# Norway et al. against the iPod/iTunes



## diablojota (Jun 20, 2006)

Okay, here's a recent news story on Fox news about Norway and their ambitions to open up iTunes. Same story we've heard about France, etc. They feel that the music sold on iTunes should be allowed to be played on any mp3 player. The  argument in Norway is "If Apple can require an iPod for songs via iTunes, then music, book and film companies might restrict their products to specific players too, he said.". This is a load of crap. Why? Because if you don't want to use an iPod or iTunes, you can go to the store, by the stupid CD and rip it into mp3 format to play on any mp3 player. Same with books, movies, etc. It's not like there's no choice. There's plenty of it. 
Anyway, this is more of a rant, and not a well formulated one at that. I just am frustrated by this talk of opening up iTunes. Well, I want a Mac that runs Windows, so I think Microsoft should open up windows so we can run it on the Mac G4 and G5 hardware. Or how about this, I want Ferrari to release their manumatic shifter software and transmissions so I can have that installed on my Toyota Camry. I think that should be opened up and available to anyone.
Anyway, the point is, if I don't want to use an iPod, then there are plenty of alternatives, albeit, they won't work with iTunes, but that's the sacrifice I'll have to make. Apple shouldn't be required to make their products work on any other system. That haven't don't it with their OS, why should they do it with their iPod? 
Sorry, long rant.


----------



## Tommo (Jun 21, 2006)

Has it not occured that there is plenty of choice because other people are not as restricitive as Apple have been. Go back to iTunes 3 and it supported most of the MP3 players on the market. Apple in their usual restrictive way removed all support apart from the iPod.

It is not unreasonable (especially in view of the companies view on piracy) following your arguement that Sony restrict all media from it's DVD and Music arms to only play on Sony equipment.

Why do you find it unreasonable that users of other MP3 players are not able to access music via the iTunes music store ?


----------



## diablojota (Jun 21, 2006)

Of course it has occured to me. That's not the issue. The issue is that forcing a company to open up something that pulls in maybe 10 million USD in a country like Norway is ridiculous. Actually, Apple still supports other mp3 players via iTunes on Mac OSX, just not for the iTMS.
Here's the problem with the Sony logic. Sony could very well do what you said. However, they got smacked around for trying that (ATRAC3, I believe was their format). People didn't buy it. Yet 70% of mp3 owners' buy iPods. Dominant form won. If they don't want the iPod, then burn a CD of their bought music from iTunes, convert it to mp3. Problem solved. There are plenty of work arounds to get their iTMS music store music to play on these generic crap mp3 players. 
Why am I against it? Because it takes the quality control out of Apple's hands. iTunes and iPods just work together. And if there is a problem, Apple will resolve it. They control the entire process, allowing the simplicity of use and quality to be owned by them alone. If they were to allow 3rd party products to work with iTunes easily, then people might associate any issues that arise, or even just the crappiness of the mp3 player, with Apple instead of pointing fingers at the company who produced the mp3 player.
Apple is trying to develop an excellent brand reputation for itself. It is trying to avoid the wonderful reputation that Windows has. If Apple owns the complete experience, and if most people like that experience, it gives Apple a good name. However if someone is using a creative mp3 player with iTunes, and there is an issue with the player, they may assoicate any non-reparable by apple issues to apple when it's creative's fault thus leading to a bad reputation for apple. 
Also, trying to support the multitude of other mp3 products out there would be costly for apple. Why should they have to bear those costs? 



			
				Tommo said:
			
		

> Has it not occured that there is plenty of choice because other people are not as restricitive as Apple have been. Go back to iTunes 3 and it supported most of the MP3 players on the market. Apple in their usual restrictive way removed all support apart from the iPod.
> 
> It is not unreasonable (especially in view of the companies view on piracy) following your arguement that Sony restrict all media from it's DVD and Music arms to only play on Sony equipment.
> 
> Why do you find it unreasonable that users of other MP3 players are not able to access music via the iTunes music store ?


----------



## Tommo (Jun 21, 2006)

While I agree with most of what you say, the bottom line with the iTunes music store rather than the iTunes software is to my mind, at least they are selling music and you should be able to play that music, that you have legally purchased how you want to not how you are told to by the company you purchased it from.

I don't know about under US law, but here in the UK it is technically illegal to rip a CD that you have purchased and I believe it is the same in a lot of Europe. My argument is not that they should open up iTunes to connect to a multitude of players, but that maybe they should help other manufacturers develop their software to allow it to legally use music purchased from the iTunes store. Surely that would generate more revenue for them in the long term.


----------



## jh2112 (Jun 21, 2006)

This is more for consumer choice and freedom to buy in the future. A preventative measure.

Imagine... 10 years go by...cds are withdrawn...online purchasing is the only way to buy music...no problem, there's plenty of choice....

20 years go by... online music price cutting has bankrupted the smaller stores...iTMS finishes off the remaining, competing online music stores, thanks to the fat pile of cash that Apple made from the ipod... The only way to buy music is from iTMS.
Now you have to buy an ipod to listen to your music. 

30 years go by... The board at Apple has changed, Steve et al long since retired...Quality drops...Flash mem keeps frying, the batteries die every year a day or so out of warranty etc...You have no choice but to keep buying.

Ok a far-fetched vision, but it could happen.


----------



## lbj (Jun 21, 2006)

But jh2112, your future excludes basic capitalistic market drivers.  if there's money to be made, and/or desire not being met, someone else will jump in.

that's why we still have Apple despite MS's dominance. There is a demand and there is money to be made.

I'm not a big fan of "preemptive strikes".  Are you saying Apple should be forced to change what they do today because of what might happen 30 years from now?


----------



## fryke (Jun 21, 2006)

Yes, lbj, that's what "preemptive measures" means.


----------



## jh2112 (Jun 21, 2006)

but, Nooone else would be able to 'jump in',as you say. The record company would not be in a position to challenge Apple with another online service. Apple would simply threaten to boycott all further product and remove the current. 
Apple have used this tactic, in the recent past...

As for 'preemptive strikes': presumably you're not a fan of Megan's Law? or any other legislation to prevent crime? violence? murder? Don't talk crap.


----------



## diablojota (Jun 21, 2006)

Well, at the moment, you can still buy music from iTMS, then burn it to a CD. Then you can reencode this as an mp3, thus allowing the media to be placed onto any mp3 player. 
If Apple where to start slipping with regards to quality, that is when there are many, many firms who'll be able to jump in and compete at that point. For example, Sony would be primed to go if that were to occur, and they would have access to the record labels, as they own one of the largest. Microsoft will also have the capital to go after this goal as well. 
Apple would never boycott the record companies. That would be suicide if they were the monopoly. Why bite off a source of 2 streams of revenue? That would mean that their iPod line would stop selling, as well as their iTMS songs. 
There won't be an opportunity for Apple to be alone in this arena. Microsoft will be there to keep Apple innovating, and on its toes. Even though microsoft suffers from the inability to develop quality and easy to use products on their first go, they can throw tons of money into a project and eventually catch up.
For Apple to maintain its dominance, they will have to stay at the forefront. Steve Jobs, while an amazing executive, can't keep up with every little part of the process. The corporate culture at Apple won't allow for shoddy products to be released.


----------



## lbj (Jun 21, 2006)

So let me get this straight...

You think it's ok to sit around and dream up wild, albeit plausible, scenarios and then punish someone for those activities that have yet to happen and may, in fact, never happen?

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I really think a crime has to occur before a sentence is handed out.

In the thirty year scenario, you see MS, Sony, Google, etc all drying up and being unable to develop a product or service to compete against the allmighty Apple?

And I'm the one talking crap?


----------



## Tommo (Jun 22, 2006)

Firstly diablojota, my whole opposition to your arguement is summed up in the phrase 'their iTMS songs'. They aren't the property of Apple. Apple are just a distributor/publisher in exactly the same way that rcord companies are and these should be available for anyone who has purchased them to listen to without being forced to either buy an iPod or go through extra steps so they can play them on whatever MP3 player they happen to own. 

This does nothing to harm the quality of the Apple product. iTunes is the Apple product not the music it sells through it.

Secondly lbj, those arguements might seem far fetched, but would everybody, here especially have the same opinion if it was the Microsoft iPod and their online music store or would they be heading for the courts to fight Redmond's monopoly yet again. I think it would most likely be the latter.


----------



## lbj (Jun 22, 2006)

And my point is exactly this, you would have to let them become a monopoly first, before you took them to court.  

You cannot just fantasize "it" may one day become a monopoly, and therefore sue them over something that has yet to happen...sue them over something that would with 99% likelihood never happen.


----------



## Tommo (Jun 22, 2006)

But in this case you don't, certainly in the UK. The courts take action to prevent companies gaining a monopoly, the is not a lot you can do once they have. That was the original reason Microsoft bailed out Mac years ago so as to keep another OS/computer player in the market place.


----------



## jh2112 (Jun 22, 2006)

Laws set precedents, lbj. This legislation is not just about Apple. 
And the article did not mention taking anyone to court. This is tabled legislation not a court case. 
Imagine if you needed a different tv/decoder for each tv channel you watch...

My 'Don't talk crap' comment was with regards to your comment 'I am not a big fan of preemptive strikes' Not the rest of your argument. Please try not to take my comments out of context.

Although my far fetched future is hypothetical, the world learnt a lot from the legal shennanagins (not to mention the virus and spyware infested, bug ridden, low quality software of old,) with Microsoft. Monopolies are not a good thing. Period. The consumer loses every time. Whether it is bad service, shoddy quality, whatever. If there is no other way to get the product/service required then what choice do you have? None, except to go back to that same company for more of the same. I'll take choice over no choice every single time. 

Personally, I prefer that my government looks to the future and prepares and makes Law for any and all eventualities. Laws are not always put in place for what is happening today. As I originally wrote 'a preventative measure'


----------



## lbj (Jun 22, 2006)

And that is where we disagree. 

I want my government interfering less in my life and less in the lives around me. I have an extreme amount of confidence in basic market forces. 

More confidence, in fact, than I do in government...any government.  To me, pure market forces are far "nobler" on average than the minds and intents of men in power.

The world learned nothing from the "monopoly" of MS that it hadn't already learned 100 times before. And don't construe any of this to suggest I support monopolies. I don't. And that's one area that you and I agree... monopolies are bad.

Companies trying to become monopolies position themselves at the lowest price-point to drive their competitors out of business. I would hardly consider the pricing of iPods to be loss-leaders. In fact, they are the highest costing MP3 players on the market, and always has been. Is this how a monopoly forms?  By charging more than anyone else?  That's even more innovative than the iPod itself. Way to go Apple!

I still don't understand the 'don't talk crap" comment. And I was certainly not deliberately taking your comment out of context. How can you say I am talking crap when I'm merely stating my opinion about not liking preemptive strikes?  Have I stated elsewhere on this board that I'm a huge believer in them??  I guess you are saying my opinion is crap because that's the only explanation I can find for your statement otherwise. And that's ok. There is certainly no love lost between the two of us.

You and I have very fundamentally divergent viewpoints on government and the roles they should play in daily life. We also disagree on market forces.  I'm not going to change your mind and you will not change mine.  If you want the final word, be my guest. I'm done with this. 

Except to say I hope iTunes pulls out Norway and France if both countries insist on their cases.

There. Now I'm done.


----------



## diablojota (Jun 22, 2006)

Ah, but Apple does not only distribute the content. As part of their distribution agreement, they are supposed to protect this music from illegal trade. Thus, Apple does 'own' the content they distribute to a point. The boundaries are that they are supposed to do what they can to prevent piracy for the record labels. For the most part, Apple does own the songs, and they would be held accountable for any misuse or quality issues that may arise, not the record label.
By combining iTunes with only the iPod, they have 'locked' the DRM for limited use, thus reducing the chances of piracy (without going through the extra steps). If they let every other mp3 hardware producer use their DRM, it could potentially leak, thus increasing the chances of someone breaking the DRM.
Basically, Apple is not the solely the distributor. They are obligated to the record labels to prevent illegal distribution of musical content to the best of their abilities.
Sorry if I used 'their' in a way that was not clear. It's a contract that Apple is bound to uphold. Transaction Cost Economics 101.


			
				Tommo said:
			
		

> Firstly diablojota, my whole opposition to your arguement is summed up in the phrase 'their iTMS songs'. They aren't the property of Apple. Apple are just a distributor/publisher in exactly the same way that rcord companies are and these should be available for anyone who has purchased them to listen to without being forced to either buy an iPod or go through extra steps so they can play them on whatever MP3 player they happen to own.
> 
> This does nothing to harm the quality of the Apple product. iTunes is the Apple product not the music it sells through it.
> 
> Secondly lbj, those arguements might seem far fetched, but would everybody, here especially have the same opinion if it was the Microsoft iPod and their online music store or would they be heading for the courts to fight Redmond's monopoly yet again. I think it would most likely be the latter.


----------



## diablojota (Jun 22, 2006)

Trust me, M$ did not bail out Apple because of the UK. There were already other choices such as OS/2, Sun's OS, Linux and Unix. Small, yes, but yet still competitors. I think that one of the major reasons why M$ kept Apple in business was so they could get some great ideas from them, partially. The other part is that Apple, if successful, would provide microsoft with another stream of revenue.
As great as a place the UK is (I should know, I lived there for a while), they are not large enough to make Microsoft bail out a company. 


			
				Tommo said:
			
		

> But in this case you don't, certainly in the UK. The courts take action to prevent companies gaining a monopoly, the is not a lot you can do once they have. That was the original reason Microsoft bailed out Mac years ago so as to keep another OS/computer player in the market place.


----------



## Tommo (Jun 23, 2006)

It looks like I should have split that paragraph up. I was not suggesting that it was because of the UK that Microsoft bailed Apple out. At the time there was no other viable desktop OS, linux was in its infancy and still open source. OS2 may have been a choice in the DOS days but was long dead by the time Winodws 98 came along. It was in their interest to keep their main competitor going. 

I agree with you about the DRM issue, but it doesn't change anything. I have to stick by my view that by tying iTMS to the iPod it stifles choice and interferes with choice. Something that Apple seems to hold in high regard that people should have. It just seems a ploy to get people to buy the players who might otherwise have gone down another route.

I have recently purchased my first iPod having owned Creative and Sony models in the past and am very impressed with it (battery life aside). But I would not be very happy if another company, record or otherwise,put up another on-line music site and I had to buy another player to use their content.

We may just have to agree to differ on this.


----------

