If you know something about law you would see this is a very ignorant comment. There are a number of ways you can be anti-competetive according to law and still offer (some) freedom to customers.
I never said that! The part of using anti-competitive practices, is about not making *extra efforts* to block competition, which is the case here. Palm made an effort, small but still, made the effort, to let consumers use their music etc, which users rightfully own after spending money i ITunes Store. To block this is by part of the definition anti-competetive.
Yes, **I** did understand! This is not about me but about the average consumer. I know I can hack the ITunes library if I want and export all contents. I also only own IPhone so there is no need. I would never buy a Pre. This is not about Pre. It is about freedom and anti-competetive practices.
But, this is the key thing, when the average consumer "buys" music from ITunes then he/she is not "buying" in the generally accepted meaning of the word. The property rights are greatly diminished due to the low utility implemented by Apple thinking in the long term. A lot of consumers are not informed of this. As a side note, the EULA is over 100 pages long and completely invalid nonsense under many EU-countries law. This could only have been written by ignorant US lawyers.
If I knew something about the law, please enlighten us with a factual evidence of what you are stating, since I am ignorant. You better make sure you provide a link. Btw We are talking EU law correct?
Make sure it shows that Apple are being anti-competitive, since that what your opinion is.
Of course Apple would like to have their ITunes exclusive for their products! And, they may have certain right to this (according to law in most countries) but when the ITunes becomes a large monopoly (in part because they force all users of ipods/iphones to use any software you want as long as it is the slow an grand ITunes hog...) then authorities will force them to stop! Why? It is uncompetetive behaviour and illegal!
Quote:
Still I thing palm should use all the power, force and ingenuity they can muster to crack the monopolistic anti-competetive apple tactics!
(emphasis added)
Is iTunes a monopoly? Serious question.
Up until a couple of years ago iTunes was designed to sync with just Portable Media Players, namely iPods. Today iTunes can also sync with media playing cell phones, namely the iPhone and occasionally the Palm Pre.
In order for a product to be deemed a monopoly, you first have to define the relevant market. So what is the market? I guess it would be 'software that syncs a computer to a portable media device'.
So....
How many MP3 players or PMP's DON'T use iTunes to sync with a computer.
How many media capable "smart" phones DON'T use iTunes to sync.
How many media capable NON "smart" phones DON'T use iTunes to sync.
In the US, every year, are there MORE PMPs and cell phones sold that are NOT Apple products... or LESS?
How many computers have Windows Media Player installed?
How many computers have iTunes installed?
Quote:
In the end they will be forced by law and then they will look very stupid!
If I knew something about the law, please enlighten us with a factual evidence of what you are stating, since I am ignorant. You better make sure you provide a link. Btw We are talking EU law correct?
Make sure it shows that Apple are being anti-competitive, since that what your opinion is.
In the case of Palm/Apple it would be US Anti-trust law but EU law could be applicable too. I suggest you start by reading about anti-trust law. Wikipedia has a general introduction.
Particularly study the Tying chapter for EU Article 82:
The issue to Apple ITunes is about being the "Dominant" in IPods and "tying" both markets of "selling music" and secondary "selling PC music players" (which of course every one does for free) to the first.
what if it's your drunken neighbour who missed his driveway?
shooting a burglar is not necessarily equivalent to 'shoot first, ask questions later'. I find it rather comforting that, despite the hyperbole, most gun owners are keenly aware of the consequences of an unjustified killing: They go to prison. American law generally does not give a blank check to violent defense of one's home, but neither does it force people to decide between going to prison and (for example) being raped or murdered by an intruder. Reason USUALLY wins the day. Despite the very visible exceptions.
Case in point: A college student recently confronted an intruder in his garage. The intruder lunged for the student, who defended himself with a sword he had brought with him to investigate the noises. The intruder's hand was severed, and he suffered 'severe lacerations' to the chest. He died at the scene. It was discovered that the intruder was a long time offender, with many convictions for violent crimes. However, despite the fact that the student acted in self defense against a known criminal who was a real threat, the local prosecutor's office declined to initially RULE OUT filing charges against him. They wanted a thorough investigation done before they decided. Reason wins.
Funny how Apple won't get a cease and desist order again Palm- do something legally rather than cat and mouse. Maybe Apple realizes as others have posted that they would loose.
In the case of Palm/Apple it would be US Anti-trust law but EU law could be applicable too. I suggest you start by reading about anti-trust law. Wikipedia has a general introduction.
Particularly study the Tying chapter for EU Article 82:
The issue to Apple ITunes is about being the "Dominant" in IPods and "tying" both markets of "selling music" and secondary "selling PC music players" (which of course every one does for free) to the first.
I have cut and paste the quote (see below), so everyone can read it and understand that this guy is using factual evidence, which does not supports is opinions, actually their explain, he does not understand the law.
So how does Apple have monopoly and abuse their dominance in market, since I do not want to put words in your mouth, but you have used this quote. They have not stopped anyone from syncing with their iTunes library, you must write your own program, as someone has stated there are choices too many for consumers.
P.S. Maybe just maybe your the one that is ignorant of the law and using laws you do not understand or know how to interrupt. Lastly please show us how your last 2 links are similarly to what Apple is undertaking in marketplace, since I like to see how you choose to link the two situations using those factual evidence.
I personally think, you do not know what you are talking about and it is simple, PALM or anyone had a case against APPLE, it would be in Courts by now, very simple.
Article 82 of the Treaty establishing the European Community is aimed at preventing undertakings who hold a dominant position in a market from abusing that position. Its core role is the regulation of monopolies, which restrict competition in private industry and produce worse outcomes for consumers and society. It is the second key provision, after Article 81, in EC competition law. The text of Article 82 provides the following,
“\t(1) Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States."
(2) Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
The back-and-forth battle between Palm and Apple continues, as the Pre's webOS has been updated to once again sync with iTunes, in spite of a USB-IF statement against the practice. (snip)
This will resolve itself when Apple starts getting a percentage of sales of the Pre.
But, that is not likely as it "may" impact sales of iPhone/iPods.
Some kind of "monetary" incentive "might" change the situation.
I have no problem at all with your point of view (other than the username "masstrkiller"--I'm hoping you're a gamer! ).
For the record, I've been on the barrel-end of a handgun before. NOT as a burglar, but as a carjack victim. I was at gunpoint for maybe 15 minutes before a policeman got suspicious, followed us, stopped us, and arguably saved my life. I've thought about that night many times, and i don't think if I'd had a gun in the car it would have made the situation better, unless I had it in my hand as i drove along, and as I stopped at the light where they got me. I wasn't afraid enough to be doing that before my incident, and I didn't let it make me afraid of the world after it--just cautious. I pick up far fewer hitchhikers than i did when I was young (this incident happened before the first Apple computer*), but I'll still occasionally give a stranger a ride; I lock the doors at my house but i still answer the door. I keep a bat in my bedrooms in case I hear an intruder, but I haven't made the call yet to get a handgun. Everyone's experience and judgements will be different.
Anecdote by the instructor for the concealed weapons safety class I took (mandatory before getting a ccw, here in Michigan): The instructor asked one of his gung-ho students, 'Lets suppose you have your pistol with you, and as you're walking through a dark alley, someone jumps out of the shadows, points a gun at you, and demands your money. What do you do?' The student responded, 'I'd pull out my gun and shoot him!' The instructor immediately corrected the foolish student, 'No, you'd give him your money. Because he can pull the trigger a hell of a lot faster than you can draw.' The moral of the story is that just because you have the tool to defend yourself, you won't always be able to use it. Discretion is still necessary.
I used unprecise language. It does not have to be a monopoly, but when you have a dominant market share, you have special obligations in both US and EU law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
So what is the market? I guess it would be 'software that syncs a computer to a portable media device'.
You are correct to point this out. It is very dependent on what is considered a separate market. The market where Apple rules is, as everyone know, the ipods. So the tying practice that can anti-competetive is connecting things to ipods. Like Itunes store/app store etc. Also now the size of the market "internet music selling" business of Apple is also looking dominant in terms of market share. So tying products like ipods back to ITunes is also anti competetive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
So....
How many MP3 players or PMP's DON'T use iTunes to sync with a computer.
How many media capable "smart" phones DON'T use iTunes to sync.
How many media capable NON "smart" phones DON'T use iTunes to sync.
In the US, every year, are there MORE PMPs and cell phones sold that are NOT Apple products... or LESS?
How many computers have Windows Media Player installed?
How many computers have iTunes installed?
You are right about these critical questions and again in a case it would be about defining "markets" and "dominant" players according to Apple's och Palm's views. In my view and the rest of the industry it *is* without doubt Apple that is the incumbent, looking at ipods and the universe around them! Palm's "hook" only proves this position. Otherwiser it would not be worth the effort.
A parallel that puts Apple Iphone on the other side of the bench is Exchange servers in corporations. Here Microsoft it the clear incument and they could try to block the connection to competitions clients but it will get them into court in no time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Are you absolutely sure about that?
Of course not. But I think Apple will grow (because of good engineering) and then case becomes more clear. And I think Apple, we, and the world would gain if all systems were more open. Let all PMPs buy music and sync trough Itunes store/itunes. Let all ipods/iphones have open synch interface to allow any software to interoperate on Mac/Windows/Linux/etc.
This is exactly the thought I was having. Does Palm really think they are helping their clients? If I had a Pre, why would I sync with iTunes knowing I was going to have unreliable access?
In the case of Palm/Apple it would be US Anti-trust law but EU law could be applicable too. I suggest you start by reading about anti-trust law. Wikipedia has a general introduction.
Particularly study the Tying chapter for EU Article 82:
The issue to Apple ITunes is about being the "Dominant" in IPods and "tying" both markets of "selling music" and secondary "selling PC music players" (which of course every one does for free) to the first.
You can try to compare apples to oranges (no pun intended), but there are many glaring differences that make such a comparison problematic.
The first, is that Apple isn't barring people from entering the market by using restrictive distribution agreements with other parties in the market. Microsoft used it's clout to strongarm OEMs from adding competing software on their products. Apple does not tell Dell to not put Windows Media Player on their Windows products and to only put iTunes on. It would be interesting to know if the reverse may be true. That MS discourages Dell and others like Acer from adding iTunes to their machines now that MS is desperately trying to push it's crappy Zune player again.
Apple also hasn't been introducing quirks in its software to prevent interoperability, things like AARP code, which "broke" Windows 3.0 from running on top of competing DR-DOS. And saying that checking the USB IDs for valid units and preventing synching with fakers is not the same as what Microsoft did.
You can have a monopoly in US or even EU law, it's when you abuse it when it antitrust becomes necessary. And the case against Apple has a long way to go in this regard, no matter how many people try to spin it. That's something even MS boosters fail to comprehend.
"Clearly, other companies know how to sync painlessly with iTunes music (see RIM?s Blackberry Media Sync for example), so why doesn?t Palm develop a syncing solution for their own hardware? The exact reason is unknown, but my guess is that it?s a combination of things. Perhaps Palm doesn?t have the resources to develop their own sync app. Or maybe they want some publicity. Or maybe they just want to push Apple?s buttons. Who really knows.
But I seriously question the strategy and brains of any company that ties critical product capabilities to the unsupported use of their competitor?s software. I mean, really? Can it get any more ridiculous? Can you possibly send a more mixed, less confidence- inspiring, ?we?re a bunch of hacks who can?t provide our own sync software for our products? message to customers?"
Apple never blocked anyone from accessing the xml files. Palm is not doing that better; they are masquerading as an iPod. That is like saying Pete's serves the same quality of espresso as Starbuck's because Pete's is using Starbuck's coffee, not just their recipe. I know, another torchered metaphor.
actually, I think that one qualifies as an analogy, rather than metaphor (or simile!).
"Clearly, other companies know how to sync painlessly with iTunes music (see RIM?s Blackberry Media Sync for example), so why doesn?t Palm develop a syncing solution for their own hardware? The exact reason is unknown, but my guess is that it?s a combination of things. Perhaps Palm doesn?t have the resources to develop their own sync app. Or maybe they want some publicity. Or maybe they just want to push Apple?s buttons. Who really knows.
But I seriously question the strategy and brains of any company that ties critical product capabilities to the unsupported use of their competitor?s software. I mean, really? Can it get any more ridiculous? Can you possibly send a more mixed, less confidence- inspiring, ?we?re a bunch of hacks who can?t provide our own sync software for our products? message to customers?"
Indeed.
I'd have to agree that it's ridiculously easy to do it on Mac OS. The question is how hard would it be for making one on Windows.
Personally, Palm can send me a Pre and I'll write them a nice simple Mac OS one.
So how does Apple have monopoly and abuse their dominance in market, since I do not want to put words in your mouth, but you have used this quote. They have not stopped anyone from syncing with their iTunes library, you must write your own program, as someone has stated there are choices too many for consumers.
Short answer: Itunes Music Store has a dominant market share of over 70% and they refuse to sell music to Palm Pre and any other brand.
Longer:
In fact there is evidence pointing to that they did stop the synching! First, Palm had a proceedure which did not spoof vendor ID. Apple changes something so it stopped working. Then Palm spoofed the vendor.
But I can also agree that if there are good open interfaces to ITunes then Palm could use that. I doubt there is. If so this is merely a discussion of methods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
P.S. Maybe just maybe your the one that is ignorant of the law and using laws you do not understand or know how to interrupt. Lastly please show us how your last 2 links are similarly to what Apple is undertaking in marketplace, since I like to see how you choose to link the two situations using those factual evidence.
I personally think, you do not know what you are talking about and it is simple, PALM or anyone had a case against APPLE, it would be in Courts by now, very simple.
I may be ignorant of many things. And the law is for courts to interpret. But the Microsoft vs Commision case is a direct application of Article 82 and I think it is analogous. Microsoft tied Media player into dominant Windows, and Apple ties dominant online "music selling" into ipods. I may be wrong but I think industry knows that Apple/Itunes/App Store is the dominant player and you do too. Itunes Store has more than 70% of download music market.
Short answer: Itunes Music Store has a dominant market share of over 70% and they refuse to sell music to Palm Pre and any other brand.
Are you drunk? Palm Pre users can purchase as much iTunes music as they like, just like they can from Amazon. They can drag in onto the Pre and listen to it as they wish. If you want all the advantages of an iPhone, you will just have to buy an iPhone. This is so hysterical, I will quote it again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankzero
Short answer: Itunes Music Store has a dominant market share of over 70% and they refuse to sell music to Palm Pre and any other brand.
Palm has done a great job at brainwashing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankzero
Short answer: Itunes Music Store has a dominant market share of over 70% and they refuse to sell music to Palm Pre and any other brand.
Does this propaganda appear in the box of the Pre, or do you have to go into special clinics to have it done?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankzero
Short answer: Itunes Music Store has a dominant market share of over 70% and they refuse to sell music to Palm Pre and any other brand.
Of course Apple would like to have their ITunes exclusive for their products! And, they may have certain right to this (according to law in most countries) but when the ITunes becomes a large monopoly (in part because they force all users of ipods/iphones to use any software you want as long as it is the slow an grand ITunes hog...) then authorities will force them to stop! Why? It is uncompetetive behaviour and illegal!
Just to be clear, I own 3 macs and an Iphone which are great things! Still I thing palm should use all the power, force and ingenuity they can muster to crack the monopolistic anti-competetive apple tactics!
You obviously know nothing about monopolies; Look it up. Apple developed the software, Apple built the device, there is no law that has or ever will state that they have to provide support for 3rd party devices at all.
Apple has made it clear that you can access Itunes XML database (open standard) using your own software. Protecting your patents is anti-competitive? Really? Don't you understand that beating out the competition is what companies do?
Short answer: Itunes Music Store has a dominant market share of over 70% and they refuse to sell music to Palm Pre and any other brand.
Longer:
In fact there is evidence pointing to that they did stop the synching! First, Palm had a proceedure which did not spoof vendor ID. Apple changes something so it stopped working. Then Palm spoofed the vendor.
But I can also agree that if there are good open interfaces to ITunes then Palm could use that. I doubt there is. If so this is merely a discussion of methods.
I may be ignorant of many things. And the law is for courts to interpret. But the Microsoft vs Commision case is a direct application of Article 82 and I think it is analogous. Microsoft tied Media player into dominant Windows, and Apple ties dominant online "music selling" into ipods. I may be wrong but I think industry knows that Apple/Itunes/App Store is the dominant player and you do too. Itunes Store has more than 70% of download music market.
interesting you reply to me, but forget that patrickwalker shows how bad your opinions are with concern to the evidence provided, so please explain how his opinions are inaccurate because he did a very good job in my eyes and what i wanted to say.
Btw: You told me I was ignorant of the law initially and implied that you knew it better!! so now do not not reply, the law is for courts to interpret.
If you had just provided your opinions without using the 'personal touch' of calling me ignorant, I would have let your comments go, since everyone has an opinion, but you decided that you knew best, which is not the case.
Patrickwalker said it best
'You can have a monopoly in US or even EU law, it's when you abuse it when it antitrust becomes necessary. And the case against Apple has a long way to go in this regard, no matter how many people try to spin it. That's something even MS boosters fail to comprehend.'
P.S. again provide evidence that Apple intentionally stopped Palm Pre from syncing with iTunes and it was not deemed a hack. I am not taking you at face value anymore, factual evidence please!
Comments
If you know something about law you would see this is a very ignorant comment. There are a number of ways you can be anti-competetive according to law and still offer (some) freedom to customers.
I never said that! The part of using anti-competitive practices, is about not making *extra efforts* to block competition, which is the case here. Palm made an effort, small but still, made the effort, to let consumers use their music etc, which users rightfully own after spending money i ITunes Store. To block this is by part of the definition anti-competetive.
Yes, **I** did understand! This is not about me but about the average consumer. I know I can hack the ITunes library if I want and export all contents. I also only own IPhone so there is no need. I would never buy a Pre. This is not about Pre. It is about freedom and anti-competetive practices.
But, this is the key thing, when the average consumer "buys" music from ITunes then he/she is not "buying" in the generally accepted meaning of the word. The property rights are greatly diminished due to the low utility implemented by Apple thinking in the long term. A lot of consumers are not informed of this. As a side note, the EULA is over 100 pages long and completely invalid nonsense under many EU-countries law. This could only have been written by ignorant US lawyers.
If I knew something about the law, please enlighten us with a factual evidence of what you are stating, since I am ignorant. You better make sure you provide a link. Btw We are talking EU law correct?
Make sure it shows that Apple are being anti-competitive, since that what your opinion is.
Of course Apple would like to have their ITunes exclusive for their products! And, they may have certain right to this (according to law in most countries) but when the ITunes becomes a large monopoly (in part because they force all users of ipods/iphones to use any software you want as long as it is the slow an grand ITunes hog...) then authorities will force them to stop! Why? It is uncompetetive behaviour and illegal!
Still I thing palm should use all the power, force and ingenuity they can muster to crack the monopolistic anti-competetive apple tactics!
(emphasis added)
Is iTunes a monopoly? Serious question.
Up until a couple of years ago iTunes was designed to sync with just Portable Media Players, namely iPods. Today iTunes can also sync with media playing cell phones, namely the iPhone and occasionally the Palm Pre.
In order for a product to be deemed a monopoly, you first have to define the relevant market. So what is the market? I guess it would be 'software that syncs a computer to a portable media device'.
So....
How many MP3 players or PMP's DON'T use iTunes to sync with a computer.
How many media capable "smart" phones DON'T use iTunes to sync.
How many media capable NON "smart" phones DON'T use iTunes to sync.
In the US, every year, are there MORE PMPs and cell phones sold that are NOT Apple products... or LESS?
How many computers have Windows Media Player installed?
How many computers have iTunes installed?
In the end they will be forced by law and then they will look very stupid!
Are you absolutely sure about that?
Is iTunes a monopoly? Serious question.
Of course iTunes/Apple is a monopoly. They have a monopoly on awesome software that even the most die-hard haters want to have.
If I knew something about the law, please enlighten us with a factual evidence of what you are stating, since I am ignorant. You better make sure you provide a link. Btw We are talking EU law correct?
Make sure it shows that Apple are being anti-competitive, since that what your opinion is.
In the case of Palm/Apple it would be US Anti-trust law but EU law could be applicable too. I suggest you start by reading about anti-trust law. Wikipedia has a general introduction.
Particularly study the Tying chapter for EU Article 82:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_82#Tying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...mpetition_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
The issue to Apple ITunes is about being the "Dominant" in IPods and "tying" both markets of "selling music" and secondary "selling PC music players" (which of course every one does for free) to the first.
what if it's your drunken neighbour who missed his driveway?
shooting a burglar is not necessarily equivalent to 'shoot first, ask questions later'. I find it rather comforting that, despite the hyperbole, most gun owners are keenly aware of the consequences of an unjustified killing: They go to prison. American law generally does not give a blank check to violent defense of one's home, but neither does it force people to decide between going to prison and (for example) being raped or murdered by an intruder. Reason USUALLY wins the day. Despite the very visible exceptions.
Case in point: A college student recently confronted an intruder in his garage. The intruder lunged for the student, who defended himself with a sword he had brought with him to investigate the noises. The intruder's hand was severed, and he suffered 'severe lacerations' to the chest. He died at the scene. It was discovered that the intruder was a long time offender, with many convictions for violent crimes. However, despite the fact that the student acted in self defense against a known criminal who was a real threat, the local prosecutor's office declined to initially RULE OUT filing charges against him. They wanted a thorough investigation done before they decided. Reason wins.
C
Otherwise sue, Apple -NOW.
In the case of Palm/Apple it would be US Anti-trust law but EU law could be applicable too. I suggest you start by reading about anti-trust law. Wikipedia has a general introduction.
Particularly study the Tying chapter for EU Article 82:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_82#Tying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...mpetition_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
The issue to Apple ITunes is about being the "Dominant" in IPods and "tying" both markets of "selling music" and secondary "selling PC music players" (which of course every one does for free) to the first.
I have cut and paste the quote (see below), so everyone can read it and understand that this guy is using factual evidence, which does not supports is opinions, actually their explain, he does not understand the law.
So how does Apple have monopoly and abuse their dominance in market, since I do not want to put words in your mouth, but you have used this quote. They have not stopped anyone from syncing with their iTunes library, you must write your own program, as someone has stated there are choices too many for consumers.
P.S. Maybe just maybe your the one that is ignorant of the law and using laws you do not understand or know how to interrupt. Lastly please show us how your last 2 links are similarly to what Apple is undertaking in marketplace, since I like to see how you choose to link the two situations using those factual evidence.
I personally think, you do not know what you are talking about and it is simple, PALM or anyone had a case against APPLE, it would be in Courts by now, very simple.
Article 82 of the Treaty establishing the European Community is aimed at preventing undertakings who hold a dominant position in a market from abusing that position. Its core role is the regulation of monopolies, which restrict competition in private industry and produce worse outcomes for consumers and society. It is the second key provision, after Article 81, in EC competition law. The text of Article 82 provides the following,
“\t(1) Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States."
(2) Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
The back-and-forth battle between Palm and Apple continues, as the Pre's webOS has been updated to once again sync with iTunes, in spite of a USB-IF statement against the practice. (snip)
This will resolve itself when Apple starts getting a percentage of sales of the Pre.
But, that is not likely as it "may" impact sales of iPhone/iPods.
Some kind of "monetary" incentive "might" change the situation.
I have no problem at all with your point of view (other than the username "masstrkiller"--I'm hoping you're a gamer!
For the record, I've been on the barrel-end of a handgun before. NOT as a burglar, but as a carjack victim. I was at gunpoint for maybe 15 minutes before a policeman got suspicious, followed us, stopped us, and arguably saved my life. I've thought about that night many times, and i don't think if I'd had a gun in the car it would have made the situation better, unless I had it in my hand as i drove along, and as I stopped at the light where they got me. I wasn't afraid enough to be doing that before my incident, and I didn't let it make me afraid of the world after it--just cautious. I pick up far fewer hitchhikers than i did when I was young (this incident happened before the first Apple computer*), but I'll still occasionally give a stranger a ride; I lock the doors at my house but i still answer the door. I keep a bat in my bedrooms in case I hear an intruder, but I haven't made the call yet to get a handgun. Everyone's experience and judgements will be different.
Anecdote by the instructor for the concealed weapons safety class I took (mandatory before getting a ccw, here in Michigan): The instructor asked one of his gung-ho students, 'Lets suppose you have your pistol with you, and as you're walking through a dark alley, someone jumps out of the shadows, points a gun at you, and demands your money. What do you do?' The student responded, 'I'd pull out my gun and shoot him!' The instructor immediately corrected the foolish student, 'No, you'd give him your money. Because he can pull the trigger a hell of a lot faster than you can draw.' The moral of the story is that just because you have the tool to defend yourself, you won't always be able to use it. Discretion is still necessary.
C
Is iTunes a monopoly? Serious question.
I used unprecise language. It does not have to be a monopoly, but when you have a dominant market share, you have special obligations in both US and EU law.
So what is the market? I guess it would be 'software that syncs a computer to a portable media device'.
You are correct to point this out. It is very dependent on what is considered a separate market. The market where Apple rules is, as everyone know, the ipods. So the tying practice that can anti-competetive is connecting things to ipods. Like Itunes store/app store etc. Also now the size of the market "internet music selling" business of Apple is also looking dominant in terms of market share. So tying products like ipods back to ITunes is also anti competetive.
So....
How many MP3 players or PMP's DON'T use iTunes to sync with a computer.
How many media capable "smart" phones DON'T use iTunes to sync.
How many media capable NON "smart" phones DON'T use iTunes to sync.
In the US, every year, are there MORE PMPs and cell phones sold that are NOT Apple products... or LESS?
How many computers have Windows Media Player installed?
How many computers have iTunes installed?
You are right about these critical questions and again in a case it would be about defining "markets" and "dominant" players according to Apple's och Palm's views. In my view and the rest of the industry it *is* without doubt Apple that is the incumbent, looking at ipods and the universe around them! Palm's "hook" only proves this position. Otherwiser it would not be worth the effort.
A parallel that puts Apple Iphone on the other side of the bench is Exchange servers in corporations. Here Microsoft it the clear incument and they could try to block the connection to competitions clients but it will get them into court in no time.
Are you absolutely sure about that?
Of course not. But I think Apple will grow (because of good engineering) and then case becomes more clear. And I think Apple, we, and the world would gain if all systems were more open. Let all PMPs buy music and sync trough Itunes store/itunes. Let all ipods/iphones have open synch interface to allow any software to interoperate on Mac/Windows/Linux/etc.
In the case of Palm/Apple it would be US Anti-trust law but EU law could be applicable too. I suggest you start by reading about anti-trust law. Wikipedia has a general introduction.
Particularly study the Tying chapter for EU Article 82:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_82#Tying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...mpetition_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
The issue to Apple ITunes is about being the "Dominant" in IPods and "tying" both markets of "selling music" and secondary "selling PC music players" (which of course every one does for free) to the first.
You can try to compare apples to oranges (no pun intended), but there are many glaring differences that make such a comparison problematic.
The first, is that Apple isn't barring people from entering the market by using restrictive distribution agreements with other parties in the market. Microsoft used it's clout to strongarm OEMs from adding competing software on their products. Apple does not tell Dell to not put Windows Media Player on their Windows products and to only put iTunes on. It would be interesting to know if the reverse may be true. That MS discourages Dell and others like Acer from adding iTunes to their machines now that MS is desperately trying to push it's crappy Zune player again.
Apple also hasn't been introducing quirks in its software to prevent interoperability, things like AARP code, which "broke" Windows 3.0 from running on top of competing DR-DOS. And saying that checking the USB IDs for valid units and preventing synching with fakers is not the same as what Microsoft did.
You can have a monopoly in US or even EU law, it's when you abuse it when it antitrust becomes necessary. And the case against Apple has a long way to go in this regard, no matter how many people try to spin it. That's something even MS boosters fail to comprehend.
http://hunter.pairsite.com/blogs/20091004/
Craig Hunter nails it:
"Clearly, other companies know how to sync painlessly with iTunes music (see RIM?s Blackberry Media Sync for example), so why doesn?t Palm develop a syncing solution for their own hardware? The exact reason is unknown, but my guess is that it?s a combination of things. Perhaps Palm doesn?t have the resources to develop their own sync app. Or maybe they want some publicity. Or maybe they just want to push Apple?s buttons. Who really knows.
But I seriously question the strategy and brains of any company that ties critical product capabilities to the unsupported use of their competitor?s software. I mean, really? Can it get any more ridiculous? Can you possibly send a more mixed, less confidence- inspiring, ?we?re a bunch of hacks who can?t provide our own sync software for our products? message to customers?"
Indeed.
Apple never blocked anyone from accessing the xml files. Palm is not doing that better; they are masquerading as an iPod. That is like saying Pete's serves the same quality of espresso as Starbuck's because Pete's is using Starbuck's coffee, not just their recipe. I know, another torchered metaphor.
actually, I think that one qualifies as an analogy, rather than metaphor (or simile!).
C
actually, I think that one qualifies as an analogy, rather than metaphor (or simile!).
C
I stand corrected.
From Daring Fireball:
http://hunter.pairsite.com/blogs/20091004/
Craig Hunter nails it:
"Clearly, other companies know how to sync painlessly with iTunes music (see RIM?s Blackberry Media Sync for example), so why doesn?t Palm develop a syncing solution for their own hardware? The exact reason is unknown, but my guess is that it?s a combination of things. Perhaps Palm doesn?t have the resources to develop their own sync app. Or maybe they want some publicity. Or maybe they just want to push Apple?s buttons. Who really knows.
But I seriously question the strategy and brains of any company that ties critical product capabilities to the unsupported use of their competitor?s software. I mean, really? Can it get any more ridiculous? Can you possibly send a more mixed, less confidence- inspiring, ?we?re a bunch of hacks who can?t provide our own sync software for our products? message to customers?"
Indeed.
I'd have to agree that it's ridiculously easy to do it on Mac OS. The question is how hard would it be for making one on Windows.
Personally, Palm can send me a Pre and I'll write them a nice simple Mac OS one.
So how does Apple have monopoly and abuse their dominance in market, since I do not want to put words in your mouth, but you have used this quote. They have not stopped anyone from syncing with their iTunes library, you must write your own program, as someone has stated there are choices too many for consumers.
Short answer: Itunes Music Store has a dominant market share of over 70% and they refuse to sell music to Palm Pre and any other brand.
Longer:
In fact there is evidence pointing to that they did stop the synching! First, Palm had a proceedure which did not spoof vendor ID. Apple changes something so it stopped working. Then Palm spoofed the vendor.
But I can also agree that if there are good open interfaces to ITunes then Palm could use that. I doubt there is. If so this is merely a discussion of methods.
P.S. Maybe just maybe your the one that is ignorant of the law and using laws you do not understand or know how to interrupt. Lastly please show us how your last 2 links are similarly to what Apple is undertaking in marketplace, since I like to see how you choose to link the two situations using those factual evidence.
I personally think, you do not know what you are talking about and it is simple, PALM or anyone had a case against APPLE, it would be in Courts by now, very simple.
I may be ignorant of many things. And the law is for courts to interpret. But the Microsoft vs Commision case is a direct application of Article 82 and I think it is analogous. Microsoft tied Media player into dominant Windows, and Apple ties dominant online "music selling" into ipods. I may be wrong but I think industry knows that Apple/Itunes/App Store is the dominant player and you do too. Itunes Store has more than 70% of download music market.
Short answer: Itunes Music Store has a dominant market share of over 70% and they refuse to sell music to Palm Pre and any other brand.
Are you drunk? Palm Pre users can purchase as much iTunes music as they like, just like they can from Amazon. They can drag in onto the Pre and listen to it as they wish. If you want all the advantages of an iPhone, you will just have to buy an iPhone. This is so hysterical, I will quote it again.
Short answer: Itunes Music Store has a dominant market share of over 70% and they refuse to sell music to Palm Pre and any other brand.
Palm has done a great job at brainwashing.
Short answer: Itunes Music Store has a dominant market share of over 70% and they refuse to sell music to Palm Pre and any other brand.
Does this propaganda appear in the box of the Pre, or do you have to go into special clinics to have it done?
Short answer: Itunes Music Store has a dominant market share of over 70% and they refuse to sell music to Palm Pre and any other brand.
Of course Apple would like to have their ITunes exclusive for their products! And, they may have certain right to this (according to law in most countries) but when the ITunes becomes a large monopoly (in part because they force all users of ipods/iphones to use any software you want as long as it is the slow an grand ITunes hog...) then authorities will force them to stop! Why? It is uncompetetive behaviour and illegal!
Just to be clear, I own 3 macs and an Iphone which are great things! Still I thing palm should use all the power, force and ingenuity they can muster to crack the monopolistic anti-competetive apple tactics!
You obviously know nothing about monopolies; Look it up. Apple developed the software, Apple built the device, there is no law that has or ever will state that they have to provide support for 3rd party devices at all.
Apple has made it clear that you can access Itunes XML database (open standard) using your own software. Protecting your patents is anti-competitive? Really? Don't you understand that beating out the competition is what companies do?
Short answer: Itunes Music Store has a dominant market share of over 70% and they refuse to sell music to Palm Pre and any other brand.
Longer:
In fact there is evidence pointing to that they did stop the synching! First, Palm had a proceedure which did not spoof vendor ID. Apple changes something so it stopped working. Then Palm spoofed the vendor.
But I can also agree that if there are good open interfaces to ITunes then Palm could use that. I doubt there is. If so this is merely a discussion of methods.
I may be ignorant of many things. And the law is for courts to interpret. But the Microsoft vs Commision case is a direct application of Article 82 and I think it is analogous. Microsoft tied Media player into dominant Windows, and Apple ties dominant online "music selling" into ipods. I may be wrong but I think industry knows that Apple/Itunes/App Store is the dominant player and you do too. Itunes Store has more than 70% of download music market.
interesting you reply to me, but forget that patrickwalker shows how bad your opinions are with concern to the evidence provided, so please explain how his opinions are inaccurate because he did a very good job in my eyes and what i wanted to say.
Btw: You told me I was ignorant of the law initially and implied that you knew it better!! so now do not not reply, the law is for courts to interpret.
If you had just provided your opinions without using the 'personal touch' of calling me ignorant, I would have let your comments go, since everyone has an opinion, but you decided that you knew best, which is not the case.
Patrickwalker said it best
'You can have a monopoly in US or even EU law, it's when you abuse it when it antitrust becomes necessary. And the case against Apple has a long way to go in this regard, no matter how many people try to spin it. That's something even MS boosters fail to comprehend.'
P.S. again provide evidence that Apple intentionally stopped Palm Pre from syncing with iTunes and it was not deemed a hack. I am not taking you at face value anymore, factual evidence please!