I also think it's time for stockholders to band together and sue the plaintiffs and their lawyers for affecting the stock price and losing me money with bullshit lawsuits. These assholes push all the time to get something they don't deserve, it's time to push back
It is possible that doing that might run afoul of anti-SLAPP suit statutes.
On the other hand, Apple does indeed have a rigid hardware lock-in with the video's they sell. I purchased episodes of Battlestar Galactica and I can't believe how much more restricted the DRM is for video than it is for audio. It's hard to believe I can't make a DVD of the video's I purchase in the same way I can make a CD of the audio I purchase.
That's for sure. Black Magic HDMI card with an Apple TV or second computer is one way to solve the problem though. A pretty expensive solution, but it works.
FYI, as a Mac user I cannot even Purchase Music on the Zune music store. I cannot even USE a Zune with my Mac (not that I would really want to). Microsoft created a new DRM for Zune that will not play on player's using its own Play for Sure DRM. How bright is that?
Apple has bent over backwards to be completely compatible with both Macs and PCs. In fact, one of the PC magazines commented that iTunes for Windows is one of the best programs ever written for PC- go figure!
Apple is successful because they give people what they want- an easy way to buy their music, manage it and play it. They have said many times that the iTunes Music Store is not a big money maker for them. It simply drives sales of their music players. Music purchased on iTunes with or without DRM can be converted to any format. iTunes Plus music purchases (without DRM) can be converted to MP3 by selecting the song(s) and choosing "Convert selection to MP3" from the advanced window. Their DRM protected music can be burned to CD then reimported as MP3. This is all legal and is not a big deal. You can also choose to buy CDs and change your settings under Preferences>Advanced>Importing to MP3 instead of AAC. AAC is playable on most new digital music players, just not the Fair Play protected music.
Apple is successful with their iTunes and iPods because they do things right. No one else is offering intuitive (free) software, reasonably priced music AND amazing digital music players. Apple is the only one. I am completely for competition and no one is preventing anyone from doing exactly what Apple does.
Hard to believe a class action suit regarding music sold on iTunes would succeed, given how many options there are for playing other downloaded music on the iPod, and also for converting AAC in mp3 with ITunes.
On the other hand, Apple does indeed have a rigid hardware lock-in with the video's they sell. I purchased episodes of Battlestar Galactica and I can't believe how much more restricted the DRM is for video than it is for audio. It's hard to believe I can't make a DVD of the video's I purchase in the same way I can make a CD of the audio I purchase.
But of course they have no where near a monopoly (in video), in a currently, relatively small market. So no case here either.
Apple has bent over backwards to be completely compatible with both Macs and PCs. In fact, one of the PC magazines commented that iTunes for Windows is one of the best programs ever written for PC- go figure!
iTunes on Vista works really well, especially for video. I hate to say it, but it works better than iTunes on my Mac Pro. On the Mac Pro there is a little bit of a lip sync issue where on the PC, the audio is synced up perfectly. One other thing about iTunes dual OS compatibility, I was really surprised how easily you can share content between Mac and PC. One click, done.
I think I'm going to file a class-action suit against the music labels for having a monopoly over the music. Who wants to join me? As a law-abiding citizen, why am I forced to deal DRM restrictions in the first place?
What a crock. Typical bottom dwelling scum sucking attorney behavior. Class action lawsuit. How can lawyers with no class file class action lawsuits?
it has NOTHING to do with making it better for the consumer......it's about FEES for the attorney group
just like when blockbuster was hurting customers so the attorneys get 100 million in fees and legal costs and i got a $3 coupon......it's legal extortion
why isn't zune included or any mp3 player????
what about the lawsuit to protect zune buyers from the dead MS download format (can't remember it) gee buy MS stuff and it's a complete loss. not with itunes i burn cd's from this all the time and 98% of my music is from ripped stored cd's
"Sold more" what? Tracks? CDs? CD-equivalent tracks? If it was tracks compared to CDs, you could sell more but not have higher revenues. And, were these sold in jewelboxes or as downloads? If the latter, via what outlets, considering the record companies have barely any? Anyhow, how could that account for more revenue, considering it is only 10% of overall sales, while physical CD sales fell by about the same amount? And, don't tell me it was video -- that is a small proportion of overall revenues.
The bottom line is, this article is poorly/confusingly worded, and does not say very much.
Sorry to be replying to my own post, but this article from AP, reported in the New York Times, explains it all a little better:
Basically the are suing Apple because they are too successful.
Next thing you know they will be suing the Japanese for selling better cars than the American makers.
Oh, and why haven't they sued Microsoft a long time ago for their monopoly on the OS market and the years of terrible software.
Grow up people. If you don't like Apple's products, buy the competitions. Oh, what's that, you don't like the design of the competitions? They are too hard to use. You don't like actually having to pay the artists?
This is just a thinly disguised attempt of the Music industry to try and sue back the market share that they lost to Apple. They can't compete in the open market so they resort to suing. What is this country coming to?
Al
I fully agree with this. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy iPods or use iTunes, and iTunes was not the first and only digital music store on the market. Everyone is so quick to judge Apple, saying its not "fair" because they "force" you to use one with the other. Who's forcing anything? I chose to buy an iPod and use iTunes because IT WAS BETTER THAN EVERYTHING ELSE. And when you purchase a product, you accept the terms of use. If you dont like it, buy something else!
Lately I've been seeing commercials for the new Ford cars exclusively using the the Microsoft Sync interface. Is anyone going to sue Microsoft OR Ford for FORCING me to use Sync in my car? Probably not. And I happen to think thats worse.
And back to the Protected AAC format of music. That wasnt Apple. If everyone can recall Steve Jobs letter to everyone about going DRM free, he basically outed the record labels saying they were forced into a deal with them that if they were not protected, or if their protection code was compromised, they would have 24 hours to fix it or all music catalogues from those companies would be pulled off the store. You can blame the labels for pretty much ALL the problems.
All Apple has to do is license fairplay DRM ACC's and this will all go away. The product will continue dominate reguardless.
The lawsuit is about Apple not supporting WMA-DRM, licensing FairPlay has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
That being said, Apple having by far the best solution out there does not make them above the law. If the roles were reversed and the zune and WMP were dominating the market (yes, the though made me laugh too) and making the same restrictive ties Apple is, you guys would be screaming for a anti-trust suit.
Microsoft does not make their DRM system available to anyone except Windows users. Forcing you not only to use their players, their software, and buy music from their store, but you would also have to buy their operating system. The Zune ecosystem is truly a locked-in system; you can't even move your content to a Mac if you wanted to switch. What the hell does an operating system have to do with music or movies? Absolutely nothing. This would be a clear case of locking consumers into to two completely different markets and could in fact be used to file a "monopoly" suit.
3) A versatile address book that syncs with my Mac address book
4) A calendar that syncs with iCal
5) A 3G video camera and modem
6) A great intuitive interface that is faster to navigate than an iPod
7) With my new Sony Ericsson stereo bluetooth headphones and $20 2Gig memory card, I have a great sounding music player that pauses when a phone call comes in.
HOWEVER!
I cannot play any of the music I purchased from the iTunes music store on it!
This is like me buying a book and only being able to read it in a specific location.
Come on Apple, un DRM ALL your music today, or I'm going to compete...
I have Sony Ericsson W810i that also has a media player, FM radio, camera, iCal and Address Book sync, memory card expansion, etc and here's why I absolutely can't agree with a thing you've said.
1. The media player is unstable and often freezes or refuses to play a song (instead it lets out an unpleasant buzzing noise)
2. Bugs are never fixed because the software update feature doesn't offer any updates
3. It is slow to navigate due to the lack of a click wheel or touch screen
4. It uses a proprietary headphone connector, similar to that used on SE chargers
5. It uses Sony's proprietary MemoryStick cards
I can also think of other reasons why your arguments don't hold up against the iPod and in particular the iPod Touch or the iPhone.
1. All iPods sync with Address Book and iCal and they do a better job of it than any Sony Ericsson phone (you don't even need iSync)
2. You talk about an intuitive interface when in fact the interface borrows heavily from the original iPod interface in terms of navigating menus but lacks an easy way to scroll quickly through long lists
3. Any iPod but in particular the Touch and the iPhone are by far more intuitive than any SE phone's media player
4. Apple provides regular software updates and adds features, SE doesn't
5. SE phones do support AAC in it's unprotected form and therefore tracks bought off iTunes do work on the phone. Protected tracks do not work for the clear and obvious reasons stated above. Let's see your phone play protected WMA
6. The iPhone also pauses your music when you receive a call and, funnily enough, allows you to use a Bluetooth headset
The only plus points you can boast about on your phone are the video camera (would love to know how often you seriously use it though), 3G (what about your browser? hold on, it sucks!), FM radio (LOL!), 3MP instead of the iPhone's 2MP (fair enough, I'll give you that one).
Do you have wireless btw?
Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion but I find it hard to believe you can actually defend a Symbian OS and media player over the latest iPods. In my eyes that's pushing it.
There are so many inaccuracies and half truth's in this class action complaint that one must really wonder if the chief plaintiff Stacie Somers and her representing lawyer Helen Zeldes actually understand how the Apple Store and the iPod work and how the various music file formats and sources inter-relate!
Many of the replies above, too many to mention, point out the many "holes" in their arguments so I won't take up space and restate them here. If the plaintiff and attorney really understood the subject matter, they wouldn't have filed the complaint. Rather than attacking Apple, these ladies are just publicly humiliating themselves - too bad. One needs to think these things through BEFORE you act.
The lawsuit basically lists three complaints: iPods not supporting WMA, it's overpriced and the FairPlay DRM on iTunes Music Store purchases.
The first argument is mind-bogglingly stupid. WMA is a closed, proprietary format that is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft charges a licensing fee for any software or hardware devices that are to support it. The plaintiff's argument is that, because Apple can afford this licensing fee, they have an obligation to pay it. This is absolutely ridiculous. If I invent some new proprietary audio format and charge $80,000 for it, can I sue Apple to force them to buy it? I should hope not. WMA licensing is a product. Forcing a company to buy a product from another company (especially a competitor in the very market the suit is about) is a terrible, anti-competitive idea. I can't believe any self-respecting lawyer would file this. At any rate, there is clearly no obligation for Apple to support any particular features for their iPods other than the ones they advertise it as supporting.
The article mentions that ONE model of the iPod as ONE chip that theoretically supports WMA. Aside from the obvious issues of continuity (Apple would clearly want to add the feature to all iPods if any of them, not just one low-end model) and the other components such as software that are involved, even if one imagines that all iPods could support WMA, Apple would still have to spend money for the license to support it. Sure, Apple *could* afford this. This does not mean they are obligated to. Hell, they could afford to build in FM tuners to iPod Classics too, but guess what? It's up to them to decide which features to pay to implement, and it's up to consumers to decide whether the feature set being offered meets their needs or not.
The second argument is also pretty idiotic. ALL technology companies charge higher markups for higher-end products. Never mind the fact that iPod Shuffles use very specific Flash modules, not commodity parts. They are not abusing their market power in their Shuffle pricing; it's pretty standard practice to charge a premium for higher storage space on media devices, and plenty of other companies do it, too. At any rate, given that there are tons of alternatives (albeit not very popular) available, high prices is the exact OPPOSITE of anti-competitive practices. If Apple slashed their margins to price their iProducts much lower, this would be using their market clout to force out competition. By supposedly raising their prices, they have created a niche market for value-seekers and allowed other media players to survive.
The third argument is the closest to valid, but it still falls quite short. There is nothing illegal about producing and selling proprietary formats. Just because multiples stores have chosen to license WMA doesn't make it any more open than FairPlay; if Apple is breaking the law somehow with FairPlay, so is every single WMA-selling service. Apple offers all the content that the content providers will allow in unrestricted MP3 format as well; FairPlay was a result of negotiations with the big labels. I haven't heard of any competitors asking to implement FairPlay and being denied the opportunity to license it for a reasonable rate. Finally, FairPlay allows customers to burn a CD and re-rip it as unrestricted MP3 tracks, which will play on any player that supports the most common open format.
Finally, this is more of an ethical argument than a legal one, but it has bearings on the label of monopoly: Apple hasn't stolen any business from other companies in the market. In fact, it's quite the opposite; other companies' sales have increased over the past few years since Apple started growing the market rapidly. If Apple were a small player in the market, none of these arguments would apply. The only difference between Apple and smaller proprietary solutions is that a lot of customers have decided that they like Apple's products and have therefore purchased them. Why should they have to fight the labels to open up their DRM more to help their competitors?
I never said they weren't playable on non-iPods players. I was merely proving that DRM is not the issue.
And my point is that Apple is perfectly fine selling music without DRMs that are playable on any player. The record companies are the people who are guilty of restrictions in the iPod/iTunes ecosystem. If you have an iPod, you are only obliged to use the iTunes software, which is free, but you are not obliged to buy your music through iTunes. You can buy CDs, through Amazon's DRM-free music download service, convert your LPs to digital form, or obtain music in some illegal fashion if one chooses to do that. Apple would love to have iTunes music DRM-free, but it's the record companies that are making the restriction. Apple is not responsible for supporting other people's products and therefore shouldn't have to support anybody else's DRMs if they don't want to and they shouldn't have to license their DRM which was designed for use with their products.
Megapixels in a camera phone is a useless spec anyway. A one megapixel photo from my five year old dedicated P&S camera will likely beat anything that puts out.
more evidence of the new american way. if you cann't develop a product capable of competing with industry leaders, sue them! This is just more proof america has way to many useless lawyers with nothing to do.
Comments
Are the non-DRM files from iTunes playable on non-iPod players? No, that is not the real issue.
YES! iTune's DRM-free files ARE playable on non-iPod players. iTunes even lets you convert the format!
Check your facts!
I also think it's time for stockholders to band together and sue the plaintiffs and their lawyers for affecting the stock price and losing me money with bullshit lawsuits. These assholes push all the time to get something they don't deserve, it's time to push back
It is possible that doing that might run afoul of anti-SLAPP suit statutes.
(strategic lawsuit against public participation)
HOWEVER!
I cannot play any of the music I purchased from the iTunes music store on it!
So, um, don't buy your music at the iTunes store?
On the other hand, Apple does indeed have a rigid hardware lock-in with the video's they sell. I purchased episodes of Battlestar Galactica and I can't believe how much more restricted the DRM is for video than it is for audio. It's hard to believe I can't make a DVD of the video's I purchase in the same way I can make a CD of the audio I purchase.
That's for sure. Black Magic HDMI card with an Apple TV or second computer is one way to solve the problem though. A pretty expensive solution, but it works.
Apple has bent over backwards to be completely compatible with both Macs and PCs. In fact, one of the PC magazines commented that iTunes for Windows is one of the best programs ever written for PC- go figure!
Apple is successful because they give people what they want- an easy way to buy their music, manage it and play it. They have said many times that the iTunes Music Store is not a big money maker for them. It simply drives sales of their music players. Music purchased on iTunes with or without DRM can be converted to any format. iTunes Plus music purchases (without DRM) can be converted to MP3 by selecting the song(s) and choosing "Convert selection to MP3" from the advanced window. Their DRM protected music can be burned to CD then reimported as MP3. This is all legal and is not a big deal. You can also choose to buy CDs and change your settings under Preferences>Advanced>Importing to MP3 instead of AAC. AAC is playable on most new digital music players, just not the Fair Play protected music.
Apple is successful with their iTunes and iPods because they do things right. No one else is offering intuitive (free) software, reasonably priced music AND amazing digital music players. Apple is the only one. I am completely for competition and no one is preventing anyone from doing exactly what Apple does.
Hard to believe a class action suit regarding music sold on iTunes would succeed, given how many options there are for playing other downloaded music on the iPod, and also for converting AAC in mp3 with ITunes.
On the other hand, Apple does indeed have a rigid hardware lock-in with the video's they sell. I purchased episodes of Battlestar Galactica and I can't believe how much more restricted the DRM is for video than it is for audio. It's hard to believe I can't make a DVD of the video's I purchase in the same way I can make a CD of the audio I purchase.
But of course they have no where near a monopoly (in video), in a currently, relatively small market. So no case here either.
Apple has bent over backwards to be completely compatible with both Macs and PCs. In fact, one of the PC magazines commented that iTunes for Windows is one of the best programs ever written for PC- go figure!
iTunes on Vista works really well, especially for video. I hate to say it, but it works better than iTunes on my Mac Pro. On the Mac Pro there is a little bit of a lip sync issue where on the PC, the audio is synced up perfectly. One other thing about iTunes dual OS compatibility, I was really surprised how easily you can share content between Mac and PC. One click, done.
What a crock. Typical bottom dwelling scum sucking attorney behavior. Class action lawsuit. How can lawyers with no class file class action lawsuits?
it has NOTHING to do with making it better for the consumer......it's about FEES for the attorney group
just like when blockbuster was hurting customers so the attorneys get 100 million in fees and legal costs and i got a $3 coupon......it's legal extortion
why isn't zune included or any mp3 player????
what about the lawsuit to protect zune buyers from the dead MS download format (can't remember it) gee buy MS stuff and it's a complete loss. not with itunes i burn cd's from this all the time and 98% of my music is from ripped stored cd's
it's trash and nothing more.
No, it does not, necessarily.
"Sold more" what? Tracks? CDs? CD-equivalent tracks? If it was tracks compared to CDs, you could sell more but not have higher revenues. And, were these sold in jewelboxes or as downloads? If the latter, via what outlets, considering the record companies have barely any? Anyhow, how could that account for more revenue, considering it is only 10% of overall sales, while physical CD sales fell by about the same amount? And, don't tell me it was video -- that is a small proportion of overall revenues.
The bottom line is, this article is poorly/confusingly worded, and does not say very much.
Sorry to be replying to my own post, but this article from AP, reported in the New York Times, explains it all a little better:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/bu...ref=technology
Basically the are suing Apple because they are too successful.
Next thing you know they will be suing the Japanese for selling better cars than the American makers.
Oh, and why haven't they sued Microsoft a long time ago for their monopoly on the OS market and the years of terrible software.
Grow up people. If you don't like Apple's products, buy the competitions. Oh, what's that, you don't like the design of the competitions? They are too hard to use. You don't like actually having to pay the artists?
This is just a thinly disguised attempt of the Music industry to try and sue back the market share that they lost to Apple. They can't compete in the open market so they resort to suing. What is this country coming to?
Al
I fully agree with this. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy iPods or use iTunes, and iTunes was not the first and only digital music store on the market. Everyone is so quick to judge Apple, saying its not "fair" because they "force" you to use one with the other. Who's forcing anything? I chose to buy an iPod and use iTunes because IT WAS BETTER THAN EVERYTHING ELSE. And when you purchase a product, you accept the terms of use. If you dont like it, buy something else!
Lately I've been seeing commercials for the new Ford cars exclusively using the the Microsoft Sync interface. Is anyone going to sue Microsoft OR Ford for FORCING me to use Sync in my car? Probably not. And I happen to think thats worse.
And back to the Protected AAC format of music. That wasnt Apple. If everyone can recall Steve Jobs letter to everyone about going DRM free, he basically outed the record labels saying they were forced into a deal with them that if they were not protected, or if their protection code was compromised, they would have 24 hours to fix it or all music catalogues from those companies would be pulled off the store. You can blame the labels for pretty much ALL the problems.
All Apple has to do is license fairplay DRM ACC's and this will all go away. The product will continue dominate reguardless.
The lawsuit is about Apple not supporting WMA-DRM, licensing FairPlay has nothing to do with it.
That being said, Apple having by far the best solution out there does not make them above the law. If the roles were reversed and the zune and WMP were dominating the market (yes, the though made me laugh too) and making the same restrictive ties Apple is, you guys would be screaming for a anti-trust suit.
Microsoft does not make their DRM system available to anyone except Windows users. Forcing you not only to use their players, their software, and buy music from their store, but you would also have to buy their operating system. The Zune ecosystem is truly a locked-in system; you can't even move your content to a Mac if you wanted to switch. What the hell does an operating system have to do with music or movies? Absolutely nothing. This would be a clear case of locking consumers into to two completely different markets and could in fact be used to file a "monopoly" suit.
...which I prefer over an iPod as it:
1) Has a built in 3Megapixel camera
2) A very good stereo FM radio
3) A versatile address book that syncs with my Mac address book
4) A calendar that syncs with iCal
5) A 3G video camera and modem
6) A great intuitive interface that is faster to navigate than an iPod
7) With my new Sony Ericsson stereo bluetooth headphones and $20 2Gig memory card, I have a great sounding music player that pauses when a phone call comes in.
HOWEVER!
I cannot play any of the music I purchased from the iTunes music store on it!
This is like me buying a book and only being able to read it in a specific location.
Come on Apple, un DRM ALL your music today, or I'm going to compete...
I have Sony Ericsson W810i that also has a media player, FM radio, camera, iCal and Address Book sync, memory card expansion, etc and here's why I absolutely can't agree with a thing you've said.
1. The media player is unstable and often freezes or refuses to play a song (instead it lets out an unpleasant buzzing noise)
2. Bugs are never fixed because the software update feature doesn't offer any updates
3. It is slow to navigate due to the lack of a click wheel or touch screen
4. It uses a proprietary headphone connector, similar to that used on SE chargers
5. It uses Sony's proprietary MemoryStick cards
I can also think of other reasons why your arguments don't hold up against the iPod and in particular the iPod Touch or the iPhone.
1. All iPods sync with Address Book and iCal and they do a better job of it than any Sony Ericsson phone (you don't even need iSync)
2. You talk about an intuitive interface when in fact the interface borrows heavily from the original iPod interface in terms of navigating menus but lacks an easy way to scroll quickly through long lists
3. Any iPod but in particular the Touch and the iPhone are by far more intuitive than any SE phone's media player
4. Apple provides regular software updates and adds features, SE doesn't
5. SE phones do support AAC in it's unprotected form and therefore tracks bought off iTunes do work on the phone. Protected tracks do not work for the clear and obvious reasons stated above. Let's see your phone play protected WMA
6. The iPhone also pauses your music when you receive a call and, funnily enough, allows you to use a Bluetooth headset
The only plus points you can boast about on your phone are the video camera (would love to know how often you seriously use it though), 3G (what about your browser? hold on, it sucks!), FM radio (LOL!), 3MP instead of the iPhone's 2MP (fair enough, I'll give you that one).
Do you have wireless btw?
Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion but I find it hard to believe you can actually defend a Symbian OS and media player over the latest iPods. In my eyes that's pushing it.
Many of the replies above, too many to mention, point out the many "holes" in their arguments so I won't take up space and restate them here. If the plaintiff and attorney really understood the subject matter, they wouldn't have filed the complaint. Rather than attacking Apple, these ladies are just publicly humiliating themselves - too bad. One needs to think these things through BEFORE you act.
YES! iTune's DRM-free files ARE playable on non-iPod players. iTunes even lets you convert the format!
Check your facts!
I never said they weren't playable on non-iPods players. I was merely proving that DRM is not the issue.
The lawsuit basically lists three complaints: iPods not supporting WMA, it's overpriced and the FairPlay DRM on iTunes Music Store purchases.
The first argument is mind-bogglingly stupid. WMA is a closed, proprietary format that is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft charges a licensing fee for any software or hardware devices that are to support it. The plaintiff's argument is that, because Apple can afford this licensing fee, they have an obligation to pay it. This is absolutely ridiculous. If I invent some new proprietary audio format and charge $80,000 for it, can I sue Apple to force them to buy it? I should hope not. WMA licensing is a product. Forcing a company to buy a product from another company (especially a competitor in the very market the suit is about) is a terrible, anti-competitive idea. I can't believe any self-respecting lawyer would file this. At any rate, there is clearly no obligation for Apple to support any particular features for their iPods other than the ones they advertise it as supporting.
The article mentions that ONE model of the iPod as ONE chip that theoretically supports WMA. Aside from the obvious issues of continuity (Apple would clearly want to add the feature to all iPods if any of them, not just one low-end model) and the other components such as software that are involved, even if one imagines that all iPods could support WMA, Apple would still have to spend money for the license to support it. Sure, Apple *could* afford this. This does not mean they are obligated to. Hell, they could afford to build in FM tuners to iPod Classics too, but guess what? It's up to them to decide which features to pay to implement, and it's up to consumers to decide whether the feature set being offered meets their needs or not.
The second argument is also pretty idiotic. ALL technology companies charge higher markups for higher-end products. Never mind the fact that iPod Shuffles use very specific Flash modules, not commodity parts. They are not abusing their market power in their Shuffle pricing; it's pretty standard practice to charge a premium for higher storage space on media devices, and plenty of other companies do it, too. At any rate, given that there are tons of alternatives (albeit not very popular) available, high prices is the exact OPPOSITE of anti-competitive practices. If Apple slashed their margins to price their iProducts much lower, this would be using their market clout to force out competition. By supposedly raising their prices, they have created a niche market for value-seekers and allowed other media players to survive.
The third argument is the closest to valid, but it still falls quite short. There is nothing illegal about producing and selling proprietary formats. Just because multiples stores have chosen to license WMA doesn't make it any more open than FairPlay; if Apple is breaking the law somehow with FairPlay, so is every single WMA-selling service. Apple offers all the content that the content providers will allow in unrestricted MP3 format as well; FairPlay was a result of negotiations with the big labels. I haven't heard of any competitors asking to implement FairPlay and being denied the opportunity to license it for a reasonable rate. Finally, FairPlay allows customers to burn a CD and re-rip it as unrestricted MP3 tracks, which will play on any player that supports the most common open format.
Finally, this is more of an ethical argument than a legal one, but it has bearings on the label of monopoly: Apple hasn't stolen any business from other companies in the market. In fact, it's quite the opposite; other companies' sales have increased over the past few years since Apple started growing the market rapidly. If Apple were a small player in the market, none of these arguments would apply. The only difference between Apple and smaller proprietary solutions is that a lot of customers have decided that they like Apple's products and have therefore purchased them. Why should they have to fight the labels to open up their DRM more to help their competitors?
The second argument is also pretty idiotic. ALL technology companies charge higher markups for higher-end products.
Good point. Look at Vista and all its different versions.
Recommended retail prices for full versions:
Windows Vista Home Basic -- $199.95
Windows Vista Home Premium -- $239.95
Windows Vista Ultimate -- $399.95
I never said they weren't playable on non-iPods players. I was merely proving that DRM is not the issue.
And my point is that Apple is perfectly fine selling music without DRMs that are playable on any player. The record companies are the people who are guilty of restrictions in the iPod/iTunes ecosystem. If you have an iPod, you are only obliged to use the iTunes software, which is free, but you are not obliged to buy your music through iTunes. You can buy CDs, through Amazon's DRM-free music download service, convert your LPs to digital form, or obtain music in some illegal fashion if one chooses to do that. Apple would love to have iTunes music DRM-free, but it's the record companies that are making the restriction. Apple is not responsible for supporting other people's products and therefore shouldn't have to support anybody else's DRMs if they don't want to and they shouldn't have to license their DRM which was designed for use with their products.
...which I prefer over an iPod as it:
1) Has a built in 3Megapixel camera
Megapixels in a camera phone is a useless spec anyway. A one megapixel photo from my five year old dedicated P&S camera will likely beat anything that puts out.