Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] You had to know it was coming

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Vern Green wrote:

> Interesting, the same arguments about Apple not having a monopoly are 
> the same arguments made by many others that Microsoft does not have a 
> monopoly.

I think you are imagining things here Vern.  Just because one nutjob is 
suing Apple for iTunes/iPod doesn't mean that Microsoft isn't a monopoly 
that engages in dozens of kinds of illegal anti-competitive actions.


> Apparently being a monopoly has more to do with how much money you have 
> and your perceived power in the market place than it does how you market 
> and sell your product.

Actually, no, there are *laws*.  We'll see what how the law is applied to 
the Apple case.  We saw that Microsoft violated the law.


> Case in point, every lawsuit levied against microsoft has been because 
> they include a product for free that someone else wanted the consumer to 
> pay for.

Is that so?  I thought it was not a problem that IE was "included" with 
Windows OSes.  I thought the problem was that it was integrated into the 
OS so that it could not be extracted from it.  I am not familiar with 
suits based on Microsoft apps.  Are there any?


> The fact is Microsoft never created their OS where you could no install 
> anything else on it. You could always download netscape or mozilla and 
> run it on your windows PC.

Sure, but you had to have IE on your system.


> Now enter Apple and the iPod, Apple has by far the most popular player 
> on the market, they also have one of the only ones with the higher 
> storage capacities. But in order to use your iPod with music you 
> purchase online, you have to use it with their service.

Are you sure?  That isn't what the suit said.  My understanding is that 
iPod can play ordinary MP3 files.  It cannot play any type of file.  For 
example, it can't play a WMA file.  But what is wrong with MP3? 
Microsoft uses WMA instead of MP3 because Microsoft is a corrupt, 
aggressive monopoly bent on world domination.

Your argument, that Apple should have to pack more features into the iPod 
is bizarre and without precedent.


> To the point that other companies who modify their product to make it 
> work with an iPod are being excluded as Apple changes the code to 
> prevent such usage.
> 
> That is anti-consumerism at its best.

It is definitely a competitive maneuver, so I won't disagree with that. 
Of course, that isn't what they are being sued for.  A competitor who 
makes a device that will play more formats will have a competitive 
advantage and Apple will have to make some changes.


> RealPlayer for instance is not asking iTunes music to work on their 
> players, only that their content can work on the iPod. This is where 
> Apple is in the wrong.

It would be better for consumers if the iPod did more.  I'm not going to 
defend them, but they are far from a monopoly engaging in anticompetitive 
behavior.  For one, the competitor doesn't make an iPod-like device and no 
one is claiming that Apple has a monopoly on audio files.


> Tell me how Apple, being forced to support other msic formats other than 
> AAC and MP3 is going to hurt the consumer?

OK.  If a manufacturer can be forced under the law to make his product do 
more than he want it to do, the government is taking too much power over 
business.  A free market is better for consumers.

Mike
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion