You're viewing an article in iPO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site: Apple Hit with Music Monopoly Lawsuit

News

Apple Hit with Music Monopoly Lawsuit

Friday, January 4th, 2008 at 8:05 AM - by

Apple is facing a lawsuit that claims the company is violating the Sherman Antitrust Act for failing to support Microsoft's DRM-protected WMA music files on the iPod. The case was filed on December 31, 2007, and the plaintiffs are hoping to get their suit certified as a class action, according to InformationWeek.

The case alleged that Apple 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."

The complaint went on to say that the iPod shuffle's SigmaTel STMP3550 chip supports the WMA format, but "Apple's crippleware operating system software prevents the iPod Shuffle from playing WMA files."

While the suit claims that Apple is intentionally crippling its products to force consumers into purchasing music only from the iTunes Store, that charge may be difficult to prove in court. Apple CEO has openly stated that his company includes copy protection in songs only because the record labels require it.

Apple also offers EMI's music library without copy protection at the same price as copy protected songs -- all playable on AAC-compatible music devices. Amazon MP3, potentially the biggest competitor to the iTunes Store, offers 2.9 million DRM-free songs in the MP3 format, all of which are playable on the iPod.

The plaintiffs also alleged that Apple is abusing its market dominating position to price its iPod media players in a "monopolistic, excessive, and arbitrary" way. The suit pointed to the US$100 price difference between the 1GB and 4GB iPod nano and noted that there is only a $5.52 price difference in a $4.15 1GB and $9.97 4GB Flash memory chip.

Apple has not commented on the pending litigation.

37 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:07 am

The one BIG problem with this is that Microsoft, at the same storage capacity, charges the exact same as Apple does. And don't they also sell music that can only be played on their player? In fact, from the Zune Marketplace F.A.Q.:

"Does Zune play all protected files?

No. Zune only plays protected songs from Zune Marketplace."

This means that their own technology from various stores, all using some form of WMA encoding, does not even work on their own player.

I have a feeling that, if the judge really does his homework and looks at the market environment, this case will be dismissed fairly quickly.

Quote this post ↓

Tiger said:

member since 17 Jun 2003 with 1018 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:10 am

Lawyers who forgot to do their research before filing a case? Never.

Did they forget that Microsoft ceased production of Windows Media software for Apple and actually sold the technology to Flip4Mac? Do they know it BARELY works on Macs?

I laugh at their implication that Apple has a moral and legal imperative to go out and BUY something to make their own players compatible with crap. They cite all these "stores" that provide files in the format, forgetting that they included WalMart which in the last month shut down their store because they were losing money.

As for the assertion, which is SO dead wrong by the way, that iPods only use the Apple lossless format, does any of these attorneys actually own an iPod? I can drag pretty much any music file format into my iTunes and sync it with my iPod. I have free Mp3s and even some WMAs on there now. I have MP4s (which is the native file format by the way, because we're so PAST Mp3 now it's not even funny), the AAC files, etc.

Sony shut down their store because they only licensed their own file format and it quickly became obvious that nobody wanted it. There are still plenty of formats around and the files are available in pretty much all of them. And there are converters between them, so this whole point is really moot. WMAs can exist on Macs, sadly considering how awful they are. But to require Apple to go out and license WMA just because it "could" work on an iPod shuffle? By that logic, they should be going to garage door opener companies because the Nano, Classic, and other iPods could open garage doors! Give us a break. I hope a judge slaps them down and gives them community service for being stupid and filing a frivilous lawsuit!

Quote this post ↓

Clyde_Turkey said:

member since 19 Jan 2003 with 15 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:36 am

Just sounds like yet another cash grab attempt....

Quote this post ↓

sweyhrich said:

member since 25 Oct 2004 with 10 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:27 am

I'm short of cash now after the holidays... hey, I could sue Apple for dropping support for the Apple II, making all of my old software useless, FORCING me to go out and purchase new stuff. Yeah, that's the ticket. I'm thinking class action here. Could net me a couple of bucks after the legal fees are paid...

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:32 am

They should also sue Apple for intentionally making computers that don't play Wii games.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:46 am

It'd be nice if Apple supported WMA on it's own without a lawsuit. I'd love to be able to download the electronic books (unfortunately, only in WMA format) from my library and play them on my iPod.

Quote this post ↓

brett_x said:

member since 24 Jan 2006 with 322 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:55 am

Is this a freaking joke? What the hell is up with these lawyers?

1) Can't you convert WMA files in the PC version of iTunes?

2) Crippleware: here's the definition from the built-in dictionary: "software distributed with reduced functionality with a view to attracting payment for a fully functional version". Here it is from dictionary.com: "Software that has some important functionality deliberately removed, so as to entice potential users to pay for a working version." So, Apple's iTunes is crippleware.. how? How can you upgrade iTunes?

3) Just were and when has there been a 1GB and 4GB Nano on the market? It isn't the case right now, and I don't remember when it was. And doesn't Apple place NAND orders well in advance of building the products?

If anything, I suspect that this suit is being brought in part by competitors seeking information about Apple's manufacturing/ software development processes and strategies.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:21 pm

To many facts point out that Apple is not a monopoly. They do have the right not to support every technology out there. That's called free enterprise, not a monopoly.

If this case were to be won by the plaintiffs then everyone could sue automakers because the Volkswagen beetle does not support Ferrari's paddle shifter transmission. Doesn't have electromagnetic shocks. Can't go 200 mph.

Come on people let's get real here shall we. How many products in the PC world do not support OSX or Apple in any way. Good example is Netflix on demand video. Does this make Netflix a monopoly? Apple's lawyers shouldn't have any trouble getting this thrown out of court unless the judge is as ignorant as the people who filed this complaint.

Quote this post ↓

geoduck said:

member since 30 Dec 2003 with 1922 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:25 pm

Guest wrote:
Apple's lawyers shouldn't have any trouble getting this thrown out of court unless the judge is as ignorant as the people who filed this complaint.

Wow now there is a huge assumption.

Quote this post ↓

Small White Car said:

member since 02 Jul 2004 with 1960 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:52 pm

Hey, this is great. If they win then all the other players out there will be forced to support iTunes DRM!

People are already buying iPods because they like them more than the other hardware, so there probably won't be much change there. The only difference is that more people will be shopping at the iTunes store!

(The above post is tounge-in-cheek. If these idiots were actually serious they would have sued ALL MP3 player manufacturers at once.)

Quote this post ↓

Benton said:

member since 07 Jan 2005 with 62 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:57 pm

Mehri & Skalet PLLC:

M&S filed and settled a class action against Apple Computer, Inc. that obtained relief for a nationwide class of buyers who unwittingly purchased an Apple wireless networking product that was incompatible with AOL. The settlement secures out-of-pocket damages of $45 for each class member and changes to Apple's notice and packaging practices related to this product. No class member objected to the settlement, which was approved in October 2002.

Quote this post ↓

mactoid said:

member since 01 Feb 2005 with 29 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:08 pm

WOW...this lawsuit is a great idea! I'm going down to my local shyster and filing a lawsuit against FORD...they are obviously a monopoly because I don't have the freedom to install GM parts!!!!!!

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:18 pm

Very poor analysis in this column.

"While the suit claims that Apple is intentionally crippling its products to force consumers into purchasing music only from the iTunes Store, that charge may be difficult to prove in court. Apple CEO has openly stated that his company includes copy protection in songs only because the record labels require it.

Apple also offers EMI's music library without copy protection at the same price as copy protected songs -- all playable on AAC-compatible music devices."

How Apple packages what is in the iTunes store is not of consequence. It is the iPod that is the problem. It doesn't matter that Internet Explorer was free, Microsoft could offer it as a free download all it wanted and that would not have been an anti-trust violation. It was that the bundled it in their more successful product, the product that initially gets into consumers hands, that product obviously being Windows. It was in Windows that there was a problem, they used Windows to promote IE. Here, IE is iTunes and the iPod is Windows. By not allowing consumers to play music from other online retailers, they are in effect bundling iTunes as the only option for DRM'd music. Not everyone wants to buy tracks to "own" from DRM stores, some prefer subscription services, and these are all but useless with the iPod. Apple is using its market dominance with the iPod to lock consumers into their online store, or at the very least, lock consumers out of other stores. In my opinion this suit is long overdue, but it is almost too late. For purchases DRM appears to be on its way out. Assuming Apple is willing to stick by what it states publicly, it should abandon DRM altogether since it does not offer a subscription service.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:33 pm

brett_x wrote:
Is this a freaking joke? What the hell is up with these lawyers?

1) Can't you convert WMA files in the PC version of iTunes?

3) Just were and when has there been a 1GB and 4GB Nano on the market?

1) It's not just lack of support for WMA, it's lack of support for the DRM scheme. Breaking that would be illegal. Circumventing DRM is against the law.

3) First generation. 2 & 4 gigs came out 9/2005, 1 gig came out 2/2006. Without seeing the actual suit, hard to know which nano's they are specifically talking about, but it could have easily been a typo in the original article. Seeing as you only took issue with the details, not the price gouging, the argument works for most of the iPods, like the touch. Since a 4GB Flash chip costs about $10, then why is the 16 GB Touch $100 more than the 8 GB? That's 4x the cost increase.

Quote this post ↓

Small White Car said:

member since 02 Jul 2004 with 1960 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:11 pm

Anonymous wrote:
Apple is using its market dominance with the iPod to lock consumers into their online store.

Except for CDs.

Except for Amazon's online music store.

Except for Sony's new store:

http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/34266

So there's three things that prove your entire theory is BS. I'm sure there are other examples, but I don't even need to list them. The fact that even one exists shows you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

If you were even remotely correct, Apple would block all of these things. Or perhaps you have some explanation as to how Apple is "locking" people into something by NOT blocking these choices? Seems to me that a lock is only effective if you, ya know, lock it.

Oh, wait. Is your argument that it's not enough to support many choices? That it doesn't count unless they support ALL choices? Well in that case, let me ask you this: Since Apple is apparently willing to let other sources of music onto their iPods (see above) isn't it more reasonable to assume that the problem here isn't Apple but rather these other stores?

I guess subscription services are left out of all this. So that's your complaint? The iPod only plays "buy-to-own music?" What's next, suing the iPod Touch because it doesn't make phone calls like an iPhone? You can't sue a product because it doesn't "do everything."

guh

Quote this post ↓

deasys said:

member since 08 Apr 2003 with 296 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:28 pm

Guest wrote:

Quote:
By not allowing consumers to play music from other online retailers...

Huh? Other retailers didn't allow iPod owners to access their files! Why were they supplying files in incompatible formats? They've got a nerve. Perhaps they are the ones that should be sued.

Quote:
Not everyone wants to buy tracks to "own" from DRM stores, some prefer subscription services, and these are all but useless with the iPod.

That is so irrelevant, guest. Why not insist that Apple must make all its iPods have the ability to make toast? Yep, that's what I want--an MP3-playing toaster! Damn you, Apple.

Quote:
Apple is using its market dominance with the iPod to lock consumers into their online store, or at the very least, lock consumers out of other stores.

"Market dominance" or not, Apple has no such capability. Consumers are free to source iPod-compatible content from wherever they please. Since iPods handle a great many formats and the iPod's designated jukebox application can readily extract tracks from CDs for use on the iPod, they'll have plenty of choices.

Quote:
In my opinion this suit is long overdue

Risible.

Quote:
For purchases DRM appears to be on its way out.

Whoa! How about that!? And which captain of industry long-ago publicly encouraged exactly that?

Quote:
Assuming Apple is willing to stick by what it states publicly

I think that's a safe bet...

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:45 pm

Small White Car wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Apple is using its market dominance with the iPod to lock consumers into their online store.

Except for CDs.

Except for Amazon's online music store.

Except for Sony's new store:

http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/34266

So there's three things that prove your entire theory is BS. I'm sure there are other examples, but I don't even need to list them. The fact that even one exists shows you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Taking it personal much? What we are talking about is WMA DRM. Everything you have listed is not WMA DRM, which never once was even written in your response. I know what I'm talking about just fine, but you clearly missed what I was saying. It would help if you read the entire sentence, instead of just the opening clause that you quoted. The full sentence was: "Apple is using its market dominance with the iPod to lock consumers into their online store, or at the very least, lock consumers out of other stores." You see, it changes the entire perspective when you are able to see the whole forest.

The point is this, with the iPod's dominance in the mp3 player market they have exerted their influence to lessen the value and reach of online music services in competition with iTunes. With nearly three quarters market share, by specifically designing player software without support for one of the most popularly used DRM models when the hardware is fully capable of playing it, they have engaged in monopolizing tactics whose purpose it is to give them an advantage in another market, namely online music services.

Quote this post ↓

Boscher said:

member since 04 Jan 2008 with 7 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:25 pm

I agree. This is such a frivolous lawsuit and a waste of our tax dollars. "Apple's crippleware operating system software prevents the iPod Shuffle from playing WMA files." Well, friggin DUH! Why would Apple create a Windows Media Player???? The record companies told Apple to protect the files using DRM or they wouldn't sign...so they did with their technology. Their iPods can play a variety of formats and even convert WMA to AAC OR MP3. Does that ugly Zune play AAC? No...it uses its own DRM...WMA. Does Apple support DRM free music for all? Absolutely.

The lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:41 pm

Boscher wrote:
I agree. This is such a frivolous lawsuit and a waste of our tax dollars. "Apple's crippleware operating system software prevents the iPod Shuffle from playing WMA files." Well, friggin DUH! Why would Apple create a Windows Media Player???? The record companies told Apple to protect the files using DRM or they wouldn't sign...so they did with their technology. Their iPods can play a variety of formats and even convert WMA to AAC OR MP3. Does that ugly Zune play AAC? No...it uses its own DRM...WMA. Does Apple support DRM free music for all? Absolutely.

The lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous.

Boscher, that is an uninformed opinion. If we want to really call out people for not knowing what they are talking about, well, this is it.

Firstly, YES, the Zune DOES play AAC. Simple verifiable fact.

Second, what you think you are talking about is FairPlay, Apple's DRM system. The reason that the Zune and no other player on the market plays DRM tracks from iTunes is that Apple refuses to license FairPlay. This refusal to allow other device manufacturers use their DRM scheme has landed Apple in court being cited as yet another monopolistic tactic that Apple has used.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:19 pm

The problem here is that Zune is crap, as the full line of Microsoft products. Zune is getting dust on the shelves because nobody cares for Zune or any other Microsoft product.

As Zune is $#!% and have sold half a dozen units since launching, Microsoft is trying to get a ride on the iPod, the number one best seller player of all times, force Apple to make the iPod Zune compatible, hoping to push their music sells.

The problem is:

1) Microsoft is evil and nobody will buy from Zune Crap market place, even if iPod can read crappy Zune DRM. The day this happen the hell will freeze so hard the devil will have to choose another profession.

2) Microsoft is dead already. They died silently a few years. The death certificate was issued in 2000 after launching WIndows ME (=MEdiocre) and certified when they promised and not delivered Vista in 2003. The only reason why M$ is not broken yet is because they are doing tons of money by inertia. Like a big ship, it takes a while to stop after cutting the motors.

3) Microsoft is like a zombie. It is a dead company that cannot win any battle, not even battleship with paper and pen.

4) The current job of Microsoft in the market is to throw crap on other companies' fans. The goal is: if you cannot win, at least you can be evil.

Quote this post ↓

Small White Car said:

member since 02 Jul 2004 with 1960 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:44 pm

Guest wrote:
but you clearly missed what I was saying.

Ok, since you "get it," why didn't you answer any of my question? Seems like that would be easy for you since you're the one who understands all this.

I asked 4 real questions and 1 joke question. You ignored them all and instead decided to re-phrase your original post. If you want to respond to what I wrote, I'll write back, but if you're going to just keep repeating yourself I don't see the point.

Quote this post ↓

deasys said:

member since 08 Apr 2003 with 296 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:07 pm

The Guest wrote:

Quote:
With nearly three quarters market share, by specifically designing player software without support for one of the most popularly used DRM models when the hardware is fully capable of playing it, they have engaged in monopolizing tactics

No, guest--you have it wrong. It's like this:

"Despite Apple's iPod having nearly three quarters market share, competing online stores refused to supply files playable by Apple's iPods. They are therefore terminally stupid and richly deserve to die."

Quote this post ↓

Tik Tok said:

member since 05 Oct 2005 with 21 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:32 pm

Guest said, " Here, IE is iTunes and the iPod is Windows. By not allowing consumers to play music from other online retailers, they are in effect bundling iTunes as the only option for DRM'd music. Not everyone wants to buy tracks to "own" from DRM stores, some prefer subscription services, and these are all but useless with the iPod. Apple is using its market dominance with the iPod to lock consumers into their online store, or at the very least, lock consumers out of other stores."

The analogy is incorrect.

In the OS world, Windows genuinely held a serious monopoly,and employed various devices to maintain it. Since most computer users were compelled to use Windows, that forced them to use Windows-compatible programs; and, since IE was the only browser then that worked well with Windows (due to Microsoft's monkey business), people essentially were limited to using IE, to Netscape's loss.

Here, iTunes may compete with other music stores, but there are a variety of alternative music sources that play perfectly well with an iPod. There is no monopoly on music sources; there is plenty of competition. Accordingly, while some sources may not work with iPod directly, (usually due to limitations, i.e., DRM, on their music), anyone who wants to put music on an iPod from places other than iTunes Store will find it simple and easy to do. Similarly, if you don't like iPod's limitations, you can purchase alternatives that work with alternative music sources, like subscription services; no one requires you to buy an iPod to play music.

Neither the ITS or the iPod are exclusive or monopoly providers of what they offer. You cannot say that about Windows and IE back when both the federal government and the EU found Microsoft had deliberately employed monopolistic tactics to destroy Netscape and other competitors.

If this lawsuit has merit, I think I'll sue Dell, and HP and all the other PC makers, since their products won't run OSX. Who do they think they are?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:09 pm

Guest wrote:
The problem here is that Zune is crap, as the full line of Microsoft products.

Zune has no relevance at all. That device has nothing to do with lawsuit.

Tik Tok wrote:
Guest said, " Here, IE is iTunes and the iPod is Windows. By not allowing consumers to play music from other online retailers, they are in effect bundling iTunes as the only option for DRM'd music. Not everyone wants to buy tracks to "own" from DRM stores, some prefer subscription services, and these are all but useless with the iPod. Apple is using its market dominance with the iPod to lock consumers into their online store, or at the very least, lock consumers out of other stores."

The analogy is incorrect.

In the OS world, Windows genuinely held a serious monopoly,and employed various devices to maintain it. Since most computer users were compelled to use Windows, that forced them to use Windows-compatible programs; and, since IE was the only browser then that worked well with Windows (due to Microsoft's monkey business), people essentially were limited to using IE, to Netscape's loss.

Here, iTunes may compete with other music stores, but there are a variety of alternative music sources that play perfectly well with an iPod. There is no monopoly on music sources; there is plenty of competition.

You got a little mixed up there with the analogy, that's why you think it is incorrect. You are saying iTunes has competition and does not have the market share to exert monopolistic influence and you are correct. It is the iPod, with nearly 75% market share that is in a position to exert such an influence. Apple uses that influence to increase the value of its product in another market by not supporting a widely used DRM scheme, but rather including only its proprietary unlicensed DRM scheme.

The problem was not how well anyone else's programs ran on Windows, the monopolistic move by Microsoft was bundling IE with Windows. That was using their dominance in one market (OSes) to increase the value of a product in another market (browsers). Read the first sentence you quoted again, IE is iTunes and iPod is Windows.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:13 pm

By the way, it is not simple or even legal to put music from other sources on the iPod if they use the widely adopted WMA DRM scheme. It is one reason I couldn't buy my mother an iPod for Christmas, the public library uses WMA DRM for their online borrowing. But the real issue is locking out competition in download services by using their market share in iPods to decrease the relative value of services that compete with iTunes.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:17 pm

Tik Tok wrote:
If this lawsuit has merit, I think I'll sue Dell, and HP and all the other PC makers, since their products won't run OSX. Who do they think they are?

BTW, this is also Apple's fault, not Dell's or HP's. Apple doesn't license OS X either. However, they have no market share to allow them to make changes or design limitations into their products in order to influence other markets. Just like mp3 player manufacturers cannot include support for FairPlay (iTunes music) even if they want to, Dell or HP couldn't sell computers for OS X even if they wanted to. So, blame Apple if you wanted to buy one of those other computers and still run OS X. Apple does not share.

Quote this post ↓

Intruder said:

member since 07 Jul 2004 with 3149 posts, TMO Mac Specialist, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:43 pm

Well, since Microsoft has made no effort to support WMA DRM on the Macintosh (or any other platform besides Windows), and charges for the "privilege" of supporting it on devices (and who knows the price for developing and supporting it on an OS other than Windows), why should Apple go through the trouble? Microsoft has no SDK available for any OS other than WIndows. Apple is not going to offer support for WMA in one OS version of iTunes only (especially when it is not their OS that is supported). Remember, iTunes needs to support the DRM scheme too, not just the iPod.

Is the plaintiff offering to pay all of the fees and development costs for Apple?

Just because somebody WANTS something doesn't mean they have a legal right to it, nor do they have the legal right to force somebody to give it to them.

Quote this post ↓

deasys said:

member since 08 Apr 2003 with 296 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:52 am

Delusional Guest wrote:

Quote:
You are saying iTunes has competition and does not have the market share to exert monopolistic influence and you are correct. It is the iPod, with nearly 75% market share that is in a position to exert such an influence.

Actually, the iTunes Store's market share is even higher than that of the iPod. Amazing, isn't it?

http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=2191

Quote:
Apple uses that influence to increase the value of its product in another market by not supporting a widely used DRM scheme

The only "widely used DRM scheme" is Apple's FairPlay. Microsoft's scheme is hardly a blip on the radar. In fact, it so badly failed that Microsoft itself abandoned it when it introduced the Zune players!

How zoon you forget...

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:36 am

Intruder wrote:
Well, since Microsoft has made no effort to support WMA DRM on the Macintosh (or any other platform besides Windows), and charges for the "privilege" of supporting it on devices (and who knows the price for developing and supporting it on an OS other than Windows), why should Apple go through the trouble? Microsoft has no SDK available for any OS other than WIndows. Apple is not going to offer support for WMA in one OS version of iTunes only (especially when it is not their OS that is supported). Remember, iTunes needs to support the DRM scheme too, not just the iPod.

Is the plaintiff offering to pay all of the fees and development costs for Apple?

Just because somebody WANTS something doesn't mean they have a legal right to it, nor do they have the legal right to force somebody to give it to them.

Agreed, but this isn't about what the consumers want, this is about the fact that Apple used it's dominance of the player market to limit the value of competitors in the online music services market. I am not aware of what the licensing (that's what it's called when people pay to use the DRM scheme, actually, it drives the use of iTunes and Mac OS X as well) is for WMA DRM, but I do know that it is available to third party device manufacturers. I have no idea why you think iTunes needs to support the DRM scheme, it can sync a file to a device totally unaware of the DRM, as many programs do. It is only the device that needs to be able to interpret the encryption keys. Once a device is operating, adding in support for another codec or DRM scheme does not cost that much. There are numerous groups that reverse engineer iPods and void their license agreements with Apple to install third party firmware which does exactly such a thing. That's harder work than when you are the same people who developed the device in the first place.

deasys wrote:
Delusional Guest wrote:

Quote:
You are saying iTunes has competition and does not have the market share to exert monopolistic influence and you are correct. It is the iPod, with nearly 75% market share that is in a position to exert such an influence.

Actually, the iTunes Store's market share is even higher than that of the iPod. Amazing, isn't it?

http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=2191

Quote:
Apple uses that influence to increase the value of its product in another market by not supporting a widely used DRM scheme

The only "widely used DRM scheme" is Apple's FairPlay. Microsoft's scheme is hardly a blip on the radar. In fact, it so badly failed that Microsoft itself abandoned it when it introduced the Zune players!

How zoon you forget...

That's fine, I never said that iTunes has lesser market share. Market dominance in online services does not negate the fact that Apple uses its market share in players to lessen the value of other online services. That may actually be taken as evidence of the results of locking users out of competing services.

I am not sure how you measure support, but if you measure in the number of providers who create content with the DRM scheme, FairPlay falls flat on its face. If you cannot face the fact that there is a vast market out there and tons of people are using WMDRM, then the argument with you is over, as you truly know what delusion is.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:20 am

Easier than suing: don't buy an iPod!

That is, if you want a cheaper music player that offers DRM laden WMA playback, buy something else.

Don't forget to check which DRM your WMAs use, as there are more than one which are mutually incompatible.

Quote this post ↓

Boscher said:

member since 04 Jan 2008 with 7 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:09 am

Guest wrote:
Boscher wrote:
I agree. This is such a frivolous lawsuit and a waste of our tax dollars. "Apple's crippleware operating system software prevents the iPod Shuffle from playing WMA files." Well, friggin DUH! Why would Apple create a Windows Media Player???? The record companies told Apple to protect the files using DRM or they wouldn't sign...so they did with their technology. Their iPods can play a variety of formats and even convert WMA to AAC OR MP3. Does that ugly Zune play AAC? No...it uses its own DRM...WMA. Does Apple support DRM free music for all? Absolutely.

The lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous.

Boscher, that is an uninformed opinion. If we want to really call out people for not knowing what they are talking about, well, this is it.

Firstly, YES, the Zune DOES play AAC. Simple verifiable fact.

Second, what you think you are talking about is FairPlay, Apple's DRM system. The reason that the Zune and no other player on the market plays DRM tracks from iTunes is that Apple refuses to license FairPlay. This refusal to allow other device manufacturers use their DRM scheme has landed Apple in court being cited as yet another monopolistic tactic that Apple has used.

Oh...Ok guest...FAIRPLAY DRM...there...

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:27 pm

Boscher wrote:
Guest wrote:
Boscher wrote:
I agree. This is such a frivolous lawsuit and a waste of our tax dollars. "Apple's crippleware operating system software prevents the iPod Shuffle from playing WMA files." Well, friggin DUH! Why would Apple create a Windows Media Player???? The record companies told Apple to protect the files using DRM or they wouldn't sign...so they did with their technology. Their iPods can play a variety of formats and even convert WMA to AAC OR MP3. Does that ugly Zune play AAC? No...it uses its own DRM...WMA. Does Apple support DRM free music for all? Absolutely.

The lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous.

Boscher, that is an uninformed opinion. If we want to really call out people for not knowing what they are talking about, well, this is it.

Firstly, YES, the Zune DOES play AAC. Simple verifiable fact.

Second, what you think you are talking about is FairPlay, Apple's DRM system. The reason that the Zune and no other player on the market plays DRM tracks from iTunes is that Apple refuses to license FairPlay. This refusal to allow other device manufacturers use their DRM scheme has landed Apple in court being cited as yet another monopolistic tactic that Apple has used.

Oh...Ok guest...FAIRPLAY DRM...there...

Right, point being, that nobody supports FairPlay because Apple refuses to license it. Microsoft doesn't even had a choice, the Zune isn't special in this respect. It's just in a class of devices that are everything except the iPod, and that is another instance of where Apple has landed itself in court as an anti-trust violator.

Quote this post ↓

deasys said:

member since 08 Apr 2003 with 296 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:46 pm

Delusional Guest wrote:

Quote:
Right, point being, that nobody supports FairPlay because Apple refuses to license it. Microsoft doesn't even had a choice, the Zune isn't special in this respect

Oh, Microsoft had a choice alright--it could have created a cross-platform DRM like Apple did. But it chose not to do so. It could have encouraged DRM-free content like Apple did. But it chose not to do so.

This lawsuit, and your argument, are a sham.

Quote this post ↓

Intruder said:

member since 07 Jul 2004 with 3149 posts, TMO Mac Specialist, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:51 pm

Apparently, Apple has licensed Fairplay to Fox

And the ROKR was/is not the only phone to support Fairplay. The SLVR and the RAZR V3i also support Fairplay. Neither of those were announced or developed by Apple. In other words, Motorola is a licensee of Fairplay.

So is Netgear. Their EVA8000 can play iTS purchased files.

And why would I want to be able to put WMA files on my iPod without being able to play them on my computer? How is that "fair use"? Microsoft has chosen to not support the MacOS with WM10, so why should Apple choose to support WMA DRM on any of their hardware?

How is Apple a monopoly here? There are at least 50 different options for digital music players, all of which work in Windows (and fewer work on Macs by the music players choice, not Apple's), and several options for music download (some with DRM, some without). Consumers are free to choose whatever they wish, as they are not forced to buy an iPod. It is not like they must have an iPod in order to be compatible with their office music or something (the argument used for why people must run Windows or Office). IF they want to be compatible with Rhapsody or whatever, then buy a player that is.

This lawsuit IS whining. My prediction is that it will be thrown out of court.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:19 pm

Looks like John Edwards and his ilk are up to it again.

Quote this post ↓

brett_x said:

member since 24 Jan 2006 with 322 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:08 pm

Intruder wrote:

...So is Netgear. Their EVA8000 can play iTS purchased files....

I'm not getting into the argument, because clearly, Mr. Anonymous is a troll. But The EVA8000 only plays WMDRM10 (Windows Media) DRM'd media.. not Fairplay. It does support Unprotected AAC files, however.

http://www.netgear.com/Products/Entertainment/DigitalMediaPlayers/EVA8000.aspx

Quote this post ↓

Intruder said:

member since 07 Jul 2004 with 3149 posts, TMO Mac Specialist, send him a message or view his profile

Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:31 pm

Not according to the PCWorld review.

The c|net reviewers tested it and had it working, despite what the Netgear press release and description say.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.