As Cyrus shared with you earlier, Apple’s been sued for a monopolistic connection between iTunes and the iPod. ZDNet blogger (and frequent Macalope target) Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has weighed in with his opinion that the link is monopolistic.
So, why do I believe that the iPod/iTunes bundle is monopolistic? Let’s begin by looking at the iTunes software and dispelling the idea that this is some sort of stand-alone media player. It isn’t. In fact, in my opinion iTunes is a train wreck of an application that actually manages to make Windows Media Player seem at least adequate. I’m not sure what kind of person would go out of their way to use iTunes on Windows if they didn’t have an iPod. It litters a Windows system with all sorts of junk processes relating to the iPod, which, if you don’t have an iPod is a real slap in the face. Even when you do have an iPod, iTunes is slow and kludgy on a good day and darn right annoying when it’s having a bad day.Well, iTunes on Windows may be a crappy application (I don’t know—I don’t run Windows), but the fact that you don’t like it doesn’t make it monopolistic in the slightest. I don’t like coffee, but I don’t accuse every Starbucks I pass of violating antitrust regulations—seriously though, there’s one on every damn corner. The fact is if you choose to use iTunes without an iPod, you can do that. It may not be the best tool for the job on Windows, but not having an iPod isn’t going to stop it from working; compare and contrast with Internet Explorer under old versions of Windows, which you couldn’t remove with a crowbar and Bill Gates’s personal help.
I can see already that this is going to require an extended entry. Let’s do this thing.
OK, so you’ve bought an iPod. Congratulations, you’re now married to iTunes. Unless you’ve going to venture way off the beaten track and do some research, you’re going to be living with iTunes for as long as your iPod lives. Some alternatives (in case you’re interested) include YamiPod for Windows, Senuti for the Mac, and Amarok for Linux.Married? More like co-habiting (this is the 21st century, after all). This argument would be a heck of a lot more compelling if it weren’t for the thousands of hardware devices that require their own proprietary software. Just the other day I was looking at writing up a nifty USB pedometer for my Gadgetbox column. Unfortunately, there’s no Mac software, and it comes bundled with its own proprietary Windows software. Where are the cries of monopoly? Are you bummed that you can’t install the PS3’s new firmware on your Wii? There’s no rule against companies making proprietary software for their hardware devices. You may not like it, but it’s not illegal. And, as Kinglsey-Hughes points out, there are plenty of third-party alternatives for getting music off your iPod (fewer, though, for getting it on).
If then you decide to buy from the iTunes store, you’re making the hope of a divorce from iTunes all the more remote. Sure, you can burn music to a CD and then re-import that into another format, but once you bought a specific amount of music and you’ve attained a specific critical mass of audio (and CDs to burn), you’re just not going to do it because it’s too much of a hassle and you lose important information such as track name, album name and so on.Yeah, I don’t like DRM either. But the fact exists that you can get around it on iTunes by burning a CD as you point out. And, furthermore, you don’t have to buy music from iTunes if you don’t want to. Or you can elect to buy only DRM-free iTunes Plus tracks, if your morals are offended. Or you can go buy music from eMusic or Amazon’s MP3 store. Or you can buy music on CD and rip it to your computer. All of that will work on the iPod. If I’m married to iTunes, well, that’s a pretty open marriage.
iTunes is also very picky about which formats it’ll play. If you’re [sic] existing music library is in WMA format then you have many pleasant evenings ahead managing the mind-numbingly slow import process. About half an hour of this will send you into a trance-like state where time no longer has meaning. Is it any coincidence that the iPod doesn’t support WMA and that iTunes has one of the slowest WMA convertors going? If you still want to keep your WMA library (maybe because you have another media player) then it’s time to invest in another hard drive, because from that point on you’re going to be doubling up on everything.Waaaaaah, iTunes doesn’t play [insert my favoritest codec of all time]. Fine, iTunes doesn’t play WMA files. Or Ogg files. Or my extensive collection of 8-tracks! How could you, Apple! Never mind the fact that Microsoft barely cared enough about the Mac to make even a decent WMA player on the platform; it took a third-party developer for that (thanks, Flip4Mac; you guys rock). Yeah, it’s inconvenient that iTunes doesn’t play [format that you cannot live without], but nothing prevents you from transcoding those files, or keeping a separate media player for them. Or did you throw out your turntables and then complain about all the LPs you couldn’t play?
Remember too that one iTunes library supports more than one iPod, but that’s another catch. Each device has to be an iPod. Also, each iPod can hold music from five different iTunes accounts. It’s all designed to keep you buying more iPods.Sources inform me that Mr. Kingsley-Hughes now owns a grand total of twenty-seven iPods. “Apple just made me keep on buying them!” he was heard to have lamented. That “iPods can hold music from five different iTunes accounts” is a bit misleading: You can only authorize an iTunes account on up to five different computers, but you can transfer that music to an unlimited number of iPods. Plus, you can always switch your iPod into manual mode and add music to your iPod from an unlimited number of computers. And I’m not exactly crying a river that Apple only supports iPods in iTunes. Again, it’s their software and hardware.
And what happens if you’ve got a load of music in iTunes and your iPod dies? Why, buy another one of course!Wait, I’m confused: does Creative have some sort of unholy deal with the devil where they’ll bring your Zen back from the dead with the blackest necromancy? Of course you have to buy a new one if it breaks. Does Microsoft just dole out a new Zune when you accidentally run yours over with a car? (Okay, I guess I wouldn’t be surprised; they can’t even give them away). Or, here’s a suggestion: don’t buy a new iPod, just keep listening to your music on your computer. It still works, dude.
Then there’s the iPod side of the equation. Apple tried to lock the latest generation iPods to iTunes even if this meant upsetting iPod-owning Linux users. Formats that the iPod can play are also locked down tight. Want it to play WMAs? Forget about it. Want new firmware for the iPod? Guess what, you need iTunes installed!You know what, it is a bummer that you can’t use your iPod if you’re a Linux user. I’ll give you that. But again, I don’t go around accusing everybody who makes peripherals that aren’t Mac compatible of having monopolies—and there are far more of those than there are iPods. Developers are under no obligation to support every format that you want; the iPod plays perfectly well with open formats like AAC and MP3. So Apple doesn’t want to pay the WMA licensing fee; that’s not criminal, it’s just a business choice.
There no doubt in my mind that the iPod/iTunes link is monopolistic, it’s just that people don’t seem to care.My dictionary (and yes, it’s—duh-duh-duhhhh—OS X’s built-in dictionary) defines monopoly as “the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.” Exclusive possession or control. It’s not the kind of word to toss around lightly. Let’s look at the facts.
Can you use other MP3 players with your computer? Sure: Mac, Windows, and Linux users all have the choice of buying a variety of different media players. Windows users, in particular, have a plethora of choices.
Can you use other media-playing software with your computer? Again, yes: Mac, Windows, and Linux users can all load a variety of media-playing software (Linux users can’t use iTunes, which, as I said, sucks, but having grown up on a platform where the vast majority of software was incompatible, you learn to live with it). None of those users are forced into iTunes and, in fact, you can remove iTunes from any of those computers and not lose functionality.
Can you buy music from places other than iTunes? Absolutely, although again, if you’re on a Mac or Linux, your options are pretty limited (thanks to the companies who choose not to invest in supporting those platforms). But there are multiple vendors: Rhapsody, Napster, the Zune Marketplace, eMusic, Amazon MP3, and—lest we forget—CDs. Nobody is being bludgeoned into using iTunes.
Can you play music not purchased from iTunes on your iPod? Yes: music ripped from CDs, bought from eMusic, or bought from Amazon MP3 are all iPod-compatible. You’re not forced to buy music from iTunes in order to use your iPod. Nor are you forced to buy an iPod if you buy music from iTunes; you can still play it on your computer, or burn it to CD and re-rip it (or use less legitimate means to remove the DRM).
Just because iTunes and the iPod don’t do everything you want them to do doesn’t make them monopolistic. The truth is that choice exists. It just so happens that the majority of the market has decided that the iPod + iTunes combination is currently the best choice out there. And that’s because of all the effort Apple’s put in to ensuring that they work together seamlessly and guarantee a certain level of quality, usability, and simplicity. Apple’s not alone in their approach either: Microsoft’s Zune only works with their Zune Marketplace store—this despite the PlaysForSure DRM scheme Microsoft created for its “partners.” If the iPod/iTunes combination is monopolistic, Microsoft’s Zune is no less so.
If you’re paying attention, you’ll have grasped the patent absurdity of the last statement: you can’t have two monopolies in the same market. Remember the definition above? Exclusive possession or control. The very fact that you have choice between those two products (as well as the dozens of others) invalidates any possibility of monopoly: this is a market which is rife with competition, even if it’s currently dominated by one player. The competition may not be interoperable, sure, but complaining that you can’t get your Ford fixed at your Honda dealership doesn’t mean either of those companies has a monopoly in the automotive industry.
I don’t know what a court will say to this lawsuit, but there’s little doubt in my mind that it’s the iPod’s popularity that has made it a target. There are certainly legitimate antitrust abuses in the marketplace, but there’s also a tendency to target anything that gets too popular as somehow monopolistic, even if it’s popular simply because it’s the best solution available. And, after all, isn’t that what grand old capitalism is all about?
Update: Reader Byron points us to a list of other players supported by iTunes. I remember that pre-iPod, iTunes supported Rio players; you’ll find those on there, along with Nike and Creative players, but that article was last updated in 2005. Anybody know if any of those still work?
Balls on! There is no monopoly.
When he said, "Apple tried to lock the latest generation iPods to iTunes even if this meant upsetting iPod-owning Linux users," he meant that Apple changed the db format and Linux utilities that work with iPods broke...for about a week. Most of his post is bitching and completely unrelated to any argument about monolpolies.
Apple has monopoly power, but that is not illegal. When Apple requires that all iPod resellers stop selling CDs, you can cry monopoly abuse.
iTunes doesn't work with Creative players anymore? It used to. I wonder if he actually tried, or if he only owns iPods?
See docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93548 for a list of non-iPod music players that are compatible with iTunes.
Of course, iTMS songs will only play on an iPod due to the DRM, but anything compatible with the listed players will work fine.
The politically correct term for something you don't like is "fascist".
I agree with a lot of what you say BUT the iPod is a monopoly in the sense that it holds an enormous market share in the players market (75% ?).
By the same token you could argue that Microsoft doesn't own a monopoly since you have the freedom to choose Mac or Linux. Yet, several courts have decided that Microsoft was leveraging a de-facto Monopoly when they used it to push their Browser and Media Player.
U
Well spoken - or rather written! It sums up what I've tried to say over and over again, also regarding the activity of the Consumer Ombudsman here in Norway against the iTunes/iPod-monopoly; it is a package, for chrissake! It is not illegal to sell a package consisting of harware and software bundled together. If it was, then selling Macs running Mac OS X is illegal, too. Well, it was - now you can actually run Windows on 'em:)
But you mean what I know. It is absurd that people don't see this rather simple point. It is a package bundled together and it isn't illegal to sell such.
If it has become so popular as it has, it is still not illegal. If one doesn't like it, buy another package. There are plenty to choose from...
Fear and envy, that's where all the monopoly cries came from. Thanks for setting this tool straight. But it's too bad you have to waste time poking holes through every sentence fragment of his argument. It would've saved you some time if he'd crafted a better one, or an actual argument at all.
Well written dismantling of a very poor argument. Well done. (the itunes library file still suck though)
I believe there is actually a still-extant if long-dormant interface from before the iPod that allows developers of music players to make them compatible with iTunes.
Just saying.
I can't believe anyone would seriously entertain Kingsley-Hughes' argument after he begins a paragraph claiming that if one buys an iPod they are locked to iTunes... then ends the SAME paragraph by giving three alternative apps to that work with the iPod.
No need to debunk it, he's done it himself!
Before you can determine a company has a monopoly you must determine what market it competes in.
The iPod is king of the flash/hard drive audio/video music player "market", but I think the iPod really competes in a larger personal audio/video player market alongside CD players, portable DVD players, cassette players, radios, etc.
When you look at the broad market for personal audio players you'll see that the iPod is a big player, but not a dominant player. CD sales still dwarf download music sales despite the iPod's popularity. I think the iPod (or its ilk) will eventually overtake the entire personal audio market, but it hasn't happened yet.
Yuval Perlov: Don't confuse large market share for a monopoly. Sure they hold a HUGE market share, but they still don't have EXCLUSIVE control of the market. You've got plenty of choice, and you can take your dollars elsewhere.
The whole point of this post is that people are completely diluting the importance and meaning in the word "monopoly." Think about it. If you own a home, and you need electricity, and there's only one company controlling all the power, they can charge you whatever high price they want. You get screwed if nobody is regulating the market, and you have no choice. THAT is a monopoly. Hell, I don't even agree 100% that Microsoft was monopolistic, since has always been at least one or two alternatives.
Being a long-time Mac user, I feel for the Linux guys who can't get all the software to run on their OS. But still, surely they chose Linux *knowing* that was the case? Or, even knowing that the magic of Open Source and Free Software would save the day?
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I --
I took the one less travelled by,
and that has made all the difference."
What happened to that attitude?
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I --
I took the one less travelled by,
and whined that I couldn't take both."
At the risk of getting pedantic, the iTunes Music Store has de facto "exclusive control" of the downloadable music market. Given their market share, I don't think you can deny that.
Here's a primer on US antitrust law.
Of course, what causse government intervention in these cases is not monopoly control of a market, but rather abuse of monopoly powers to consumer disadvantage.
Apple's profits largely exist on the iPod side of the business, and Apple's monopoly largely exists on the Music Store part of the business.
Of course, the fact that Apple has been working hard with its suppliers to REDUCE the restrictions on using Music Store content (ie DRM-free iTunes+ songs) and the fact that you can use many, many other sources (CD, any other DRM-free music source) to get music onto the iPod both grossly undercut cries of abuse of monopoly power.
It's worth noting that you *can* in fact use your iPod on Linux, and it works just fine in my experience.
(I haven't tried the latest iPods but I hear they work; I have no idea about the iPhone, but this post is mostly about iPods, right?)
You can use software like Rhythmbox or Banshee to sync your iPod-compatible (e.g., MP3) music to your iPod on Linux.
Actually, as of iTunes 6 (or maybe even 5) dropped the plugin library support from iTunes that allowed the third party players to be updated in iTunes. Sadly I can't find the product announcement page on docs.info.apple.com, but I'll post back if I do.
I used to have a Rio and iTunes 4 (and less) supported it; support disappeared in a later version of iTunes.
The last time I tried to sync a Nike MP3 player with iTunes, it worked just fine on a Mac but did not work with the Windows version of iTunes. I assume Apple never ported that part of iTunes to Windows.
Agree with just about everything you say - iPods long way from perfect but still the best choice for the vast majority of people. And get very tired of people endlessly complaining about what they don't do! But then going on to buy them anyway. Surely, if they are so bad just don't buy them!
Although, as per my post above - find it a little irritating that I can't transfer music I've paid fro to my ipod simply because they come from more than five different accounts. But, in great scheme of things not the end of the world.
"Want new firmware for the iPod? Guess what, you need iTunes installed!"
Something you missed correcting him on is that you can, in fact, install non-Apple firmware on iPods. Just Google "Rockbox."
That'll give an iPod support for Ogg, FLAC, and even WMA! It only works for iPods previous to the current generation, though (i.e. no support for nano with video, classic, or touch; at least not yet).
Dan you're obviously totally missing the point! Apple totally has a monopoly on the iPod/iTunes market.
"Yet, several courts have decided that Microsoft was leveraging a de-facto Monopoly when they used it to push their Browser and Media Player."
...to the exclusion of other options.
I think Kingsley-Hughes has a monopoly on the stupidity of the world, making us all very very smart.
Regarding Ogg support in iTunes: For simple playback, iTunes supports anything that QuickTime does. There are Xiph.org QuickTime Components that work fine on OS X (I'm using them now), but no idea how well it works on Windows.
also as someone who has used iTunes on Windows its way better than Windows Media Player... at least for me. It didn't take hours to load and just worked way better
"Monopoly" and "monopoly power" aren't the same thing. They teach this stuff in high-school economics. Apple may not be a perfect monopoly, but you're foolish if you don't think they have tremendous monopoly power.
I'm sure the article you're criticizing doesn't imply any understanding of this relationship either, but that's no excuse to point to a dictionary definition and show everyone that you don't know anything whatsoever about economics.
The WMA argument pisses me off. The reason why iTunes doesn't support WMA is that MS won't bring the WMA DRM to the Mac.
In fact, it's entirely possible that the reason we have Fairplay to begin with is because of that. And Linux is no better off, so we fault Apple for not supporting WMA and Apple for not bringing Fairplay to Linux? Is it Apple's fault there's no WMA for Linux? Or Linux's fault. It never seems to be MSs fault. So, why don't we put a little blame in MSs corner for the lack of WMA in the iPod. It's their standard, after all.
"At the risk of getting pedantic, the iTunes Music Store has de facto "exclusive control" of the downloadable music market."
Except that the kind of control Apple has wasn't Apple's choice. It was the choice of the labels. iTunes Plus is evidence of that.
If MS forces HP to bundle Windows, it's not WalMart, or HPs monopoly. The labels restricted Fairplay. They restricted sale to national borders too. Suing Apple over these things may be fashionable, but they are only the reseller. It's not their music.
What an idiot! The argument that Apple somehow has a monopoly has been made over and over again, and it has been shredded beaten and torn apart every time. It's almost as if this twirp was just trying to get on iPod users nerves and see how long it would take for some one to key his car.
"Dan you're obviously totally missing the point! Apple totally has a monopoly on the iPod/iTunes market."
jay, iPod/iTunes is not a market, they are products available for sale. Perhaps you mean the MP3 player market? Well they do NOT have a monopoly there either. Have you read through the comments above? I think you really have little knowledge of basic economic concepts.
Let me get this straight (this is a response to a previous comment): iPod is a monopoly because a lot of people CHOOSE to buy it. That makes a lot of sense. When I need to buy SX-70 blend film to use with my Polaroid, I can then sue them because I want to use Kodak.
As you can see, Adrian is not the brightest bulb. It's not clear where his competence lies, and he certainly doesn't understand Apple one iota, but he keep writing about Apple. My only conclusion is that writing about Apple gets him hits; no one cares when he writes his crap about anything else. My advice: just stay away from his site.
In terms of other players that iTunes supports, IIRC they've deprecated the APIs for writing for it - they DO want to sell more iPods, after all. That said, I know that Missing Sync allows your PDA to appear in iTunes and sync with playlists even now.
(Now if only they'd help to get the Newton iTunes plugin back on track...)
Remember when Ziff-Davis meant it might not be junk? So different from the way it is now...
I use itunes on a macbook pro and my creative muvo syncs just fine. I do not own or use an ipod. This monopoly complaint is ridiculous.
Thomas: regarding monopolies, I'd point out that people chose (and still overwhelmingly choose) to buy windows.
In terms of tortious or legal issues, though, the law of Apple's home country is that there are a few specific ways in which it is illegal to exploit the power of market share.
I'm no lawyer, but the Windows/IE thing, for example, was about using a monopoly market share in OSes to gain a dominant position in the web browser market.
The question Apple may some day be asked to answer is whether it is using either of its two de facto monopolies to bolster the other. Apple is probably in the clear legally, but antitrust is a tricky legal field.
M$ is not being sued for being big og having a huge market share.
They have in the past been sued cause they BROKE THE LAW.
and breaking antitrust (or laws that that aim to prevent monopolistic behavior of companies) Do not require large market shares.
One way to do it is to enter into a cartel (a group of vendors that agree on the same price for a good or service that is higher than what they could get ordinarity) Several antitrust convictions have been levled at groups of small plummers carpenters for just this reason.
Microsoft sins include the will full breaking of other vendors software, bundeling of free software with the intent to gain dominance of a field of buisness and willfully inducing flaws into these products so that they DO NOT follow public standards (their own or others) to break competing products (IE is ripe with this but is not the only example).
The current case in the EU is mostly about M$ preforming ilegal buisness practises in the server market (using unpublished protocols to ensure that ONLY M$ products can work well with the server products.)
A crime they were not conviced of was the historic case where they led a lot of developers to spend time developing for OS/2 (a OS M$ developed in part for IBM. Then only to collectively stab everybody in the back when they pulled the carpet from under everyody feet with win95 and dropping OS/2 giving their own application division an undue advantage to enter into the office application market.
And then afterwards using this office application market position to gain an advantage for their server products....
In addition to this they have pratcised predatory buisness practises (illegal ones) the exclusive deals with hardware vendors ie. the M$ tax that only now we are seeing the begning of a posible end to.
Can you see where this is going ? round and round in circles to propagate and fortify the M$ stranglehold on the computer market...
All these crimes over dekades should have gotten them broken into seperate companies, and if due process had been followed it would have been. They were even convicted of it, guilty as charged....
But due to the worst presidency in history they were let off the hook with a slap on the wrist to wreak more havoc on the world to this day.
THAT IS ANTITRUST CRIMES, please enlighten me of the crimes Apple have done ?
Crimes please, things that piss you off and you then bitch about dont count as crimes.
My iTunes plays ogg.... but then I use a palm pilot for a music player.
"I agree with a lot of what you say BUT the iPod is a monopoly in the sense that it holds an enormous market share in the players market (75% ?).
By the same token you could argue that Microsoft doesn't own a monopoly since you have the freedom to choose Mac or Linux. Yet, several courts have decided that Microsoft was leveraging a de-facto Monopoly when they used it to push their Browser and Media Player."
The important thing is that Apple supports open formats such as MP3 and AAC whereas the file formats for nearly all MS products are proprietary. That is the key difference. DRM is the only element that could lock you in, and few people have a large collection of DRM music on their iPods.
The logic is stunning and indisputable: Apple has a monopoly in the iPod market!
Oh, and, Kelloggs has a monopoly in the Kelloggs Corn Flakes market too. Damn them.
Being a monopoly is not ipso facto illegal. There are many natural monopolies (and some decidedly unnatural ones).
What is illegal is being an abusive monopoly, in other words using monopoly power in restraint of trade. That is what Microsoft was accused of, and found to have liability for.
I haven't seen any evidence that Apple has abused its monopoly position in MP3 players in a manner that restrains trade. You can still use other jukebox software, you can still buy other MP3 players, and Apple makes no demands on either consumers or resellers that affects their ability to buy or sell other solutions to the problem of playing digital music.
In response to your update request, I still have a (4+ years old) Rio S30s that I use when out jogging.
Still works, and still shows up in the latest update of iTunes when I connect it via USB to my Macbook.
I can't click on a Sync button to automatically send my playlists over (have to drag and drop the tracks within iTunes) but then as it only has 64mb of memory that option wouldn't really make much sense :)
true, but again, apple doesn't need articles defending their multi-billion dollar industry either...it's all about balance. yes, they recieve all sorts of critique because they are huge, but it remains that they ARE bloated, and they do enough alone to defend their insatiable advertising (movies, sponsorship, etc)...so your anti- "go against the flow" article here is just one more big $ check mark, intentional or not.
There's a clear difference between monopoly and monopoly power from what i'v seen in the comments. I think that needs to be explored more. Other than that i don't see the purpose this Has anymore other than blatant ad hominen. We all i hope realise that adrian's post was incorrect, but that's only because of his lack of understanding of the legal terms. I think it is impossible for apple or ipod to be a monopoly, duh. But it is quite possible that they exploit the popularity of their platforms and devices.