Why are Apple never charged with anti competitive practices?

chesterstu · 17 Sep 2007 at 20:03

Just reading this , to paraphrase it's about Apple locking down the iPod database so no third party apps can transfer music to it. I have an iPod and use Winamp, this means that if i buy a touch i wouldn't be able to continue using it.

But MS are in court weekly defending cases of them locking users in to apps and not allowing other companies to get a foothold in there market. Why is there one rule for them and another for Apple?

Jokester · 17 Sep 2007 at 20:04

Because MS are an easy target with lots of money to steal, I mean fine.

Jokester

Fillado · 18 Sep 2007 at 02:31

I've always wondered what would happen if Microsoft added in their own free antivirus to Windows. Lets say that they don't restrict other companies from Windows code to make their software better and make this antivirus REALLY good. I bet Symantec would still cry about it, even though IMO MS have a right to secure their own OS.

It could happen with Apple in the future too...iTunes, Quicktime, iLife, Mail, Safari and iCal could all probably be subject to anti-competitive lawsuits for being bundled with Mac OS X.

titchard · 18 Sep 2007 at 02:33

I guess it's mainly down to Apple selling the iPod & iTunes as a whole product & system rather than two separate things.

Rich

chesterstu · 18 Sep 2007 at 07:34

titchard said:
I guess it's mainly down to Apple selling the iPod & iTunes as a whole product & system rather than two separate things.

Rich

thats not really an argument though because you could claim that MS sell Windows, IE and WMP as a whole & system for the home pc user rather than separate items. Apple, however, lock other suppliers of DRM music out of the the iPod platform, EG Napster (who have a much better subscription model), yet they are considered to have fair business practices?

NickK · 18 Sep 2007 at 08:11

chesterstu said:
thats not really an argument though because you could claim that MS sell Windows, IE and WMP as a whole & system for the home pc user rather than separate items. Apple, however, lock other suppliers of DRM music out of the the iPod platform, EG Napster (who have a much better subscription model), yet they are considered to have fair business practices?

I believe titchard was refering to the hardware and software.

chesterstu · 18 Sep 2007 at 10:31

Hmmm....I would disagree that just because its hardware and software that makes it a whole system. While software by itself can never be a whole system, or in the case of Windows and WMP a platform for playing media

afraser2k · 18 Sep 2007 at 11:15

chesterstu said:
Just reading this , to paraphrase it's about Apple locking down the iPod database so no third party apps can transfer music to it. I have an iPod and use Winamp, this means that if i buy a touch i wouldn't be able to continue using it.

But MS are in court weekly defending cases of them locking users in to apps and not allowing other companies to get a foothold in there market. Why is there one rule for them and another for Apple?

Didn't the EU go after Apple and the DRM restrictions on iTunes? Then the day before the meeting Steve Jobs announced he was against DRM all of a sudden? iTunes now offers some DRM-free tracks probably due to this case.

In any case the new restrictions of players has already been cracked.

coyote · 18 Sep 2007 at 14:38

Fillado said:
It could happen with Apple in the future too...iTunes, Quicktime, iLife, Mail, Safari and iCal could all probably be subject to anti-competitive lawsuits for being bundled with Mac OS X.

Isn't it more to do with the fact that you can safely remove the Apple software and use what you like, whereas on Windows if you remove IE then you're stuffed. No Windows Update etc. :confused:

Durzel · 18 Sep 2007 at 15:47

To be fair Windows is used on 90% of PCs so you can't really avoid using it, or being familiar with it. The stuff going on with Microsoft is related to it abusing its monopoly to get into other areas of the software market (e.g. browsing, media players, etc). You can't really say the same of iPods - no one is forcing you to buy an iPod and you're not unfairly disadvantaged from not owning one.

Apple are well within their rights, as any company is, to lock down their hardware & software to stop 3rd party access. It frustrates the hacker community but it's not really anti-competitive, it's just anti-openness (I guess).

chesterstu · 18 Sep 2007 at 21:23

Durzel said:
To be fair Windows is used on 90% of PCs so you can't really avoid using it, or being familiar with it. The stuff going on with Microsoft is related to it abusing its monopoly to get into other areas of the software market (e.g. browsing, media players, etc). You can't really say the same of iPods - no one is forcing you to buy an iPod and you're not unfairly disadvantaged from not owning one.

Apple are well within their rights, as any company is, to lock down their hardware & software to stop 3rd party access. It frustrates the hacker community but it's not really anti-competitive, it's just anti-openness (I guess).

Apple have not abused their position but itunes has become the third largest distributor of music because of its excellent application :rolleyes:

. You claim can the same of the iPod, ask a lay person what an Mp3 is and they will no doubt mention an iPod and using 3rd party software to transfer music is way beyond the of the level effort of most people, just as say installing Firefox on Windows.