Information Week is reporting that Apple has been accused of monopolizing the online music industry in an antitrust lawsuit. Specifically, the suit states that Apple has placed "...unneeded and unjustifiable technological restrictions on its most popular products in an effort to restrict consumer choice, and to restrain what little remains of its competition in the digital music markets."Here we go again with "restricting consumer choice." First of all, no one is being forced to use iTunes or an iPod. But, what if you want to use iTunes with a player other than an iPod? Or, what if you want to use an iPod but not the iTunes Store?
Mac users can choose from a number of players that work with iTunes, including the Nomad Jukebox, SonicBLUE Rio and Nakamichi SoundSpace 2. It's true that music purchased from iTunes will not play on these devices (unless it's from the growing library of DRM-free songs), but Mp3 files and unprotected AAC files will.
For iPod users looking beyond the iTunes Store, there's the Amazon Mp3 Store. In some ways, in fact, the Amazon Store is more appealing than iTunes: all of their tracks are DRM-free and many are cheaper.
Of course these aren't perfect solutions. To get the most out of iTunes and an iPod, one must use them in conjunction. However, this suit feels like sour grapes: punishing Apple for their success. There's a difference between dominating a market and preventing others from succeeding. So far, no one has created a more successful alternative and that's not Apple's fault.
Thanks, Dave.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
1-04-2008 @ 3:36PM
Eideard said...
Lawyers - as a category - have achieved a reputation as slime even more despicable than Kongress. This suit is one more example reinforcing that perception.
I wonder what might happen to some of these kreeps if they were ever persuaded to eke out an honest living?
Reply
1-04-2008 @ 3:49PM
Al said...
What do lawyers have anything to do with this? Sure, it's a lawsuit, but the lawyers aren't the ones who have a problem with Apple!
1-04-2008 @ 3:57PM
Fernando said...
Don't be a hater, lawyers are only doing their jobs.
1-04-2008 @ 3:57PM
LD said...
Does iTunes work with the Zune? Because that would be funny.
Reply
1-04-2008 @ 4:05PM
DJCarbon43 said...
Heh,
I'm not even a lawyer, but I'm sure I could get a summary dismissal of this frivolous suit. Seriously, what idiot of a lawyer brought this case?
Dominating a marketplace through superior offerings ≠ (does not equal) monopolistic tactics. C'mon. This isnt even worthy of law school 101.
Reply
1-04-2008 @ 4:15PM
Luigi193 said...
I don't think it was the lawyers idea...
1-04-2008 @ 4:31PM
punkassjim said...
Taking the case was the lawyer's prerogative. So was turning it down. He or she failed.
1-04-2008 @ 4:49PM
DJCarbon43 said...
Yep. I should've been more clear on that. I didnt think it was the lawyer's idea...although I know plenty who would do something like that (Jack Thompson ring a bell?).
As Jim said, the lawyer is deluding his client by taking a case like this. The client will be stuck with a huge legal bill, and no case. We need reform in this area more than anywhere else in the legal system.
1-04-2008 @ 4:13PM
Johnny said...
These people obviously just don't know what they're doing. I find that a lot of people fit into that category. Just today at work, a lady was asking how to move her daughter's library from her mac at work to her daughter's PC. She was convinced that the only way was to buy some $100 software she'd heard about that apparently can do that over the internet or something. So I copied her music onto a CD (as she really didn't have much) and told her she could just copy the music into her PC's iTunes.
That example isn't exactly the kind of thing these people are talking about, but it just goes to show that even though it isn't obvious, iTunes is actually quite open and versatile. The only thing that isn't open is iTMS DRMed files which is no different than any other DRM. Fortunately, DRM is becoming much less standard and there are plenty of options for getting non-DRM music that will work with iTunes or any media player.
Reply
1-04-2008 @ 4:18PM
Ugh. said...
Maybe this is why Apple stock went down 11 dollars!?!?!
Reply
1-04-2008 @ 4:23PM
Jrock said...
No... That would be because of the broader market sell off, especially in the Tech Sector...
1-04-2008 @ 4:26PM
jonathan ober said...
if my Wii doesn't let me use an Xbox disc in it...can I sue the video game companies? My VCR didn't let me play betamax tapes! Stupid lawsuit.
Reply
1-04-2008 @ 4:35PM
dhaasgob said...
Can we could sue every Blu-Ray and HDDVD maker (besides those that make hybrid ones) for making players that doesn't play the other type? That would be fun!
Yeah, this lawsuit isn't even worth the paper it used up.
1-05-2008 @ 1:49AM
Duscrom said...
Would you sue Best Buy if their music didn't play in your mac? Would you not sue Wal-Mart if Their Movies only played in a PS3? the iTunes store is going after more and more content.. exclusive content including movies and TV shows. And You can't do anything with that media unless you have an iPod or AppleTV.
By the way, Yes, there are Supirior products out there. Better MP3 player, better Video players, that are offered for cheaper. But if I want legally downloaded movies.. or that copy of Meet The Robinsons i paid $14.99 for to play on the go, I have to get an iPod. I can't play it on my PSP with it's larger, 16x9 screen. Nor can I stream it to my PS3, or Xbox 360.
Fanboys need to quit denying that Apple is using their status to gain more content, and using that content to squash compitition. Apple is becoming a content retailer, that's what iTunes is.. and if Best Buy should have to offer content that is open, then so should iTunes.
1-05-2008 @ 6:11AM
Anthony said...
Duscrom, How can you accuse Apple of using DRM to squash competition when the music & movie industry required DRM from the start?
1-05-2008 @ 9:06AM
Dman said...
Duscrom said...
...if I want legally downloaded movies.. or that copy of Meet The Robinsons i paid $14.99 for to play on the go, I have to get an iPod. I can't play it on my PSP with it's larger, 16x9 screen. Nor can I stream it to my PS3, or Xbox 360.
You're argument is stupid. Sony & PSP has its own video format, Sony screwed up and it is no longer a viable format for profit. I can't pull/stream video and movie downloads from my Xbox 360 or Tivo Amazon Box purchases to play on my Mac, iPod or PSP. Apple controls its DRM because unlike the companies you are defending, Apple has kept the same rules applied to its DRM, there aren't levels or tiers of DRM like the flawed PlayforSure DRM you are defending. Also, MPAA and RIAA don't want you transferring your DVDs and CDs to you computer and mp3 players, why they suddenly want you to able to transfer video and music from iTunes...? Oh right, DRM.
1-04-2008 @ 4:28PM
punkassjim said...
Feels less like sour grapes, and more like a complete lack of understanding of antitrust law and the common/legal practices in free market competition.
http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13509_1-9840352-20.html
The Macalope handled this story quite nicely.
Nobody bitches about the "we don't like their stuff, so we'll make our own and make it better" business model until the business in question has plenty of money or market share. Proprietary formats will always battle, and there will always be a clear winner. No one has yet brought a convincing argument for any of the accusations in this suit, and I doubt anyone ever will.
Reply
1-04-2008 @ 4:39PM
Ozmotear said...
The issue here is that the Vendor is telling the Customer what devices are allowed to be used, and pretty much forcing that decision on them.
Cassette Tapes = Any Brand Cassette Player
CD = Any Brand CD Player
Mp3 = Any Brand Mp3 Player
iTunes Music = Apple iPod only (exception iTunes Plus)
What if the DVD rental buisness started doing this?
Imagine having to buy a DVD player from each Blockbuster/Netflix in order to rent their movies.
Reply
1-04-2008 @ 5:56PM
bob_c_b said...
If we follow your example then there is an issue with the Xbox 360 not playing Wii games. Sorry, this example fails hard. To be a monopoly Apple would have to be actively trying to stifle competition, not simply burying the competition by having a superior product.
1-04-2008 @ 6:16PM
required said...
bob_c_b, Ozmotear is correct. Your games are sold as [console] games, not [play anywhere] games. This is why Apple should be more upfront and clearly state that much of the content they sell on iTunes can only be viewed on their systems.
Imagine trying to buy a microsoftbox game if they didn't print "for microsoftbox only/requires a microsoftbox" on the package.