[jmincey]

Why should Apple be forced to buy Microsoft's proprietary DRM.

It shouldn't. But the contention is that Apple has a monopoly in the digital online music business. This differentiates it from the other companies you cite which do not possess a monopoly in their industries.

[Steve_S]

jmincey said:

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. In this analogy, the web represents the iTunes Music Store (i.e., the source of content) and Safari represents the iPod (the "player" of the content).

I suppose you can count me in on those who "out of mindless reflex dismiss...". Jeff, your analogy doesn't hold water. The music player, just like the web browser is a means to an end. With music players, the music is the content and the content providers have the option not to use DRM at all. If anything, there should be a class action lawsuit against the music labels who push DRM schemes in the first place. DRM by definition is the source of the restiction of use.

Similarly, there are web standards. Sure, some sites write specifically for Explorer (though in your analogy it would be Safari), but I don't blame Microsoft (or Apple) for this. I blame the creators of the content who don't write for web standards and test their web pages against common browsers.

[Steve_S]

jmincey said:

Why should Apple be forced to buy Microsoft's proprietary DRM.

It shouldn't. But the contention is that Apple has a monopoly in the digital online music business. This differentiates it from the other companies you cite which do not possess a monopoly in their industries.

There might have been a better case for this a year or two ago. When you look at recent events, you see a trend that shows the music labels slowly starting to abandon DRM. Yes, this is a reaction to Apple's dominance in the market, but once you have music available in common formats (DRM-free) legally, you no longer have an argument that Apple is using Fairplay to some sort of competitive advantage. Further, Apple's own statistics show that on average, only 3% of any given iPod's content is Fairplay restricted music. Again, this doesn't play in favor of support for such a lawsuit.

The bottom line is that the iPod is successful for several reasons. 1. They have the best music players. 2. iTunes is the best music jukebox software. 3. The iTunes / iPod combination provides the best integration / user experience. 4. Yes, the iTunes Music store is very convenient. But, you also have to consider that Apple is selling the majority of iPods to Windows users. If Microsoft or anyone else had a better product, that product would be the natural choice. The point here is that Apple's success isn't due to some sort of user lock in. As an iPod owner, I'm free to purchase music from eMusic, Amazon.com, etc.