Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Apple doesn't have a monopoly in portable music players, in smart phones, or even --- despite practically creating the market --- in online music stores. There are effective market substitutes for all of Apple's products.

Interoperability is good, but it's not a mandate.

View on HN

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in Operating Systems either (I think polls have shown that a majority of the members of this site don't run Windows), but they still are fined and antagonized for their 'monopolistic' business practices and bundling.

Apple's free to do this if they want, but then again Microsoft should be free to bundle IE also.

Microsoft had --- according to the DC District and Circuit Court --- a monopoly in desktop operating systems.

I'm sorry but they have a defacto monopoly in the digital music market. When Walmart, Amazon and Microsoft specifically target you and can't even get their foot in the door that says a lot.

In what sense can you claim that iTMS has a monopoly on digital music? I wanted to buy a Modern Lovers CD last week, and I had to use Amazon, because they had the CD and iTunes didn't. Monopoly doesn't mean "commanding market share". It means "control of the market".

A CD isn't digital music first. I get your point that it can be turned into digital music but a lot of media can be converted to other mediums and they count as separate products.

As far as the term. I mean, I understand people can have different definitions but the reality to me is when a company feels they can abuse their customers without fear of them going elsewhere that means they have reached the point of de-facto monopoly. Apple has no problem taking functionality from their own iTunes customers to kill the Pre and that to me is the line (though I fully understand others can differ)

The only people who feel like Apple is abusing them, though, are a bunch of angsty tech geeks. The vast majority of normal people using Apple products are thrilled that they just work, unlike so much of technology.

I meant the MP3 album, which you cannot buy on iTunes.

Modern Lovers, hey? Which one? I like the John Cale-produced stuff. They didn't last very long but they were good for about one whole record, which exists in a zillion forms. (And to exponentially grow the offtopicness: check out the beginning of LCD Soundsystem's "North American Scum" for a pitch-perfect imitation of Jonathan Richman imitating Lou Reed.)

I really just wanted the studio version of "Roadrunner", although I like the whole album. I'm a fan of bookish art punk --- Wire works for me too. That LCD Soundsystem album tries so hard to get old and overplayed for me, and constantly fails.

Amazon, Walmart and Microsoft have stuff all to do with digital music. Heck, Microsoft's most recent contribution is shutting down their DRM servers from the retired MSN Music store resulting in no more moving your music around ever. A company like that not being able to get a look in is not a sign of monopoly, just incompetence.

The other problem is that no other companies who might stand a chance are really trying - if a huge techno-music company such as Sony-BMG made a proper attack, such as "our entire catalog, open, for $X/year" and that went nowhere, then I'd start to be convinced.

Monopoly is not required for antitrust violations. Indeed, most companies found liable for antitrust did not have a monopoly in said market.

The key issue is whether the company in question had significant market power and used that power for non-competitive purposes. Price-fixing is a classic example, but it's only one of several.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com