iPod Tax Causes Sour Apples 388
An anonymous reader writes "Apple Computer is stepping up its push to get iPod accessory makers to pay for the right to connect to the popular music player." From the article: "It's not clear what means Apple might employ if companies don't go along, as Apple declined to comment on that. Though many manufacturers have signed up for the program so far, some have complained in private that it's too high a price. But for Apple, the move is a chance to profit further from the empire it has built on the iPod, given that the market for such add-ons is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year."
And so it goes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And so it goes (Score:5, Interesting)
Not buying that (Score:3, Insightful)
And what's the market price? If there's only one seller, what justification do you have for determining that price? Even if you're right, how do you know that prices wouldn't be even lower given real competition?
Re:Not buying that (Score:3, Interesting)
That certainly may be true - but that's not evidence to support the claim that they were selling below market value. If they're the monopoly, whatever they sell it for is market value, and there's no evidence they're "leaving money on the table" b
Re:And so it goes (Score:5, Interesting)
Au contraire, mon frere. Over time, any given ecological niche will be dominated by one species only. You only find multiple species occupying a niche when that niche changes somehow.
Re:And so it goes (Score:2)
No monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
mod down, not insightful (Score:3, Insightful)
Add these to your list:
proprietary closed DRM format that no one can license who wants to make a compatible player
no support for DRM formats supplied by competitors who sell music online.
Trying to leverage iPod to cause
Re:No monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
"monopolistic practices regardless of marketshare" (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, one might disagree with Apple's policy for any number of valid reasons. For example: it's a poor long term policy if one believes in the importance of business relationships; it stifles Apple's secondary manufacturing market and thus impacts the utility of their product line the consumers; the short term gains aren't worth the potential long term losses... blah blah blah. But then you'd be forced to argue the profit potential and long term effects of their policy instead of simply claiming a negative gut reaction. So you don't like it. If it pisses you off enough, buy a competitor's product. But don't claim it is proof of a monopoly. There are plenty of third party portable mp3 and digital music players on the market. Apple can neither force their competitors out of that market, nor can they use the iPod to leverage their other market (computers, Operating Systems, and application software). Deal. --M
Nature LOVES monopolies (Score:2, Insightful)
How can you say that, look around you!
- How many websites compete with
- Humans have a monopoly as far as higher order species.
- The Earth has a heck of a monopoly on liveable planets (at least in our solar system, at least as far as we can tell)
- Almost all useable light that shines on the Earth and helps to create/maintain life comes from a single source
- Much of what is animalistic instinct is to try to attain a monopoly at any stratum.
Re:Nature LOVES monopolies (Score:3, Insightful)
- How many websites compete with /.?
How about fark? Ars Technica? news.com.com.com.com? What's keeping me from starting my own and competing well? What could Malda do to cause me to not be able to compete?
- Humans have a monopoly as far as higher order species.
High order as in what? Insects outnumber us by a huge amount, and they're a huge problem in the continuation of our species.
- The Earth has a heck of a monopoly on liveable planets (at least in our solar system, at least as far as we c
Re:And so it goes (Score:3, Interesting)
If that were true, there would be no reason to have anti-monopoly laws. Any pure capitalistic system will eventually trend toward monopolies. We've seen it happen many times in this country alone. It then takes intervention from a sufficiently powerful outside source (government) to return the market to a state of competition.
Re:And so it goes (Score:2)
Its called "Geek Capital" (Score:5, Funny)
Bollocks (Score:2)
You might hate windows, but it's cheap and anything you create for it has a potential audience. You might want to buy a non-Apple portable music player, but there are all those nifty accessories the others don't have.
Re:And so it goes (Score:2)
Re:And so it goes (Score:3, Interesting)
Please explain. I've never heard this idea before, and I want to know the rationale and reasoning behind it. I can think of several naturally occuring monopolies, and wish to know where the flaw in my thinking is.
Example 1) A monopoly on horses in a one horse town
Example 2) A monopoly on gas stations in a town with only one intersection.
Example 3) Licensing fees for iPod accessories when there are dozens of iPod competitors.
Re:And so it goes (Score:2)
The have a "Buy Now" link, and they are a company, so why don't these guys [yellowdoglinux.com] count?
By your measure, you could say Microsoft is the only company that sells an OS for Intel's computers.
Re:And so it goes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And so it goes (Score:5, Insightful)
Step out of the Apple box and think about the millions of products in this world and the millions of additions that you can buy for them without paying a kickback to the parent. The first thing that comes to mind is aftermarket products for cars which is probably a billion dollar industry. I do not have to pay Ford license fee to put a Fram filter, Monroe shocks, Michelin tires, Panasonic stereo, a Midwest Mustang hood scoop, BBS rims, a trailer hitch, a Vortech supercharger, larger after market fuel injectors, and a set of heads from some company in central Florida on my car. To even think that some licensing agreement with Ford should exist before hand 100% is completely insane.
Even using the iPod for an example, do you think anyone selling headphones with a standard 3.5mm stero plug should have to pay Apple for it?
Please don't give me that typical poor Apple story about Apple ensuring only quality accessories are available and no junk allowed. The free market will sort that out and has for every other after market product ever made for probably the last hundred years.
This is nothing more then an attempt by Apple to cash in on others improvements. Almost as bad and very similar to the RIAA wanting a part of the iPod sales money from Apple for the same thing. RIAA thinks Apple owes them money because iPods play their music and profits from their work --> Apple wants money from accessory companies because they use the iPod to make products for and profit from apples work. Wow, change your mind now? Do you consider one bad and one good?
If anything, a heathly after market of iPod things would HELP overall iPod sales.
I am sorry to rant if I misunderstand your position on this
Payment for use of a trademark (Score:5, Insightful)
The situation with Apple is no different. Apple demands payment for allowing third party manufacturers to use the term "Designed for iPod", almost certainly a trademarked term. With this agreement they also provide some technical specs to properly interface with their product. There is nothing improper with Apple's demands here. Maybe it's bad business sense - or maybe not. *shrug* --M
Re:Payment for use of a trademark (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Payment for use of a trademark (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.tomsbroncoparts.com/product.php?catego
you have obviously never done work on a car or even been in an autoparts store.
Re:And so it goes (Score:4, Insightful)
Whoa, so you think that a company doesn't pay to put a Ford logo on it's retail box in order to say that it is "factory blessed"? You've GOT to be kidding. Of course there are licensing fees involved.
Some product companies don't want to pay a license fee, and so they can't use the official logo. Fram is a good case - they have a good reputation, so they don't NEED to license anything from Ford. On the flip side, Ford won't bless just any crap product for logo use.
The decision to buy a license strictly depends on if the seller thinks it's profitable to use the logo (giving customers comfort, and therefore increasing sales) at the expense of the licensing fees.
These licensing deals happen all the time. Most customers don't realize it. If you see a product box with an MS-Windows or MacOS logo on it anywhere, you can bet that there is a license involved.
What's all the fuss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:2)
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:2)
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:2)
Corrolary (Score:2)
Re:Corrolary (Score:2)
Also, "made for iPod" implies it's going to match in color, style, simplicity, elegance, and everything else for which you boug
Re:Corrolary (Score:2)
Which is exactly why, if you want that market advantage, you should have to pay for the licensing fee from Apple.
Apple spends tens of dollars a year in hyping the iPod label. If you expect to benefit from that, despite the fact that your product may-or-may-not 1)work perfectly well with non-iPod equipment, 2)work better than non-labelled components, then you should expect to pay.
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but that doesn't seem like a good idea in a free market. A company named NA should be safe with something like:
Compatible with Apple's iPod*
*Apple, iPod are trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc
NA is not associated with Apple Computer, Inc
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:5, Insightful)
You're free to not give it, and they're free to not help you. No harm, no foul.
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:2, Insightful)
Or Energizer comcorder batteries that say they fit so and so's camcorder. Should they have to pay a fee to say "Fits Panasonic" Cell phone batteries, vacume cleaner bags, air filter replacments, car stereo adaptor kits, car stereo speakers, e
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:2)
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if there is some specific LEGAL difference all that means is they don't use the word Deisgned for but use the word compatible; iirc Apple wants a royalty even for that, and any use of the word iPod.
Besides, "Designed for" is still 100% accurate and not misleading. On the other hand if they said "Designed By", "Approved By" or any other language that makes it sound like the company either IS Apple or is somehow affiliated with or sanctioned by Apple
But as mentioned by another poster, it is common to add the disclaimer stating that no such affiliations exist and that words like iPod etc are registered tradmarks etc etc etc.
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:2)
So if manufacturers want to use some kind of non-official message I doubt there's much Apple could actually do, but that wouldn't engender as much consumer trust, and therefore would defeat the purpose of the 'made for iPod' idea.
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:2)
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there a trademark equivalent of fair use? If this was a copyright issue, this would probably fal
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:2)
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:2)
Aftermarket auto accessories such as nose bras, antenna balls and spark plugs say e.g. "Fits Chevy Impala", and these parts are not necessarily approved by GM. Why is the iPod different?
How about adding a disclaimer:
iPod is a registered trademark of Apple Computer. This product is not approved by apple.
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:3, Informative)
The makes and models are always spelled out with no apparent problems that I've ever seen. Sometimes, there will be a disclaimer somewhere that says "Not affiliated with Volkswagen" or "These items are not ma
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:2)
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:2)
Re:What's all the fuss (Score:2)
Just like RIAA proposed tax? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Apple doesn't do the engineering for accessories or the manufacturing - I see NO reason they should receive the profits?!?
I have similar feelings about Apple paying RIAA.
Re:Just like RIAA proposed tax? (Score:2)
Re:Just like RIAA proposed tax? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, in other words, you're absolutely wrong.
Just patent white... (Score:4, Funny)
No true ipod weenie would buy or use a non-matching accessory.
Re:Just patent white... (Score:2)
Is Cupertino like uh KKK country?
Re:Just patent white... (Score:2)
(note: yes, it's all bullshit)
Re:Just patent white... (Score:2)
You may be joking (or maybe not), but keep in mind what Steve Jobbs said to the president of Sonos http://www.sonos.com/us/index.htm/ [sonos.com] said when he asked Jobbs what he thought of their music player. Jobbs said "I think you might be infringing on apple patents".
Apple isn't a
Re:Just patent white... (Score:2)
So, Does this Make... (Score:2, Funny)
Or is Greedy generic enough to cover all the bases?
IMarv
I don't see why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't see why... (Score:2)
As so many companies (viz Griffin, iSkin, Belkin) seem to have made a killing out of this secondary market, I don't see why this is an issue at all - if they'd like to reassure the consumer about compatibility and tie themselves into the brand name, it's a fair requirement. I'd be tempted to agree with the parent poster.
First record companies, now apple? (Score:2, Insightful)
Now they're turning around and telling add-on companies they want to do the same thing???
Geesh
uncomfortable (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this will make companies reconsider, that are looking to develop software or hardware for the mac.
If it's only money for analysis and approval of the item though, it wouldn't bother me that much though.
B.
Love/Hate (Score:3, Funny)
Just add 10% to the final selling price (Score:2)
If you want to take a bite out of the Apple, you better compensate the worm.
iPod tax, sales tax, land tax (Score:3, Funny)
Re:iPod tax, sales tax, land tax (Score:2)
Is this Atari or Nintendo? (Score:5, Insightful)
*takes a bite out of a yellow pepper*
- Atari (or was it Colecovision? It's been so long ago I can't remember) originally had a "no license fee" to their system. Which leads to an overabundance of very crappy games, which lead to death of the system.
When Nintendo had their NES system, if you wanted the "Gold Sticker" of quality, you had to go through Nintendo's process and give them a cut for the licensing. Which forged a company that is profitable even today.
So, is Apple being "teh evil" by enforcing a trademark license - if you want to use the words "Made for iPod" on your product, you pay the fee that lets them decide if your item is actually worth it. Or, you can go the Gameshark route and *not* license your product and sell it as "iPod compatible, not licensed by Apple" and still make money anyway.
Personally, I think that Apple's being a touch overhanded here, but they're working with an existing model, one they hope to bring them enough money to continue to fund new products and new directions.
Of course, this is all just my opinion - I could be wrong.
Re:Is this Atari or Nintendo? (Score:2)
When Nintendo had their NES system, if you wanted the "Gold Sticker" of quality, you had to go through Nintendo's process and give them a cut for the licensing. Which forged a company that is profitable even today.
There's a big difference between charging a manufacturur to sell an official" accessory, and trying to force manufacturers into it.
I don't see how they have any legal groupd to stand on here, there are decades of third-party video game accessory makers, cell phone accessory makers, etc.
Re:Is this Atari or Nintendo? (Score:2)
Re:Is this Atari or Nintendo? (Score:2)
Re:Is this Atari or Nintendo? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is fighting to prevent iPod from becoming a generic term and losing their TM. Go to Best Buys and you'll hear "Oh no, you don't want these iPods, we have other cheaper iPods over here" as salespeople will direct them to the players they're stuck with.
Apple is starting to fight to protect the name iPod. You WILL NOT call generic mp3 players "iPods" and they are backing this up legally now to prevent dilution. Remember that if you don't enforce a TM you lose it. They are containing the damage before it gets worse. Of course they'll also make a mint here, but that's what licensing is all about. They're just killing 2 birds with one stone.
Re:Is this Atari or Nintendo? (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple is a brand that relies on its coolness and brand name recognition to sell the amount of product it does (yes, design is part of it, but brand is most of it). If it loses control over its brand name, it loses the primary selling point behind its products.
Coin has two sides (Score:4, Interesting)
On the one hand, people will cry out "Monopoly!" and point at Apple. Naturally, Apple's dominance in the MP3 player market makes it a likely target for such a label, and a move like this certainly helps reinforce that image.
But on the other hand, the manufacturers of the third party add-ons are making a mint off the iPod themselves. If their entire industry is based on the existance of the iPod, doesn't Apple have the authority to ask for a cut of the sales? Without the iPod, those accessories wouldn't exist. I'd see it as paying a royalty to use the iPod brand/name/whatever. Items marketed as "For use with iPod" should pay to use the name "iPod." For some reason, a set of speakers marked as "iPod Speakers" sounds better than "Speakers for use with that fruit-named company's music player."
Re:Coin has two sides (Score:2)
There is no such right, in general - this is what patents are for. The mere fact that you created something does not mean that you're entitled to pro
Re:Coin has two sides (Score:5, Insightful)
Many many software companies based their products on the existance of Windows, does MS have the authority to ask for a cut of the sales?!!
Re:Coin has two sides (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, if the companies in question want to qualify as "tested and approved" by Microsoft. Using an association with a more trusted brand name costs money.
As other posters have mentioned, companies aren't prohibited from making iPod-compatible accessories if they don't pay the tax. They just don't get to use Apple's name or logo, and they don't get access to specifications that might help them release products that work better.
Re:Coin has two sides (Score:3, Informative)
To include the "Designed for Windows XP" logo on their product if its software it must adhere to http://www.microsoft.com/winlogo/software/default. mspx [microsoft.com] and hardware http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/default.mspx
It does not mention any money, and from what I remember from 5 years ago, at least the software requirements were rarely if ever met (they used to be required to have a working uninstaller, few if any Windows programs met that criteria
Re:Coin has two sides (Score:2)
Re:Coin has two sides (Score:2)
So no, I can't agree with that scenario because it's based on an invalid assumption. The RIAA is taking a substantial percentage
Steve Jobs...... (Score:2, Insightful)
IMHO, Jobs is as much of a crook as the two headed monster known as the MPAA/RIAA.
Suicidal Apple Tendencies (Score:3, Insightful)
For myself, the ONLY reason I own an iPod was the amazing plethora of accessories avaialable for it. It's simpy not a very impressive MP3 player (other than styling), but being able to choose from a bazillion accessories makes it pretty attractive.
If Apple tries too much of this, they're going to learn that holding a majority share of a market is NOT the same as a monopoly. Piss off the market enough, and Creative is going to sell a LOT more Zens.
This sounds extrmemly reminiscent of the ill fated "mac clone" fiasco a few years back.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hell has frozen over today. (Score:5, Funny)
How does Nintendo handle it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple is more liberal than camera makers (Score:3, Interesting)
lenses. So if you buy a non-Canon lens for your SLR, you are in effect
buying a pirated product. And camera makes change their systems
all the time to make them incompatible with lenses by third parties.
Apple could follow suit - but by licensing Apple allows third-party
innovation. Good for Apple, good for iPod accessories, good for
iPod users.
Re:Apple is more liberal than camera makers (Score:2)
Because they don't have them, maybe? There is no special right to make compatible lenses for a specific camera body.
So if you buy a non-Canon lens for your SLR, you are in effect
buying a pirated product.
Oh, really? I realize that {RI|MP}AA worked long and hard to make the word "pirated" apply to most everything under the sun, but do tell me -- if I buy, say, a Zeiss lens and through an adapter mount it on my Canon SLR body, in which m
Re:Apple is more liberal than camera makers (Score:2)
They change their systems all the time to eliminate backwards compatibility, since most people buy the same brand lens as the camera. Inhibiting third-party accessories is just a side benefit.
why the wrong headline? (Score:5, Insightful)
think.
Hmmmm... (Score:3)
They'll likely do what they've always done. If someone makes an iPod accessory and doesn't pay the "tax" they'll send in the lawyers.
It makes me wonder if they got the same people who came up with the Microsoft Protection Racket [slashdot.org] to come up with this idea.
Liscenced by... (Score:2, Interesting)
This kind of reminds me of the old deal with the gold "Liscensed by Nintendo" emblems that used to appear on cartridge labels back in the 80's.
As other companies figured out how to zap Nintendos lock-out chip so they could make their owned games without the shiny gold emblem, Tengen just went ahead and used legal action (which they eventually lost their case for miserably) and got the code for it from the copyright office. After that, the Tetris suit, retailers not carring Tengen titles due to threats fr
History Repeats Itself @ Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
A: Around about the middle of '90, while Sculley was at the helm, Apple raised prices across the board. Product demand was strong, and Apple shipped more systems per year than anyone. They figured this was an Econ 101 situation, and raised prices with only a fig leaf attempt to bs their way out of it. Obviously someone dropped out before Econ 401, which would have taught the costs of trading on "good will", when they could have been looking at increasing their market share upward from 20%.
B: Learning from Atari's experience where unmanaged 3rd party game developers flooded the market with crappy product, Nintendo required developers to register with them for the right to see the NES s/w development tools, or get any cooperation in distributing game carts. While some moaned that this was a restraint of trade and raised prices, Nintendo was able to control who traded on Nintendo's good will.
So, which is it for Apple, this time? Any knowledgeable insider Anon Coward care to comment?
From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also something where they are trying to insure that these devices won't harm them in the long run. TFA states that having the "Made for iPod" seal on these devices ensures that these deviuces will work on current and future iPod versions.
If I was Apple, I wouldn't want some third-rate speaker system to be designed for the current generations of the iPod, then not work on all future versions, having this burn the buyer into not wanting to buy newer versions of said speakers to continue to enjoy his/her iPod and feeling jaded by the iPod that a certified piece of gear would be gauranteed to do from the box. I think it's a good move for the future.
Re:From TFA (Score:2)
If I was Apple, I wouldn't want some third-rate speaker system to be designed for the current generations of the iPod, then not work on all future versions
Right. Ask a Tivo owner how happy they were that their remote control, which worked just peachy prior to the TivoToGo software release, suddenly turned into a piece of crap...
What? You think the average consumer
More details (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect the bigger companies will go along, seeing the fee as away of keeping smaller players from moving into the market.
Support for Electrically Connected Accessories (Score:5, Insightful)
what does.... (Score:3, Insightful)
once an ipod is sold to a customer, apple no longer has any say over what happens to that device or how it interacts with any other devices.
period.
this is pure bullshit.
same racket that console manufacturers run.
getting permission is NOT required by moral law. legal laws are completely obscene. and even there, there might be ways of not bending over to corporate interests.
that's the definition of property laws. if you own property, you can do just about anything you want, barring things which can cause death or injury.
no one needs "permission" to make accessories for any device. but that's what DRM is for. now you're getting the hang of it. without DRM and DMCA, it would be a simple matter for people to exercise their property rights.
now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
History repeats itself (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad news for iPod owners (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple's closing of the open market can only retard innovation. The space of accessory-makers willing to pay and ask for permission is necessarily smaller than the space of all potential accessory-makers. That means less competition for iPod accessories, which means higher prices and less innovation. That means that The Steve just devalued our investment in iPods.
One question: once permission is required, mightn't it be withheld? Can we be certain that Apple will allow all comers to buy a license? After all, they already threatened to sue a competitor, Real, that wanted to add new features to the iPod. What other new features -- features that iPod owners can benefit from -- might Apple veto?
Good idea! (Score:3, Funny)
Not surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
At heart, Apple is just another proprietary company, which is saved from being perceived as evil by it's small share of the computer market. (iPod is a different story; the large market share allows the evilness to come out.)
The manufacturers WANT to pay this 'tax' (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is telling the manufacturers that they can't develop and sell products for the iPod. Apple just won't help them without compensation. Besides, while popular, Apple hardly has a monopoly on mp3 players.
Re:The manufacturers WANT to pay this 'tax' (Score:3, Interesting)
The gist of the original article is that Apple used to charge only for use of the logo, but now wants to charge for the right to connect to the iPod. What they claim they are charging for is a "marketing program" where the dock