Decius wrote:
] Because I own a mac I have to used itunes and an ipod, because
] they other players and music stores don't work on my computer.
] The other stores don't work on my computer because they have
] to use a DRM system and Apple will not allow them to employ
] the DRM system supported by the ipod. Basically, I have a
] several thousand dollar purchase that locks me in to a
] particular online music store. It is a monopoly, and it
] fucking sucks.

[ It's fairer to say that if you chose to use the iTunes Music Store, that you have to use an iPod to play your purchased music, regardless of wether you are a PC or a Mac user. If you purchased an iPod, then you either must use iTMS or one of the DRM-free services, which work with any player, essentially. The several thousand dollar Macintosh is mostly external to the argument. If any of the other DRM'd music stores made Macintosh clients, you could use them, and if any of the other hardware vendors made Macintosh drivers/sync software, you could use those as well. Their decision not to, in most cases, is probably more due to the miniscule Macintosh market than to the inability to break through the iTMS/iPod linkage.

I hadn't thought all the way through the issue when I called it tenuous. I've given this a lot more thought since, and I'm now willing to grant, within the understanding I possess of antitrust law, which is very limited, that Apple is being anti-competitive in linking the iTMS with the iPod. Again, though, this has little to do with your Macintosh.

The argument that tying these two devices together leverages the market of the one to swell the other is unquestioned. It happened, so one can't argue that it didn't. The iPod became huge because it was better than the other players (or more pretty, or whatever, i mean "better" in a marketing/sales sense). Then iTMS became huge because, in large part, it was the only way to buy certain tracks for your iPod. It was also because it was simple to use and the DRM didn't require an attorney to untangle, but for the sake of argument, it's fair to say that iPod users wanted to buy music online and their choices were either the iTMS or one of the non-DRM stores, which have a very limited appeal (due to not having popular music). So the argument in that direction makes a certain amount of sense.

I'm not as convinced that the gentleman who brought suit has quite as secure a position. His argument hinges on not having had non-Apple options in music stores, which is a shaky argument. The article never states if he is a PC or a Mac user, but it doesn't matter really. Apple would have to be actively discouraging other music stores from creating Mac clients, but I argue that their lack has more to do with PC/Mac market share then anything else. He may have wanted Britney Spears, but it's not really Apple's fault that iTMS is the only way to get that on a Mac. Non-drm services work fine on the Mac, and he could've paid them instead. And if he's a PC user, then he had plenty of options of both music stores and harware players. If he used iTMS despite the other options, he can hardly be said to have been forced.

Now, it's possible that now that the iTMS and iPod together share such a large market share, the barrier to entry in the market for other hardware/service vendors is much higher, because they have to offer a system which is equally integrated, since they can't leverage compatibility with either iTunes or the iPod. That suit would probably have a good chance of success, but none of the vendors has brought it yet. Real should probably consider doing so, as they have attempted to offer their service in a way that is iPod compatible, and Apple has prevented them from doing so via updates to the iPod firmware. That seems like a more realistic situation. -k]

RE: ITunes user sues Apple over iPod