Apple's New iPods Only Work With iTunes
September 15th 2007 05:28
Locked to iTunes, But For How Long?
As Apple does, part of its marketting plan, establish a good market then lock out competing software hence mp3 players. Which sap would like to completely change over MP3 players and lose thousands of downloaded only from iTunes?
Still, it isn't all hell, I mean, this is software, someones bound to crack this silly iTunes only pain and suffering. Even Apples pride and joy, DRM, has been cracked, severel damned times no less.
Then again, Apple has started asking the community to stop cracking iPhones. But hey what the hey, thats STILL not going to stop people from cracking the damned things protection.
| 52 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Bonus on the crack.
I think the iphones look good.
Comment by yoda76
The Tube Blog
It's Apple's prerogative to do business the way they see fit. It's not like they are the ONLY mp3 / video player on the market. Don't like it - don't buy. It's the strongest message Apple could get if their sales and market share dip due to silly exclusionary decisions.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Apples locking out all third parties and it's all alright. Technically it's anti competitive behaviour. forcing competition off the market this way can create a dangerous type of monopoly.
Comment by yoda76
The Tube Blog
The difference is crucial, though - choice. I have no choice but to have Explorer pervade my Windows installation. I don't have to buy an iPod or install iTunes if I don't want to.
At the end of the day it's all shades of grey - Microsoft should be able to bundle whatever it wants, as long as it doesn't impede my choice to NOT use Explorer in favour of another browser, cause I don't have a say as to wether I get Explorer or not.
If I don't like Apple's lockouts, I can choose not buy Apple and buy a goddamn Zen or something!
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
You don't have to use Internet Explorer, Microsoft isn't apple in the sense they do what they can to lock out third party software. They've established their business model around 3rd party. So you get Internet Explorer but you can go and download FIrefox if you so wanted.
With Apple it isn't all that different except theres no choice whatsoever, buy an iPod and you're stuck to iTunes, your music is stuck to iTunes in a proprietory format that won't run on anything but an iPod or other apple branded product.
With Microsoft, you had the choice, sure your system comes with Internet Explorer but you can completely ignore it and use Firefox for instance. You simply can't do the same with the newer iPods, they are tied down to that one piece of software which generates proprietory formats that only works on iPods, worse yet is the propreitory format in question limits what you can do with the file to the point you can't even copy and paste it.
Comment by yoda76
The Tube Blog
Aside from the fact that I don't agree with Microsoft being sued (noone was forced to buy or use IE - they simply provided it as a bundled solution), Apple don't always eliminate third party options, just limit them. As an end user, for me it results in a system that may be a touch slower or less tweakable than a PC, but I have far more stability compared to my PC (yes, I have one of those too).
Also,comparing the investment of a personal computer (usually upwards of $1K), to an iPod (a few hundred bucks) is silly in any case.
You have a choice with iPods, too - BUY SOMETHING ELSE... aside from the fact that you CAN actually generate files from iTunes that work with anything: I do it each day.
It's like saying I'm pissed off because my Vinyl records don't play in my CD player, or that my tapes won't fit into my MD player. At the end of the day, it's all business and it's all about money - like it or not. As long as we have options as consumers, I don't see the problem, mate. You want an iPod, you play by Apple's rules. Don't like the rules, play a different game.
Pretty simple, ans as old as time itself (or at least since the abolishment of the barter system).
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
The thing is, we're talking about markets here. It isn't the samething to say that vinyls won't run in CD players because we are talking about different technologies, one in which there is no massive monopoly going on.
When it comes down to it all apples behaviour by the definitnio of the Department of Justice (if its case against Microsoft is anything to go by) is using a monopoly to sell products not directly related to the monopoly itself. In Microsofts case it was Internet Explorer in Apples case it's iTunes. Microsoft might have been able to make all other web browsers go unused by way of presenting an easier coice to consumers, Apple might be able to compltely take over online music sales by making it extremely inconvenient and difficult to use other online stores.
Furthermore I don't think Apple should be held to task over this behaviour however Microsoft was which established a precident that this behaviour should not be allowed.
Which makes me think that the Department of Justice did not bring its case against Microsoft because it felt Microsoft was abusing its monopoly but because other companies got behind the DoJ to hit microsoft with the suit.
To that end it isn't fair that Apple recieves praise for whatever it does and other companies are rightly held accountable. Giving any one company this much support, especially from consumers, is dangerous and stupid. The problem is that the consumer has been literally brainwashed by the massive marketting machien and will defend Apple irrespective of Apples business moves.
If Apple loses 10% of its market because of this move it won't be a big deal, because by doing so it will also manage to topple many third parties in the process thereaby establishing a monopoly that Microsoft would envy.
Comment by yoda76
The Tube Blog
That goes without saying - in fact I believe that was very publicly known.
You make good points, but just in regards to DRM - you're kidding yourself if you think that any company would allow music to be bought without it.
I know what you're going to say - Apple's doesn't play nice with other players... fine. There is still a choice: BUY SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Fact is, both Apple and MS will be criticised whatever they do, because when you are that big and have tht massive a market to accomodate, the old adage "you can please some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time,but NEVER all of the people all of the time" has never rung more true.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Forget the fact Microsoft provides more developer support for Windows than any other business does. Apparently microsoft now has to give up its own trade secrets to competitors.
Apple, IBM and any number of other companies can freely do what they want in the EU and elsewhere and they fall into the bracket of 'if consumers don't like it, consumers won't buy it'.
I mean if right now Apple is held to task in the same way Microsoft is then there would be some elment of fairness (granted in reality there is nothing fair about forcing a company to spill its own trade secrets to competitors!) which is essentially the point I'm trying to make.
So in effect, Apple can do what it wants but it should be held accountable to it, if it isn't as it would seem then Apple wills urely establish a market in which there won't be any alternatives for many consumers who may buy into the iPod and specifically iTunes. Once you have customers locked in, who may have severel thousand songs bought off of iTunes you can do anything you want to them. But again, Apple will be held accountable to its behaviour by the consumer, eventually.
On the topic of DRM, the way I see it is as an inconvenience. I think consumers would rather pay a couple of bucks for a legally bought song than download it. The problem with DRM is it kind of blows away fair use. You have it and it seems that you can only make three copies of it. You can just as well buy a CD and do what you want with it under fair use.
Though for conveniences sake a consumer will probably go and use p2p to download music illegally yet free. Which isn't to say the consumer prefers that than to paying for it. P2P software isn't particularly good, it actually sucks in a lot of ways, it would be eaiser to just download a song legally in 5 minutes than download it illegally in 25 mintues (with the added bonus of malware and virus infections).
Some studios are experimenting iwth non-DRM songs, EMI is one of the bigger ones. What I don't understand is why smaller bands which get their break on iTunes (with no studio backing) have their $1 songs DRMd.
I think in maybe a decade studios are going to be completely online, which isn't good for them because it also means artists can just as easily dump the lable, release their song for free, gain popularity on talent then be able to sell songs. BUt of course thats an ideal world which won't ever happen