iTunes Store Turns 10 184
An anonymous reader writes
"On April 28, 2003, Apple launched the iTunes Music Store. In their original press release, they called it 'revolutionary,' in typical PR fashion. As the service reaches its 10th anniversary, it seems they were actually correct. From The Verge: 'At launch, it was Mac-only and offered a relatively tiny catalog: 200,000 songs (it currently has 26 million). But it did have the support of the major record labels of the day: Universal, EMI, Warner, Sony, and BMG. The partnerships were key to helping Apple take control of music distribution — without the songs, the iPod was a nicely designed but empty box. ... Jobs certainly had his challenges. Vidich said he's the one who suggested that iTunes charge 99 cents per track and he remembers Jobs nearly hugged him. At the time, Sony Music execs wanted to charge more than $3 a track, according to Vidich. No doubt a $3 song price would have tied an anchor around iTunes' neck, stifling growth. 99 cents, on the other hand, was below the sub-$1 psychological barrier — and has continued to be an important price point for not only music but the wide swath of 99-cent iOS apps in the store. ... Apple bet that the majority of consumers wouldn't have an issue with its lock-in tactics, and it bet correctly.'"
Lock in Tactics? (Score:2)
What exactly is the lock in if I buy a song on iTunes or an eBook?
Re: Lock in Tactics? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Lock in Tactics? (Score:5, Informative)
Originally, iTunes had DRM on music so it could only be played while iTunes was connected to your account (not always on). They removed the DRM later for music. It's still there for movies.
The article is incorrect to say this addition is Apple's - applying DRM was a prerequisite of the music industry for the licensing agreement with Apple. No DRM, no license. The removal of DRM has only happened because the music industry finally saw the writing on the wall and allowed Apple (and others) to remove it.
The movie industry isn't so enlightened yet. I avoid buying films through iTunes or alternatives, because it is far too easy to fall into a situation where you can't watch the media you legally purchased. We moved house recently and our ISP was late reconnecting us - for that period of time (over a month) we couldn't watch any films we previously purchased online because they required an Internet connection for authorisation. I'm longing for the day the movie industry wakes up to its poor treatment of customers and removes these DRM constraints.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Originally, iTunes had DRM on music so it could only be played while iTunes was connected to your account (not always on). They removed the DRM later for music. It's still there for movies.
The article is incorrect to say this addition is Apple's - applying DRM was a prerequisite of the music industry for the licensing agreement with Apple. No DRM, no license. The removal of DRM has only happened because the music industry finally saw the writing on the wall and allowed Apple (and others) to remove it.
Apple have this perception that they pushed for removing DRM, which might be true, but it is interesting that at the time of iTunes DRM the competing WMA "plays for sure" (*) stores actually had less DRM restrictions than Apple (you could keep and use more copies of the songs on more devices simultaneously, burn more copies, re-download if license lost, etc - iTunes caught up on some of these eventually but was not in the lead for less DRM). And it was Amazon who was first with a full DRM-free music catalog
Re: Lock in Tactics? (Score:2)
Re: Lock in Tactics? (Score:5, Informative)
Apple have this perception that they pushed for removing DRM, which might be true, but it is interesting that at the time of iTunes DRM the competing WMA "plays for sure" (*) stores actually had less DRM restrictions than Apple (you could keep and use more copies of the songs on more devices simultaneously, burn more copies, re-download if license lost, etc
"Plays for sure" - see, that's where the problem with your argument starts. PlaysForSure was introduced late in 2004 - IOW over a year after the iTunes DRM.
But that's just a technicality, so let's look at the actual competition. http://www.salon.com/2003/04/29/itunes/ [salon.com]
I have seen the future of music and its name is iTunes
[...] Many online music services are on the market, but they’ve all done poorly, most likely because, as Jobs said, they all “treat you like a criminal.” For the most part, the other services are subscription based — users pay a $10 or $20 per-month fee for access to a catalog of songs, and they must put up with a Byzantine set of rules outlining how they can use the tracks. Some services only offer “streaming” music, meaning that you have to be connected to the Internet when you want to listen to your songs; others let you download songs so long as you play them on a single machine (forget about transferring them to portable MP3 players); a few services let you burn songs to CDs, but only for selected tracks for an extra per-song fee. The worst part is, you have to keep paying to get the music; once you cancel your subscription, you can no longer listen to many of the tracks you’ve downloaded.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342289/ [cnn.com]
Universal and Sony rolled out a joint venture called Pressplay. AOL Time Warner (the parent of both Warner and FORTUNE's publisher), Bertelsmann (BMG's owner), EMI, and RealNetworks launched MusicNet. But instead of trying to cooperate to attract customers, the two ventures competed to dominate the digital market. Pressplay wouldn't license its songs to MusicNet, and MusicNet withheld its tunes from Pressplay.
[...]The record companies were also fearful about doing anything that might cannibalize CD sales. So they decided to "rent" people music through the Internet. You paid a monthly subscription fee for songs from MusicNet and Pressplay. But you could download MusicNet tunes onto only one computer, and they disappeared if you didn't pay your bill. That may have protected the record companies from piracy, but it didn't do much for consumers. Why fork over $10 a month for a subscription when you can't do anything with your music but listen to it on your PC? Pressplay launched with CD burning but only for a limited number of songs.
At the end of last year, Pressplay and MusicNet licensed their catalogues to each other, ending their standoff. MusicNet also now permits subscribers to burn certain songs onto CDs. But MusicNet users still can't download songs onto portable players. "These devices haven't caught on yet," insists MusicNet CEO Alan McGlade. Never mind that U.S. sales of portable MP3 players soared from 724,000 in 2001 to 1.6 million last year. Pressplay, for its part, lets subscribers download some songs onto devices, but only those that use Microsoft's Windows Media software. That means no iPods.
But I'm sure you can come up with others that were around at the time the iTunes Music Store came out.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple have this perception that they pushed for removing DRM, which might be true, but it is interesting that at the time of iTunes DRM the competing WMA "plays for sure" (*) stores actually had less DRM restrictions than Apple (you could keep and use more copies of the songs on more devices simultaneously, burn more copies, re-download if license lost, etc
"Plays for sure" - see, that's where the problem with your argument starts. PlaysForSure was introduced late in 2004 - IOW over a year after the iTunes DRM.
But that's just a technicality, so let's look at the actual competition. http://www.salon.com/2003/04/29/itunes/ [salon.com]
I have seen the future of music and its name is iTunes
[...] Many online music services are on the market, but they’ve all done poorly, most likely because, as Jobs said, they all “treat you like a criminal.” For the most part, the other services are subscription based — users pay a $10 or $20 per-month fee for access to a catalog of songs, and they must put up with a Byzantine set of rules outlining how they can use the tracks. Some services only offer “streaming” music, meaning that you have to be connected to the Internet when you want to listen to your songs; others let you download songs so long as you play them on a single machine (forget about transferring them to portable MP3 players); a few services let you burn songs to CDs, but only for selected tracks for an extra per-song fee. The worst part is, you have to keep paying to get the music; once you cancel your subscription, you can no longer listen to many of the tracks you’ve downloaded.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342289/ [cnn.com]
Universal and Sony rolled out a joint venture called Pressplay. AOL Time Warner (the parent of both Warner and FORTUNE's publisher), Bertelsmann (BMG's owner), EMI, and RealNetworks launched MusicNet. But instead of trying to cooperate to attract customers, the two ventures competed to dominate the digital market. Pressplay wouldn't license its songs to MusicNet, and MusicNet withheld its tunes from Pressplay.
[...]The record companies were also fearful about doing anything that might cannibalize CD sales. So they decided to "rent" people music through the Internet. You paid a monthly subscription fee for songs from MusicNet and Pressplay. But you could download MusicNet tunes onto only one computer, and they disappeared if you didn't pay your bill. That may have protected the record companies from piracy, but it didn't do much for consumers. Why fork over $10 a month for a subscription when you can't do anything with your music but listen to it on your PC? Pressplay launched with CD burning but only for a limited number of songs.
At the end of last year, Pressplay and MusicNet licensed their catalogues to each other, ending their standoff. MusicNet also now permits subscribers to burn certain songs onto CDs. But MusicNet users still can't download songs onto portable players. "These devices haven't caught on yet," insists MusicNet CEO Alan McGlade. Never mind that U.S. sales of portable MP3 players soared from 724,000 in 2001 to 1.6 million last year. Pressplay, for its part, lets subscribers download some songs onto devices, but only those that use Microsoft's Windows Media software. That means no iPods.
But I'm sure you can come up with others that were around at the time the iTunes Music Store came out.
My point wasn't really who launched the store first, sorry if that was unclear, but that when the WMA stores launched they had less DRM restrictions than iTunes had at the same time. I used both iTunes and MSN Music myself at the same time (yes, really). Especially the option to freely re-download songs if you lost the license for some reason (accidentally deleted, sync error, lost with PC), instead of having to buy it again. This is pretty major, and iTunes did not have it at the time [about.com], you had to buy the s
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm sure you can come up with others that were around at the time the iTunes Music Store came out.
You mean like eMusic [wikipedia.org]?
They never had DRM.
Actually, eMusic have been around since 1998, so they would have already celebrated their 15th anniversary.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/23396
When Unlimited....Isn't
Emusic customers hit glass ceiling, get booted
by Karl Bode Friday 08-Nov-2002
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon Started selling their DRM free music within in a week or so of Apple. They both started with the EMI catalog. I imagine it was really the combined pressure of two of the largest music retailers pushing on one distributor.
Re: (Score:3)
That is incorrect. You could play titles without being online. And you could export even the DRM titles as mp3, to burn them on CDs.
Re: Lock in Tactics? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well. perhaps you ment the correct thing but in my eyes your choice of words is very missleading (for me at least).
"Account connected to iTunes" is for me a synonym for being online. But understand now what you mean. Would not know myself how to express the situation properly in english :)
Re: (Score:3)
And you could export even the DRM titles as mp3, to burn them on CDs.
No, you have that backwards. You could burn them to CD directly from iTunes, and then rerip them to MP3.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry expressed it unfortunate, yes should not have said export, it was a direct burn to CD (which technically is an export, too) my fault :)
Re: Lock in Tactics? (Score:2)
Creating a CD from an iTunes playlist is very apparent. Once you create a playlist the "burn cd" button is on the same window.
Re: Lock in Tactics? (Score:4, Insightful)
When iTunes music had DRM, most computers had CD-RW's.
For the past 5 years, all iTunes music has been sold as unencrypted AAC files that can be played on any phone.
Before anyone else posts, AAC is not an Apple format, was standardised years before the iPod was introduced, and is one of the required supported formats for Android.
iTunes Match (Score:2)
the point was the music our parents bought through Itunes in the beginning.. but are still listening to them.
I seem to remember Apple providing an arrangement called "iTunes Plus" that would let people who had bought DRM tracks redownload them as DRM-free m4a by subscribing to iTunes Match.
Question (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought software was supposed to improve with time?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought software was supposed to improve with time?
"Improve with time" means "make more profit for the corporation". It has done that.
What, you didn't think "improvement" meant "give you a better user experience", did you?
You missed the point (Score:2, Insightful)
The important part of all of this is that iTunes is the means by which the industry transformed our purchasing method form possession to renting music.
When you die the rights to that music dies with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Canada, where this is probably legal.
We have a federal law regarding copying music for personal use.
In other locations, notably the USA, not so much..
Re: (Score:2)
When you die the rights to that music dies with you.
Legally, I suppose it is part of my estate and goes to whoever inherits that estate. It certainly won't stop playing. Sadly though I must say that when I die, those who inherit it might lack the taste to appreciate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you die the rights to that music dies with you.
It does? Where does it say that? I've looked over the TOS and I can't find that anywhere. What have I missed?
http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html [apple.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And this is something that needs to be resolved for all digital purchases. I would be very happy to see legal protections in place to allow the re-sale and transfer of such content. Media companies fight this tooth and nail.
Re: (Score:3)
This explains it quite well:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57505272-37/who-owns-your-downloaded-music-after-you-die/ [cnet.com]
Re: You missed the point (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
DRM free? Yes.
Watermarked? Also yes.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090113/0707133391.shtml [techdirt.com]
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/itunes-plus-everything-you-need-to-know-49300555/ [cnet.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm dead, why do I care?
Those who inherit from you won't ever listen to most of your music. There might be a areas where your tastes coincide, and there might be a few tracks that they particularly remember you by. But if they cared enough about they music they'd already have a copy (legally or otherwise). If they cared enough about remembering you they'd go purchase a copy.
And failing that, who's going to stop you taking a copy off your Mom's iPod after the funeral? We don't (yet) have trojans that
Re: (Score:2)
All of which entirely misses the point that has been made.
If I want to ignore the contract I agreed to with Apple/Amazon/Google, etc.,
I could do so and find free sources of music, and remove DRM or other signatures.
However the point and discussion at hand is about the transition from buying a copy of music to being loaned a copy, at a fee.
Who is Vidich? (Score:2)
The real story (Score:5, Insightful)
The real revolution was that Apple became a big enough player with the iPod to force the hand of the big 5 of the RIAA to actually offer their music online in digital form for what many people deemed a fair enough price to not pirate. It seems commonplace now in 2013 enough to forget, but in the mid 2000s there were very options for consumers to get their music online, and one could argue this was one of the bigger reasons for online piracy. We see echoes of this still today as the news reported last week that the HBO show Game of Thrones is one of the biggest pirated shows online, and some would argue this is because of consumer's perceived lack of options for watching it online. Apple challenged the old distribution model and won, that's what the story is.
Re: (Score:3)
The real revolution was that Apple became a big enough player with the iPod to force the hand of the big 5
I agree that Apple's battle with the RIAA is the real story, but that's not a revolution, it is just trading one monopoly for another.
Re:The real story (Score:5, Insightful)
ORLY? When did Apple get a monopoly on music distribution - did the buy out Sony and BMG when no one was looking? How long have you been unable to buy the same music at similar prices at similar stores? When did Apple revert back to protected-AAC formats, preventing you from playing iTMS-purchased tracks on non-Apple devices?
Or maybe you're using that word, "monopoly", and it doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means. Consider switching to decaf hatorade....
Re: (Score:2)
ORLY? When did Apple get a monopoly on music distribution - did the buy out Sony and BMG when no one was looking?
Itunes accounts for nearly 70% of the digital download market. They are at least 3x larger than their nearest competitor. That's a monopoly in the same the RIAA has a monopoly on physical music distribution. Sure you can buy a CD from an unsigned band, just don't expect to do it in any of the stores that carry CDs from signed bands.
Or maybe you're using that word, "monopoly", and it doesn't mean whatever it is you think it means
You seem to be implying that you are one of those literalists who think that the mono in monopoly means "only one" rather than market control by the largest entity. By that d
Re: The real story (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Please define monopoly
Overwhelming market advantage. Not unlike what the RIAA has on artists. Itunes has around 70% of the market for music downloads. Sure you can buy an MP3 from Amazon just like you can find music from bands that haven't signed with the RIAA. But Apple and the RIAA are both at least 3x larger than their nearest competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Please define monopoly
Overwhelming market advantage. Not unlike what the RIAA has on artists. Itunes has around 70% of the market for music downloads. Sure you can buy an MP3 from Amazon just like you can find music from bands that haven't signed with the RIAA. But Apple and the RIAA are both at least 3x larger than their nearest competitors.
I don't think that you understand what a monopoly is. Apple would have a monopoly if the music sold on iTunes wasn't available elsewhere. They don't so there isn't a monopoly. Whether Apple have a commercial advantage due to the ease of use is a different issue, and more like the one that you're referring to, but it isn't a monopoly.
This is nothing like the RIAA and artists. If an artist signs for a record company they sign away rights to the record company in return for money and services from the record c
Re: The real story (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ma Bell and Standard Oil and MS were monopolies because you couldn't get any other competing product.
Come on, how can you be so ignorant of history? 100% monopolies are so rare that they basically don't exist.
Ma Bell -> MCI (and others)
MS -> Apple
Standard Oil -> 70% of the market when the antitrust suit was filed against them [wikipedia.org]
Re: The real story (Score:2)
Seriously, you are comparing MS which virtually controled the OEM PC market with Apple's largest marketshare of online music. Let's list the ways your history is lacking. When MS went to trial a consumer could not get a PC from an OEM without Windows. You want music today, right now? You don't need to even bother with an Apple product if you don't want. Get an Android, use Amazon. Would you care to dispute this as a fact or not?
As for Standard Oil control of a market though vertical integration was
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing is that monopoly is not one precise thing it is shades of gray - if it were one succinct definition you wouldn't be moving those goalposts to rationalize how all the other monopolies I've cited fit different requirements. The only difference is you are picking and choosing your requirements to fit what you can't dispute. Hell, you even got standard oil wrong to begin with, then you went and read the article I linked to and now you have another set of goal posts to apply there.
That's the problem
Re: The real story (Score:2)
The thing is that monopoly is not one precise thing it is shades of gray
Um no. There is a legal and precise definition of monopoly. There are multiple laws--there is an even division of law that deals specifically with monopolies. For someone decrying how others don't know history, you seem not to know anti-trust law.
if it were one succinct definition you wouldn't be moving those goalposts to rationalize how all the other monopolies I've cited fit different requirements.
First of all criteria I've come from the multiple legal cases including US vs Microsoft [justice.gov]:
34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft's share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft's customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.
Second, you haven't cited one source that supports your definition that highest market share is the only criteria for defining a monopoly. It seems you are moving the goalpo
Re: (Score:2)
Um no. There is a legal and precise definition of monopoly.
Since we aren't lawyers, that isn't particularly useful. Seriously, I've said from the start that your literalism wasn't helpful and to retreat further into legalistic definitions is even worse. You have indeed cited case law, my argument from the start has never been about case law.
So far you've already denied that the RIAA is a monopoly, which destroyed your entire argument since my very first post made the equivalence between RIAA and Apple domination of the markets.
Re: The real story (Score:2)
Since we aren't lawyers, that isn't particularly useful.
Then why don't we go with general reference sources like Dictionary.com [dictionary.com]
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. 2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government. 3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
or Merriam-Webster [word.com]
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party 4 : one that has a monopoly
Seriously, I've said from the start that your literalism wasn't helpful and to retreat further into legalistic definitions is even worse.
Please. This is your excuse that you cannot find anywhere in the whole of the Internet that supports your definition of monopoly. Just one source. Since you created your own interpretation of what monopoly means, everyone is being literal when they go with the commonly accepted definitions. Are you going to try to say black is white next?
You have indeed cited case law, my argument from the start has never been about case law.
I have support for my position. You have none. Period. End of story.
So far you've already denied that the RIAA is a monopoly, which destroyed your entire argument since my very first post made the equivalence between RIAA and Apple domination of the markets.
Firs
Re: (Score:2)
Hint. It is not illegal to own a monopoly
It is illegal to use one monopoly to leverage an advantage in another market though, and in the mid 2000's, Apple was in serious danger of doing just
Re: (Score:2)
Hint. It is not illegal to own a monopoly
Hint. I never said it was. Doesn't have to be illegal to be bad for the consumer.
Re: The real story (Score:2)
Re: The real story (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The caved into the owners of the copyright without whose permission they cannot sell their music.
So now the RIAA is not a monopoly. OK. BTW copyright is a monopoly too.
See how that term is really fuzzy? So much for that literalist viewpoint.
Re: The real story (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of monopoly is that one company is so powerful that the can control the supply of a product or good.
Please define "control."
Re: The real story (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please define "control."
Standard Oil and MS could set whatever price they wanted.
Of course you realize that was not true, right? Neither company could set WHATEVER price they wanted. If they could have done that, then the prices they charged would have been substantially higher. With Standard Oil having only 70% of the market it is pretty clear that they were not setting WHATEVER price they wanted.
So that's a meaningless definition. Perhaps you would care to try again - remember something quantifiable than can be applied as a straight-forward yes/no test. Since you deny that the te
Re: The real story (Score:2)
So that's a meaningless definition. Perhaps you would care to try again - remember something quantifiable than can be applied as a straight-forward yes/no test.
We can go with US vs Microsoft which you rejected or Dictionary.com [dictionary.com]
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. 2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government. 3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
or Merriam-Webster [word.com]
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action 2 : exclusive possession or control 3 : a commodity controlled by one party 4 : one that has a monopoly
Since you deny that the term "monopoly" is one that does not apply to shades of grey - even for layman's use - then black-and-white tests are your only option.
There are shades of gray; however, your definition is unsupported and overly simplistic. By your definition the most popular in town is a monopoly. By your definition, Apple is a monopoly only because you are redefining it to support your uninformed notion of monopoly. However a simple logic test destroys your argument. Apple does not have any exclusive control. Therefore it cannot be a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
So, given that definition, how do you prove it? What if there was some objective measure that was generally considered indicative of a non-competitive market? HHI
Second of all, how is there any equivalence when the two things being compared are not even in the same category. The RIAA are exclusive owners while Apple is a non-exclusive reseller
The RIAA's cartel status has always been with respect to distribution channels. Itunes is just another distribution channel. The two are completely comparable. RIAA had a monopoly (not a perfect monopoly, just a monopoly) on physical distribution and Apple had the same for digital distribution.
Re: The real story (Score:2)
, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
So, given that definition, how do you prove it?
First of all the whole definition is:
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
Using only part of the definition and omitting the most important part of exclusivity is trying to redefine it.
Second of all it doesn't matter. Without exclusive control, how would Apple or anyone manipulate the price? Third, the fact that the copyright owner which is the RIAA or independent musician (and there are lots of them on iTunes) sets the price not Apple. I have friends who are in bands that have music on iTunes and they set prices.
What if there was some objective measure that was generally considered indicative of a non-competitive market?
And Steven Jobs could be secretly alive plotting to take over the world. If you have an accusation, state it. From what I've seen, Apple sells music because it sells iDevices. The convenience factor of how their ecosystem works for non-technical people have made their devices and store the success it is today
The RIAA's cartel status has always been with respect to distribution channels. Itunes is just another distribution channel. The two are completely comparable.
No, the RIAA are the owners just like every copyright owner is. They decide which channels to pursue or use. iTunes is a reseller and a non-exclusive one if the owner decides to use multiple channels. The key term is exclusivity. Without it, there is no monopoly.
Your argument is like analogous to saying that Walmart has a monopoly on coffee because it sells all the major brands and has the largest marketshare. The fact that I can get the same brands at the grocery store or Target is enough to show how silly that assertion is.
RIAA had a monopoly (not a perfect monopoly, just a monopoly) on physical distribution and Apple had the same for digital distribution.
The point you don't to seem to acknowledge is exclusivity. Apple doesn't have it.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all the whole definition is:
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
Using only part of the definition and omitting the most important part of exclusivity is trying to redefine it.
I'm sorry, but you are not parsing that correctly. See the OR in there? The "exclusive" modifier only applies to the part before the OR. I know you desperately want to use that literalist interpretation of "mono" to mean exactly one, but that's not what the definition you cited says.
Without exclusive control, how would Apple or anyone manipulate the price?
Come on man. Every single example of monopolies that I have already cited did not have exclusive control, only dominant. It is not a binary function. Here's the way it works in the real world - the less competitive a market
Re: The real story (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but you are not parsing that correctly. See the OR in there? The "exclusive" modifier only applies to the part before the OR.
I'm sorry but don't you see it is the second part of the definition and most of them have "exclusive" in it. Again using only the narrow part that agrees with
But let's talk about the price manipulation. Note it does not say "price setting". All vendors can set prices. This is not manipulation. There are specific behaviors that legally and economically are classified price manipulation. Please state how Apple has engaged in price manipulation.
I know you desperately want to use that literalist interpretation of "mono" to mean exactly one, but that's not what the definition you cited says.
I know you want to say black is red but it's not true no matter now many times you say it. Roman mythology is not monotheistic now matter how you want to redefine monotheism.
I is not a binary function. Here's the way it works in the real world - the less competitive a market, the more control the dominant sellers have over pricing.
Apple is a non-exclusive reseller. They are not the sellers. The ultimate control is at the hands of the seller. If a band or company doesn't want to do business with Apple (like the Beatles), they have other choices. In the real world, companies didn't have a choice when it came to Ma Bell or MS.
That is a technical truth that obscures the meaningful truth.. At best your friends have the ability to choose from three different price points that Apple permits to them.
But they can choose the price can't they? Does Folger's (Proctor and Gamble) have the right to set the price of coffee at Walmart. Technically they do not. They can control what price they sell to Walmart which indirectly controls the price at which Walmart resells. Apple offers the owner some choices and the owner has the right not to do business at all if they don't like the price like the Beatles. This is the crux of capitalism. The owner misses out on the largest marketplace, but they have a choice. You wanted a consumer PC without Windows in the 90s from an OEM? Not bloody likely.
You however have not answered any of my questions: If highest marketshare is the sole criteria of monopoly would that lead to the most popular business in a category having a monopoly by default? The most popular restaurant in town with the most customers is a monopoly. Walmart has monopoly on consumer goods. This interpretation of the meaning is so broad that many businesses would be considered monopolies.
What is your source that highest marketshare is the only criteria for monopoly? You have never provided one; thus this definition only exists in your head.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry but don't you see it is the second part of the definition and most of them have "exclusive" in it. Again using only the narrow part that agrees with
Do I need to teach you how to read a dictionary?
Apparently so.
Each numbered section is a distinctly separate context.
In this case (1) is market control (2) is government-granted privilege and (3) is possession unrelated to markets.
Within each numbered section there are multiple related definitions.
So, in this case section (1) has two different definitions that deal with market control - exclusive control or just a very strong influence.
Capiche?
Please state how Apple has engaged in price manipulation.
From your citation - "makes possible" does not mean "engages in
Re: The real story (Score:2)
Do I need to teach you how to read a dictionary?
There were six definitions offered. And none by you. You chose part b of only one. Even then seem to intent to ignore the exclusivity qualifier of all the other ones.
From your citation - "makes possible" does not mean "engages in."
Pleas state how Apple has made price manipulation possible.
Asking me to prove that Apple has broken the law is ridiculous.
You are the one that keeps insisting Apple is a monopoly. Yet when challenged, you offer no proof. That's like calling someone a murderer but when asked to identify the victim, you refuse.
Their ability to do so is what matters - markets with low competitiveness enable more price manipulation. Highly competitive markets do not.
So Apple has the ability to engage in monopolistic practices. Well I have the ability to be a
Re: (Score:2)
There were six definitions offered. And none by you. You chose part b of only one. Even then seem to intent to ignore the exclusivity qualifier of all the other ones.
So wait, you offered definitions, I picked one and now its not good enough because the other definitions said something different? Really?
My point all along has been that there are multiple definitions of monopoly so of course i picked one, I picked the one that applies here. Duh!
Pleas state how Apple has made price manipulation possible.
They didn't make it possible, they have it by virtue of their overwhelming market advantage. The less competition in a market, the more price control is available to the dominant companies in that market. If only there was a w
Re: The real story (Score:2)
So wait, you offered definitions, I picked one and now its not good enough because the other definitions said something different?
You picked a definition that accuses Apple of price manipulation then refuse to explain how Apple has manipulated prices. You also picked the only one that avoided exclusivity which was destroying all your points.
My point all along has been that there are multiple definitions of monopoly so of course i picked one, I picked the one that applies here.
None of the definitions offered by me come close to your unsupported definition. I have yet to receive any citation that the definition of monopoly is as you say it is. Basically I'm providing all the support and you none.
They didn't make it possible, they have it by virtue of their overwhelming market advantage.
Nowhere in any defintion is having an overwhelming market advantage==havin
Re: (Score:2)
You picked a definition that accuses Apple of price manipulation then refuse to explain how Apple has manipulated prices.
There is no accusation in that definition. You made the accusation yourself and expected me to back it up. it is a total strawman. Hell, the definition is explicitly neutral "makes possible" not "does."
An overwhelming market advantage means you have the ability to manipulate prices. Are you saying that even with an overwhelming market advantage a company can not manipulate pricing?
Re: The real story (Score:2)
How many times are you going keep going back to that ridiculous requirement of exclusivity.
The term you seem intent on ignoring is in 5 of the 6 definitions. In the only one you picked, Apple is required to have the ability to control and manipulate prices. The fact of the matter is that other players exist; therefore by logic it does not have price control. Again logic is not your strong point.
Perfect monopolies are so rare as to basically not exist. MS was not a perfect monopoly
Re: The real story (Score:2)
There is no accusation in that definition. You made the accusation yourself and expected me to back it up. it is a total strawman. Hell, the definition is explicitly neutral "makes possible" not "does."
You picked the defintion. And refuse to explain a logical gap. How is Apple supposed to manipulate prices when they don't set prices? You refuse to answer this point. It's as theoretically possible as you and I being mass murderers. Every company is a monopoly by your twisting of the definition. Not that they have actually done anything.
An overwhelming market advantage means you have the ability to manipulate prices. Are you saying that even with an overwhelming market advantage a company can not manipulate pricing?
Again, Apple doesn't set the price. This is a simple fact. So therefore how can Apple manipulate prices they don't set? Also the existence of other players means th
Re: (Score:2)
For that, I could have a string quartet at my house every night, a pretty decent rock band live every weekend, or if I was busy for a week or two I could buy a new car instead.
And still leave $26M to my kids.
Re:All of worlds music just for $26 million (Score:4, Funny)
Exactly! I don't understand why more people don't invest their $26 million in order to live off the interest?
Why don't more people have their butlers find for them a good financial advisor?
Mitt.
Re:All of worlds music just for $26 million (Score:5, Insightful)
What's even neater is that you'd be dead of old age before you could listen to all of it. (Feel free to run the numbers, I did. I assumed a 3 minute track, life expectancy of 100, that you started listening at birth, and that you don't need to sleep.) You still can't get through it all.)
Actually I'm not sure if that's neat or not... more sad really.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
For those of us who used platforms that it didn't work on, it made owning an iPod/iPhone a nightmare
I used my old iPod with Amarok under Ubuntu for quite some time — I actually found it easier to use that iTunes on Windows, which, for me, crashed more often than it worked.
Re:Thank god the iPod is dead (Score:5, Insightful)
For all the tales of horror with iTunes, I guess I'm the only happy user.
Re: (Score:3)
For all the tales of horror with iTunes, I guess I'm the only happy user.
And me. I've been using it on a Mac since it was SoundJam so I've seen it all. It's gotten a bit convoluted when you add in supporting other iDevices ("How the eft do I add music to a playlist that gets synched with only the iPhone and not the iPad again?"). By and large, I suspect that most--if not all--of the bitching is coming from Windows users having to deal with Apple trying to carry across functionality that's been in MacOS forever to a non-native platform.
Re: (Score:3)
It's gotten a bit convoluted when you add in supporting other iDevices ("How the eft do I add music to a playlist that gets synched with only the iPhone and not the iPad again?").
That's not really difficult. You make an "iPhone playlist" and an "iPad playlist", maybe a "Jim's iPhone playlist" and a "Jill's iPhone playlist", and set each device to sync with that playlist.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a Mac user right? iTunes isn't that terrible on a Mac. It's terrible on other operating systems because Apple just didn't give two shits about those platforms.
It has nothing to do with typical Apple hate and everything to do with Apple doing a very unsatisfactory job porting to other operating systems. Same deal with QuickTime on other operating systems such that we needed something like QuickTime Alternative to show up if you wanted an even remotely decent experience playing quicktime movies. The e
Re: (Score:2)
80% of the world use Android phones for their MP3 needs, and with Apples market share, also went its store.
You seem to be just slightly confused. I can buy music wherever I like (well, that's Amazon, iTunes, anyone selling CDs, and some smaller players), and it works everywhere I care. Maybe Android phones are too stupid to use these sources, I wouldn't know. In that case, do Android users have to throw their libraries away and start paying for all their music again?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not quite that easy. Apple seems to want to keep iTunes as part of its platform lock and doesn't have an iTunes app for Android. If they were interested in actually selling content rather than locking in users you'd think they'd have one.
Re:Do Android users need itunes? (Score:5, Informative)
pple don't allow alternative stores on their (not your) devices, so buying from Amazon has extra problems :)
Are you clueless or just trying to be obnoxious? Any music that you buy from Amazon ends up in your iTunes library automatically. There is an amazingly simple API that you can use to put songs into the iTunes library: Just move it into the folder "~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music/Automatically Add to iTunes". Which is what Amazon does.
Re:I'm Sexy :) (Score:4, Insightful)
That is "Just Broken", on a Android you don't need a third party program :). Having to remember such a complicated hierarchy of directories...and still use a third party program is a disgrace. iOS is so complicated.
Remembering directories is for Android users. There's no user file handling involved whatsoever in the Amazon/Apple process. Amazon's store downloads it to that directory. iTunes picks it up from that directory. That's implementation. User doesn't have to know that any more than they have to know HTML to read a web page.
Re: I'm Sexy :) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...Then you must be in an Apple store. 80% of the world use Android phones for their MP3 needs, and with Apples market share, also went its store.
Yes, it's certainly not like like the iTunes Store is the single most popular music store worldwide or anything..
Re: (Score:2)
It was a silly statement. 80% of the people listening to music on their phones don't even use Android. In fact, I imagine iOS has 50% or more of mobile music listening.
Re: (Score:2)
Even Google Play isn't perfect. It doesn't seem willing or able (I'm not sure which) to play licensed videos on my Linux laptop.
Re: (Score:2)
Its still used to update devices!?
It CAN still be used to update devices. That functionality is still there. Though of course iOS devices have been able to update themselves over the air for a long time now.
Re:Thank god the iPod is dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as an Apple fan, I agree entirely that it needs to die in a fire already.
That said, this story is about the iTunes Store, which just turned 10 and is actually pretty decent, not the iTunes software, which is over 12 years old at this point. iOS devices haven't required the iTunes software to do updates or sync for a few years now, and they've been capable of making purchases from the iTunes Store without having to use the software since the very beginning.
But when it comes to complaining about the iTunes software, I'm right there with you complaining about it. On Windows it's buggy, bloated, unfriendly towards users, and has a history of bad behavior (e.g. the auto-installing Safari thing). On Mac, it's inconsistent with other UI paradigms, poorly structured, and breaks from the usual UNIX and Mac way of making separate tools for each task.
In contrast, the iTunes Store, while not the easiest thing to navigate, does have a number of extremely nice features going for it, beyond just helping to pave the way for later entrants in the field. Besides which, it remains the largest digital music platform, and with digital music sales finally passing physical sales as of 2012, it makes sense to look back on the history first big digital music store that is currently the biggest music store period.
Re: (Score:2)
It was used by Jobs to destroy Firefox unsuccessfully by forcing people to use Safari.
Are you referring to the brief period in which Apple Software Update had Safari pre-checked as an update option? As I remember, that didn't last very long, and it didn't change the default browser. While the default checked bit was annoying, it didn't trample any user settings and didn't force anyone to use anything.
It tangles itself to the OS in unpleasantly hard to remove ways.
How so? It installs a driver an an app, both of which are easily removable.
Its still used to update devices!?
No?
Play turned 1 a couple of weeks ago without much fanfair, and works through a browser, or native on Android hardware
I can buy tracks straight from my iOS device too without iTunes.
It doesn't sound like you've ever really spent much
Re: (Score:2)
What do iTunes and FireFox have to do with each other?
iTunes is a separate app, FireFox is a brower.
Safari a failure. (Score:2, Troll)
This is complete bullshit by any reasonable understanding of what it is to force someone to do something. Safari came as a default extra via the installer and the auto update mechanism. That approach is a turnoff for me. Even so users could still use Firefox. How were they forced to use Safari?
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/06/18/is-apple-aiming-at-firefox/ [tuaw.com] This is a sad looking Jobs in 2007 and the famous graph that does not include firefox anymore. How wrong he was.
Re: (Score:2)
If you count Safari on iOS he's about right for market share.
If you count all the WebKit browsers, he vastly underestimated.
Re: Thank god the iPod is dead (Score:2)
Re:BFD (Score:4, Funny)
You say this service has been around 10 years, aye? I've never had to use it. Seems like such an important service.
QFT. Why is Slashdot covering services not used by Eggplant62?
Re:BFD (Score:4, Insightful)
And I've never installed Linux on a home machine (though I have been looking into it, to be fair). Clearly it's unimportant too? Or are we only excluding things that you've not used?
The iTunes Store is currently the largest digital music distribution service available in terms of downloads, and as of last year, digital sales numbers passed those of physical media. That you're not using a service does not mean it's not noteworthy. Considering it was the first big service of this sort and set the stage for all of the ones that followed, looking back on the last 10 years of it seems to make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Solipsistic, much, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
I've never had to inject myself with an epi-pen, so it's an unimportant medication, right?
Dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't sub $1 include all prices below $1, in which by definitionno price by definition be below sub $1?
Re: (Score:2)
Your life must feel really worthwhile now that you've added so much to the conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
AC really meant "It's Higgs' Boson, mate."