[vamtastic]

Can anyone tell me what market share has to do with anything?

I thought suing for monopolistic tactics was based on how a company tries to squash the competition, not on how well ther product sells.

I have two albums from the ITMS. Everything else is from CDs. If I can show my non-tech savvy father how to rip a CD, then anyone can do it.

-VAM

[jmincey]

Under the Sherman Anti-trust Act, (as I understand it), market share IS relevant. It's not merely that a company uses certain tactics but that it does so AS the dominant force in a given market.

The same tactics used by a bit player in the market would not be a violation.

[MorrisTheCat]

jmincey said:

> {quote:title=jdb8167 wrote: }{quote}
> Wouldn't a better solution be to continue to eliminate all DRM from music?




Yep. Definitely!

Well we can agree on this. Eliminating DRM is the key, which is exactly why I would not put my support behind this suit. The plaintiff is essentially asking Apple to support MORE forms of DRM, when she should in fact be pushing for the elimination of it altogether.
Oh?but of course she couldn't ask for that, since Apple is already beginning to sell DRM free tracks, so that tactic would go nowhere would it?

And ultimately, it isn't really Apple's choice to sell DRM free music or not. It's the labels making that choice for us (thank you greedy labels!)

The suit is misguided, plain and simple.

[mdawson]

-----
jmincey wrote: To those who out of mindless reflex dismiss this (or any) lawsuit against Apple's music division as groundless or even frivolous, suppose Safari constituted 80% of the browser market and would read/render only those web sites developed with tools or protocols which only Apple owns.
-----


Well I was going to leave well enough alone with this thread, as everyone seems to get why this case is utter bull (!) just like the other iTunes related cases. But as Jeff has again in his infinite pessimism declared the responses here to be nothing more than fanboyism, I will once again clarify why Apple’s model is in no way unlawful or even abusive.

First and foremost, the comparison of iTunes to browsers is invalid. The Internet is a mixed bag of content from numerous authors developed in what should be standard HTML, Javascript, etc. If Safari were to gain a 80% share of the browser market and Apple chose to implement proprietary features they would not being doing anything illegal. Just as with Microsoft, the real culprits in such instances are the content providers and not the browser development.
Yes, Microsoft is the Evil Empire, but it is the webmasters that opt to design Web pages that can only be viewed properly in Internet Explorer therefore placing legal liability on the Web authors. Much as I would love to hold Microsoft at fault, the way in which the company bullies PC OEMs to pre-install Windows and only Windows does not extend to the Web. The (legitimate) case against Microsoft was the way in which IE garnered its current position as the current omnipresent browser.

Now, let us look at the Ms. Somers' so-called points of contention:

# iPod’s cannot play content in the (proprietary) Windows Media Audio (WMA) format.
# Music available through the iTunes Store uses Apple’s proprietary copy-protection technology, FairPlay, which is incompatible with other music players.
# iPod owners can only buy music from the iTunes Store.
The short answer to these three complaints are “so what”, “so what” and survey says, “XXX”.
For one, you cannot complain that Apple uses a proprietary DRM-based format while lauding support for Microsoft’s (far more draconian) DRM-based format. When Microsoft introduced the Zune, it was well documented that songs purchased from the Zune Store do not play well with others as well as the fact that the Zune could not play songs in a former Microsoft-developed DRM format. Secondly, Microsoft pulled (unprotected) WMA support from the Mac. So, if Microsoft will not support WMA on the Mac, why should Apple put any effort into supporting Microsoft’s proprietary music format in their products and at a cost to them?
As to FairPlay, Steve Jobs has made it quite clear that he believes that music made available through the iTunes Store should be DRM-free. While the iTunes Store position in the legitimate download market has allowed Apple to leverage power over the labels in terms of pricing years after the establishment of the iTunes Store—which is good for the consumer—Apple did have to kowtow to the labels’ demand for copy-protection. In fact, Apple had to remove or curtail a number of features in iTunes in order to placate the labels before the iTunes Music Store was introduced. Even now, that decision to impose DRM rests solely with the labels. Having no choice but to implement a DRM scheme, Apple, unlike Microsoft, at least created a copy-protection scheme that is not draconian.
Apple is fully within their rights to make FairPlay compatible only with iTunes and the iPod because, 1) they own every aspect of the iMusic triad and most importantly, 2) the same exact music is readily available from other sources in other formats including the venerable unprotected, uncompressed, high-quality CD. Even if Apple where the only (legitimate) source for music downloads, the labels still release CDs which consumers can purchase and rip onto their computers in any format they choose, with any software they choose and transfer to any portable digital music player they choose. Simply put, consumers can acquire music from several other sources, as they always have, so the market share for iPods and the fact that most of the music available through the iTunes Store is FairPlay-encoded is irrelevant. Also, FairPlay is releatively easy to work around and the method to do so is a mere Google search away; in the end though, the consumer can choose to forego Apple’s products altogether because they do have several other options.
And this all brings us to the third point of the case that is patently false. iPod owners can get music from any source they so choose, but those songs must be in a format that the iPod supports, as is the case with any portable digital music player. Every single song in my iTunes library is ripped from CDs and will eventually include songs digitized from my vinyl collection. I have no intention of ever acquiring music via the Web. It has already been found that where most iPod/iTunes users are concerned, the bulk of their music collections are not songs purchased from the iTunes Store. Most people either rip CDs, already had significant MP3 libraries before migrating to iTunes or acquire MP3 from numerous other sources legitimate or otherwise.
The most ubiquitous format for compressed music files is MP3, which could for all intents and purposes be considered a de facto standard. Guess what? iPods support MP3, which is an open, non-proprietary format. The default format for iTunes and the iPod is AAC. Again, an open, non-proprietary format.
Why are people not suing companies that produce WMA-compatible music players that fail to support AAC? In fact, with the popularity of the iPod, why are people not suing any number of portable or car stereo manufacturers that typically make devices with MP3 compatibility, often WMA compatibility, but (almost) never AAC compatibility? AAC is free, open and superior to MP3.
Stacie Somers’ case is built on completely false premises. If she wants to use Microsoft’s proprietary music files then she can go buy a Zune. If she does not like FairPlay, then she can purchase music elsewhere. Like every other case in reference to the iPod, iTunes or the iTunes Store, Ms. Somers’ case is baseless tripe, period. As to Jeff, you may not like Apple’s business model, but nothing about it unlawful.

[dmjones]

Unbelievable--this sue-er (pronounced "sewer" and full of the same material) ignores the fact that there are competing devices and competing music download services available to anyone who does not want to use Apple's systems (iPod iTunes). It's a free market and anyone's allowed to set up a music download service (assuming they have the approval of the music-producing companies) and anyone can sell a digital music player (and just about everyone does, it seems). So Apple ties them together--so what! The device and the service became the most popular because of it, not in spite of it. This is an issue that the government should stay far, far away from: if enough people don't like the way Apple does business, they will take their business elsewhere--and there are plenty of places (Amazon.com and Zune are the two that come immediately to mind). The competing businesses seem to keep giving up the fight, but that's not because Apple is driving them out of of business. For pete's sake, most of the competing businesses started after Apple's business did--they tried to jump on the bandwagon and were unable to make a buck so they fled the scene. If someone, someday devises a better way to deliver music to a better device than the iPod iTunes system, Apple may well lose their dominant position.

[justme2]

Okay, if this suit works I'm going to sue Wal-Mart, Napster and all those other music sites that require Windows to purchase and download music. That's much more of an anti-trust issue than what iTunes Store and the iPod are doing.

[lwdesign]

In a free society, people vote with their wallets. If the iPod/iTunes experience were so terribly bad for the nation or the world, consumers can simply NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS! What a thought! They could simply go out and get a Zune or a Zen or a Samsa or any of the many, many other personal music players that are compatible with their choice of digital music. Their choice determines the percentage of the market the particular device holds.

To buy an iPod and then complain that it doesn't support Windows Media DRM is at best simply dumb. If you want to use Windows DRM, buy a Zune or any of the other players that support it. Will you then sue Microsoft because you now can't use the iTunes store?

Would you buy a Blu-Ray disk player, then sue the manufacturer because you now can't use all your HD DVD disks in it? When the courts start forcing this kind of legislation into being, the country is starting to turn fascistic. Here's a great idea: Since Microsoft owns the vast majority of market share of operating systems (way more than 80%), let's all us Mac users sue them in a sweeping class action because our Macintosh programs won't run on their OS. Let's force Microsoft to make their OS compatible with the Mac OS. You see how silly this can get? Vote with your wallet by buying the music device and content delivery system you want.

[jmincey]

Music files need to comply with a standard in order to be viable across the entire industry. Just as e-mail message formats should be independent of e-mail applications, and just as communication protocols and transport layers should be independent of OS platforms, so should music file formats be independent of the online stores and players that distribute and play them (respectively).

People who argue against this argue in favor of lock-in. And a market is not truly free where a single company dominates 80 percent of it. Americans hate to think there is anything which the free market cannot solve, but the question of open standards is often one such area.

Consumers should be free to choose the online store of their preference AND also the digital player of their preference -- without being locked into one or the other. If someone prefers the iTunes Store but wishes to use the Zune player, that should be permissible. And it's compliance to open standards which would make this possible.

The same free market you worship is what Apple fears. Apple fears opening the iTunes Store and the iPod and allowing the consumer to choose based on product merit and quality. So it locks in the consumer. If you use the iTunes Store, you have no choice of players but Apple's own iPod.

Apple should show more faith in the quality of its own products. I submit they can successfully withstand the scrutiny of customers and that lock-in is not necessary in order to ensure sales.

Which approach would sell more iPods -- an iPod limited to a single online store or one which supported multiple online stores and thereby gave consumers more flexibility and choice? And which approach would bring more customers to the iTunes Store -- to confine it to the iPod only or to make it compliant with multiple music players, thereby giving consumers more choice?

When was the last time you heard consumers clamoring for manufacturers to give them less flexibility, less choice, fewer options, and more restrictions? And yet this is precisely what the lot of you are arguing in favor of.

[mdawson]

-----
jmincey wrote:
bq. Music files need to comply with a standard in order to be viable across the entire industry.
-----
No disagreement there.
-----
jmincey wrote:
bq. People who argue against this argue in favor of lock-in. And a market is not truly free where a single company dominates 80 percent of it.
-----

No one is arguing for lock-in and if the music industry did not demand DRM then there would not be any… well at least not from Apple. Without the FairPlay copy-protection, the iTunes Store files are in an open, non-proprietary file format. No independent company—that is a company not involved in music player or computer manufacture or music distribution—has stepped up to create a universal DRM for music leaving the various portable digital music player OEMs to either develop their own or choose some other to license; unfortunately it is most often Microsoft’s.
The underlying problem is not the file format unless one focuses on Microsoft, as even without DRM, Microsoft chooses to use their music file format, which is not only proprietary, but which Microsoft intentionally ceased support for on the only other operating system that offers any real competition to their operating system. Apple not only chose an open format that is not under their control, but they no ability to exercise monopolistic abuse over music distribution due to the iPod’s success as Microsoft does over several tech markets.
You keep citing the 80 percent market share of the iPod, but you seem to fail to recognize that 80 percent of the portable digital music player market does not constitute 80 percent of all music distribution. As I have already clearly pointed out in my previous post, the iTunes store is not the only choice for consumers to purchase music and even iPod users can acquire music elsewhere counter to Ms. Somers’ claims. Where distribution is concerned, the iTunes Store is nowhere near 80 percent and as they do not control the bulk of music distribution and support standard, open file formats as the default file types for iTunes, there is no monopoly.
-----
jmincey wrote:

bq. Consumers should be free to choose the online store of their preference AND also the digital player of their preference -- without being locked into one or the other.
-----

Consumers are free to choose the online store and music player of their choice. Most choose Apple’s package deal. There is nothing stopping consumers from purchasing music elsewhere, importing it into iTunes and putting it on their iPod. Most download services favor MP3, which is supported by iTunes. Apple owns the iMusic triad and has the right to make their products work as they wish them to just as they have the right to decide that their operating system will only work on their hardware. Obviously 80+ percent of digital music player purchasers have no issue with Apple’s model.
-----
jmincey wrote:

bq. If someone prefers the iTunes Store but wishes to use the Zune player, that should be permissible.
-----

And the same can be said of the Zune Store and Amazon’s MP3 store that uses Microsoft’s proprietary file formats that not only do not work with iTunes, which is cross-platform, but locks out people simply for being Mac users.
-----
jmincey wrote:

bq. The same free market you worship is what Apple fears. Apple fears opening the iTunes Store and the iPod and allowing the consumer to choose based on product merit and quality.
-----
Now, this is utter bilge, Jeff, and you know as much. The iPod became the most popular portable digital music player long before the ITunes Store existed, let alone became relevant. The iPod was originally a Mac-only device in a very diverse market and Windows users made quite a bit of noise about it because they saw it as being better than everything else available up to that point. Once Apple opened up the iPod and iTunes to Windows users, iPod sales went through the roof at the expense of every other player and have remained on top because consumers continue to choose the iPod.
Consumers have several other options, 80+ percent choose the package deal from Apple. Should they choose to migrate to something else, they can do so as iTunes uses standard file formats and the workaround to get past FairPlay-encoded AAC files is well documented. How much press have you seen about easy methods to get around Microsoft’s RIAA-friendly, anti-consumer draconian DRM scheme?
-----
jmincey wrote:
bq. Which approach would sell more iPods -- an iPod limited to a single online store or one which supported multiple online stores and thereby gave consumers more flexibility and choice? And which approach would bring more customers to the iTunes Store -- to confine it to the iPod only or to make it compliant with multiple music players, thereby giving consumers more choice?
-----

Blah, blah, blah. Yada, yada, yada. Apparently you are just as short-sighted on this matter as Ms. Somers. So for the last time, iPod users are in no way forced to only acquire music through the iTunes Store, so this whole argument of lack of choice is completely invalid. There are several people that have iTunes libraries of significant size that consist of little to no music downloaded from the iTunes Store. Apple in no way forces iPod users to buy content from and for those that do, FairPlay-encoding can be worked around. What do you not get?
As to the fact that the iPod and iTunes working exclusively with one another, it is no different from Apple’s (correct) philosophy about the Mac OS and Macs. In order to insure the user experience that Apple envisions, they must have complete control over the machine and not just a few cogs. Apple cannot, and has no desire to, control the content, but they can control how you experience the content with their products whether it is running software on a Mac running OS X or enjoying music through iTunes or an iPod.
You seem to erroneously believe that people are arguing in favor of an Apple-centric music monopoly, which does not and cannot exist short of Jobs buying out the Big Four, when in fact the underlying problem is really DRM—and to a lesser degree the insistence on several software developers and MP3 player OEMs to ignore AAC—because that is where the real incompatibilities lie. Without DRM, the music files handled by iTunes and the iPod are open and portable. Yes, the iPod and iTunes are inseparable, but that is how Apple does business and it works. If you do not like it, buy something else, because guess what, contrary to what you have written Apple does not control content so consumers can do just that.

[airhead]

Just like carburetors need to be compatible with all makes of cars. Why should I have to put a toyota carburetor /fuel injector / turbo on my toyota when the Ferrari one is manufactured far better. I want to use that one. I'm filing suit against Ferrari.

False = amazon files can not be played in iTunes or the iPod.
False = Zune store files can not be played on an iPod.

False = iTunes songs can not be played on anything other than iPods.

True = You guys are full of it. STOP CRYING!

[pdmarsh]

It's nice to argue that everyone's products should work with everyone else's, unfortunately that's not the way the market works. Microsoft wouldn't be the monopoly it is today if it didn't do everything in its power to lock in its customers, and penalize those who refuse to tow the line. It's fun that now that Apple is finally enjoying some success, the users of currently uncompetitive products are whining to the rooftops about it. I don't recall ever seeing such an uproar over those competitor's products not supporting the iPod, or music from the iTunes Store.

[jmincey]

I don't say that everyone's product should work with everyone else's. What I say is that online music stores and digital music players should be compliant with open standards.

I would oppose any effort to use the government to constrain Apple to support the proprietary music formats of another corporation. The whole issue about WMA support is absurd. Apple should be free to exclude that if it so wishes. But the question of open standards is something else altogether.

[six_of_one]

If that's the crux of your point, then what part this suit do you see forcing Apple to be compliant with open standards with which is is not already in compliance?

Seems to me (based on my reading of the story), Apple is being sued based on: The erroneous assumption that only music purchased from the ITMS can be played on he iPod; and the correct assertion that the iPod and ITMS do not support Microsoft's DRM scheme ... I don't see anything in the story regarding open standard compliance at all (especially given that Microsoft's DRM is by no means "open" nor "standard") ...

I do agree that in the best of all worlds, all music stores would work with all formats and all players ... I'm not sure this suit does anything to further that goal ...

[MacGeek1955]

First of all, I think all music should be DRM free as it provides a superior consumer experience. Still, the lawsuit is stupid. Nobody forces Schick to make Gillette razor blades or Honda to make interchangeable automobile parts with Toyota. Why should Apple be forced to buy Microsoft's proprietary DRM. That would be like forcing Apple to sell Windows on Macs. The whole thing is stupid.