[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Apple's iPhone and iPod Monopolies Must Go here

[rosedp]

I too am an Apple fan and I do agree that some competition and the ability to use other apps or music sources outside the Apple approved would be a huge benefit. The question would be what kind of effect would this have on Apple's "it just works" approach to devices and software? Also, are there any truly competitive products available? Amazon's not bad, but they haven't put out an app like iTunes. And I haven't seen an MP3 player that has the style or demand of an iPod, ever. I think a more open Apple could be achieved if it would not compromise their design mantra and IF another company could put out a product that could actually rival Apple's in all aspects.

[Uncletim]

Take out the word Apple and insert the word Microsoft, start talking about operating systems and you have a story that matters, and one you should have written about a long time ago.

[Vassar]

Sounds like 'socialized' business. So Apple does a great job with the iPhone and the App Store, so lets penalize them?
Is that the new 'American' way?

[matafuzo]

Coursey...You have a job in the Obama administration waiting for you...as the Official Abuser of those who win in the "risk reward" game...and you will get to take the losers to a "free" lunch, with the winners picking up the tab...hurry, Obama is waiting for you!

[pairof9s]

So a computer company makes a successful music player and outwits the music industry. So a computer company makes a successful mobile phone and outwits the cellular industry.
Is this REALLY Apple's fault or even responsibility?! The competition needs to take a hard look in the mirror instead of asking for their ball back!

[rosedp]

I agree, don't penalize someone for doing a good job. Though that does seem to be the policy in America now. I don't think we have much to fear though, you'll never see a conglomerate like Microsoft putting that much effort in to producing ANY product.... obviously not it's OS.

[dap68]

Are you kidding me. GM has on star why not make them add to the car industry. How about Verizon? lets make them share there app store. How about XBox live? Shouldn't it work with the PS3? How about the drug companies? Let's make them share there formulas. What about Nukes shouldn't the world get nukes? Look if you give the store away there is no reason to have the touch. Apple and it's shareholders expect a return on investment. The app store is a major selling point of the iPod family.
Any company can make an app store. Does PC World Bonus disc work on every operating system? I don't think so. Look at the pot calling the kettle black.

[zooot]

Tsk, tsk. Sad, really. The article obviously contrived to rankle Apple fanboys and get a ton of responses in the form of flame wars was too insipid--the author himself was unconvinced.

[pcampagna]

This is a silly argument. People were trying to do what Apple has done way before Apple perfected it. There were mp3 players before apple, there were smart phones etc. Apple just figured out how to do it right, so you want to penalize them. That's stupid.
BTW i can put songs from anywhere on my ipod, so i don't have to buy songs from strictly apple. Maybe i'm missing something there?

[DrPh0bius1971]

I dont know why everyone believes you can only use iTunes with an iPod? I have an 80 gig pretty much filled with music, and have only purchased two of those songs from iTunes (maybe a couple more than that).

I still use iTunes to manage the music and iPod/iPhone, and even for the songs that were not purchased from iTunes, I used iTunes to retrieve cover art. (note: this is NOT a jailbroke iPhone, and not customization or hacks or tweaks have been made! YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE iTUNES)

But lest set that aside. This is not a monoploy for the simple fact that there ARE other music players and there ARE other music sources. Apple is not a monopoly because you cant use non-Apple apps on Apple products. Microsoft is not a monopoly because you cant run Apple or Linux products on Microsoft. I think a lot of people need to reasses what the term monopoly actually means...

[FreeChoice]

Nobody is forcing consumers to buy an iPod or iPhone. Those products, and the iTunes store, are so popular because they Look great and work well.
Other companies are free to try and develop a surperior product, but they keep missing the mark.
Perhaps, instead of trying to punish Apple, they should hire developers and managers with more imagination.

[bdubz]

I think someone needs to use a dictionary and look up the word "monopoly" before they just haphazardly throw it around. But why would a paid "journalist" do any "research?"

[Diknak]

Wow, do you even know what the word 'monopoly' means? Apple is not even close to being a monopoly for any market out there. Their biggest market share is music players and online music retail. They offer the most mainstream service, but they didn't invent the mp3 player and they didn't invent music downloading. There are TONS of mp3 players on the market today and several music vendors for online downloads. The government isn't going to break up Apple because they are not a monopoly. Don't punish a company for recognizing what consumers want and providing it at a reasonable rate. You said it yourself, they aren't exploiting the services and making a huge profit, so they have good business ethics.
The day that they start raising the prices and taking advantage of people, is the same day that another online music provider takes over. There is nothing preventing people from getting music from outside of apple, so natural capitalism will take over if the company starts exploiting people.

[clemsonpablo]

Good bye capitalism if we force a company that has tirelessly put in the effort to put out quality products to let other's come in and do a halfway job. The "problem" here is that Apple has created several different successful products, and successfully linked them all together. All of their hardware and software platforms could/would stand strong on their own, and still dominate. But linking them for a seamless experience has totally taken it to the next level. Maybe instead of whining about unfair competition, companies should (should have) put in the work to offer up quality similar services. Instead, all we get is a poorly designed, disorganized smattering of crap. No wonder Apple is dominating.

[celebfreezone]

Every company has a right to sell exclusive accessories for their products.

You also have the option to not buy their products at all.

It's why I bought a Creative Zen instead of an iWhatever. It was less expensive, has a 32gig flash drive and I don't have to do conversions from my mp3s to Apple's format. (also the iTunes software had a nasty habit of overriding my id3 tags)

And iTunes already has plenty of competition. eMusic has recently added the Sony catalog and at .40 a track vs .99 do the math...

[lawgrl77]

I very much agree with Vassar...it's truly disturbing that it has now become the "American Way" to penalize successful businesses for simply being good at what they do, rather than confining ourselves to label companies legal monopolies only where they seek monopoly power through illegal means (which, by the way, is what the Judge in the Microsoft case found that they had done with their operating system). I find it disgusting that, b/c a business is simply too good and/or too sucessful ("better style or demand"), rather than going out and trying to become or create better competition, one would advocate to simply label the business a monopoly and try to break it up or open it up in the name of creating "competition." Other companies and individuals can and do put out products to compete with Apple. Just because Apple is better at doing what they do doesn't necessarily make them a monopoly. But it does make them successful. Shame that's apparently no longer a respectable thing. Oh, and monopolies that have been created through efficient, competitive behavior are not illegal (must have unfair behavior like price discrimination, exclusive dealings contracts, corporate mergers, and/or interlocking directorates). So don't hold your breath waiting for Apple to be "forced to open the platform to competitors" just because they can't keep up.

[rduaqui]

Structural change in the music vending business will come sooner or later with healthy competition. Hopefully regulators will stay out of this.

[andersonja]

I don't understand your reasoning of saying Apple has a monopoly. There are clearly a number of other app stores and successful music download sites. Some of those are proprietary such as Blackberry. Using your reasoning, now provider should have proprietary stores but everything should be available to everyone. But it comes across as either naive or anti-capitalistic to say that any successful organization is automatically a monopoly. If you don't like using Apple stuff then use one of the many other alternatives. But trying to water down a good product sure doesn't seem like a good use of anyone's time.

[Fretless]

Mr. Coursey: You should read the comment from lawgrl77, get a copy of Black's Law Dictionary or go to law school before you use the word "monopoly" in an argument. On the other hand, your blog is called the "Tech Inciter" and you've clearly incited some strong reaction to your opinion. So, mission accomplished??