had better answer the call. I cannot see Phil replacing Jobs if something were to happen to Jobs.
You sound compassionate, and I applaud you for it, but corporations could care less about compassion.
Having myself been groomed in two major international corporations, Phil is going have to do more to keep getting paid the big bucks. Investors, like myself, expect more. No pity for Phil here, as he is assigned to make money (the credo of the corporation), and had better answer the call. I cannot see Phil replacing Jobs if something were to happen to Jobs.
You sound compassionate, and I applaud you for it, but corporations could care less about compassion.
I don't disagree with you as I too have a vested interest as an Apple stockholder. But with Phil, it is a little different because he is a loveable icon to the Apple fan base that has been around since the beginning.
As investors, we don't care who gets fired or replaced as long as the best job gets done, but we both know that does not happen a majority of the time to people who have "put in their time" for a company with a history like Apple's. It payday for these guys and they want the glory and the money while the getting is good.
But with Phil, it is a little different because he is a loveable icon to the Apple fan base that has been around since the beginning.
If ever there was a lovable Apple icon my vote has and will remain with Woz as he was the beginning!