NationStates Jolt Archive

Your thoughts?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_hi_te/france_itunes_law_5

PARIS - French lawmakers gave final approval Friday to legislation that could force Apple Computer Inc. to make its iPod and iTunes Music Store compatible with rivals' music players and online services.
ADVERTISEMENT

Both the Senate and the National Assembly, France's lower house, voted in favor of the copyright bill, which some analysts said could cause Apple Computer Inc. and others to pull their music players and online download stores from France.

The vote was the final legislative step before the bill becomes law — barring the success of a last-ditch constitutional challenge filed last week by the opposition Socialists.

If I were Apple, I would stop selling iTunes and iPods in France.

If I were Apple, I would stop selling iTunes and iPods in France.

And loose a considerable loss to your profits?

And loose a considerable loss to your profits?
Something tells me that France would not be a "considerable" loss to worldwide sales.

Ditto. France is dumb. What happened to allowing creative innovation?

Good for France. If I buy a video, I want it to be playable on any VCR. Same with my music.

Good for France. If I buy a video, I want it to be playable on any VCR. Same with my music.

Thats a good point, also Ipod are forcing other companies out of business.

What grounds are the French trying to use to enforce compatibility? I know that this bill is some kind of copyright law, but I don't know the specifics.

Your thoughts?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_hi_te/france_itunes_law_5



If I were Apple, I would stop selling iTunes and iPods in France.
This was something I saw proposed a couple months back. Guess the French finally decided to put an end to free enterprise in France. If I was running Apple, I'd pull every last iPod off the shelves and make sure iTunes was inaccessible from anywhere with a .fr on the end.

Good for France. If I buy a video, I want it to be playable on any VCR. Same with my music.

Then buy your video from someone who sells it to you in a format that you can run on your VCR. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy from iTunes, just as no one is forcing you to use an iPod or use the .AAC format. If you choose to buy content from iTunes, then you must accept that the content you buy will be packaged in the way Apple chooses to package it. If you have a problem, you a free to bring your buisness to their competition.

Apple is selling a specific product, and they are not the only game in town. There are pleanty of other services that will sell you songs, just not in the .AAC format that Apple sells them in. You could always buy an entire album, then convert it to .AAC, but if you want the perk of only having to buy a single song, you want it for the rate that Apple sells it for, and you want it in the .AAC format your choices are limited to either buying from apple or buying from someone else and dealing with the loss of quality that conversion entails.

wish poland did this. I mean, its not that I am against free emterprise and that stuff, but Apple is a bunch of Scam artists, they deserve it.

This was something I saw proposed a couple months back. Guess the French finally decided to put an end to free enterprise in France. If I was running Apple, I'd pull every last iPod off the shelves and make sure iTunes was inaccessible from anywhere with a .fr on the end.

I find your opinion hilarious given your username.

Thats a good point, also Ipod are forcing other companies out of business.

Yes, because as everyone knows, a company is clearly evil if they offer a product or a service that consumers prefer over the products or services of the competition.

You can buy comperable portable music players from a variety of companies, and most of the are a fair bit cheaper than the iPod. Still, if you want the look of an iPod, if you want to be part of the trend, if you want the features the useabliity, or the special U2 edition edition, you buy the iPod and not the Creative Nomad. I fail to see how anyone is being "forced out of buisness" other than people who provide products or services that consumers find less desirable.

Yes, because as everyone knows, a company is clearly evil if they offer a product or a service that consumers prefer over the products or services of the competition.

You can buy comperable portable music players from a variety of companies, and most of the are a fair bit cheaper than the iPod. Still, if you want the look of an iPod, if you want to be part of the trend, if you want the features the useabliity, or the special U2 edition edition, you buy the iPod and not the Creative Nomad. I fail to see how anyone is being "forced out of buisness" other than people who provide products or services that consumers find less desirable.

Because Itunes just provides so much more music then any other company.

It's also interesting to note that Ipod IS compatible with other software and online music companies. Rhapsody, for instance.

Itunes, however(as far as I know), only works with Ipods. I don't see a problem with that.

Then buy your video from someone who sells it to you in a format that you can run on your VCR. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy from iTunes, just as no one is forcing you to use an iPod or use the .AAC format. If you choose to buy content from iTunes, then you must accept that the content you buy will be packaged in the way Apple chooses to package it. If you have a problem, you a free to bring your buisness to their competition.

Apple is selling a specific product, and they are not the only game in town. There are pleanty of other services that will sell you songs, just not in the .AAC format that Apple sells them in. You could always buy an entire album, then convert it to .AAC, but if you want the perk of only having to buy a single song, you want it for the rate that Apple sells it for, and you want it in the .AAC format your choices are limited to either buying from apple or buying from someone else and dealing with the loss of quality that conversion entails.
The analogy can be extended: Take a car, imagine the manufacturer builds it to run only on one type of fuel - which the manufacturer is the only supplier of. Still sound reasonable?

Regardless of Apple's right to use whatever software they want, the fact remains that iPods are good music players, and people want them regardless of Apples attitude. The incompatibility of iTunes with other mp3 players is not aimed at the consumer, but at shafting Apple's rivals. As such, it's anti-competition. If Apple want people to use iTunes, they should focus on making iTunes better than all the competition, not using their market dominance to force that choice.

Where does France get the right to force Apple to do anything? I really do hope Apple simply pulls out of France.

A country can regulate a business, but force them to make their product a specific way? That's bullshit.

Where does France get the right to force Apple to do anything? I really do hope Apple simply pulls out of France.

A country can regulate a business, but force them to make their product a specific way? That's bullshit.
Never heard of safety standards?

Yes, because as everyone knows, a company is clearly evil if they offer a product or a service that consumers prefer over the products or services of the competition.



Hmm...Yet people hate illegal immigrants because they offer a service that employers perfer over the services of their competition.

Go figure.

The analogy can be extended: Take a car, imagine the manufacturer builds it to run only on one type of fuel - which the manufacturer is the only supplier of. Still sound reasonable?

Sure it does. If you don't like it, buy a different car.

Actually no.

I don't know what rules there are in France, but this sounds like complete bullshit to me. France cannot force a company to design their product in any way. Its a business, they are out to make money, and what they do is compete. If France wants, it can exclude the sale of iPods, not force the company to do soemthing like this.

If people don't like how he iPod works, buy a different mp3 player. There are so many kinds. That's the whole idea of competition. A business makes something and the customers decide whether or not they want to buy it, not whether or not they want to change it.

What grounds are the French trying to use to enforce compatibility?
I would presume the same thing that everyone is pissed at Microsoft for - hurting rivals by having the most popular software only work on their machines and/or including Microsoft created software on the machines that discourages people from buying rival products.
But no one is mad at Apple because they are like "OMG iPod!"

The analogy can be extended: Take a car, imagine the manufacturer builds it to run only on one type of fuel - which the manufacturer is the only supplier of. Still sound reasonable?

Regardless of Apple's right to use whatever software they want, the fact remains that iPods are good music players, and people want them regardless of Apples attitude. The incompatibility of iTunes with other mp3 players is not aimed at the consumer, but at shafting Apple's rivals. As such, it's anti-competition. If Apple want people to use iTunes, they should focus on making iTunes better than all the competition, not using their market dominance to force that choice.

reverse the analogy. It'd be the fuel that's exclusive. The fuel only works in one type of car. That car can run other types of fuel, but other cars can't run on that type of fuel.

So the question is this; is it the responsibility of the rival carmakers to make their product to run on that fuel, or is it the fuelmaker's responsibility to make their fuel more universal?

I would presume the same thing that everyone is pissed at Microsoft for - hurting rivals by having the most popular software only work on their machines and/or including Microsoft created software on the machines that discourages people from buying rival products.
But no one is mad at Apple because they are like "OMG iPod!"
I think that the French are mad that they didn't invent either one. Makes you wonder about the ability of a more socialist economy to innovate, doesn't it?

reverse the analogy. It'd be the fuel that's exclusive. The fuel only works in one type of car. That car can run other types of fuel, but other cars can't run on that type of fuel.

So the question is this; is it the responsibility of the rival carmakers to make their product to run on that fuel, or is it the fuelmaker's responsibility to make their fuel more universal?
In correct relation to the problem - make the fuel more compatible. Comparing the car to an iPod and the fuel to the Apple services would be like the fuel being more efficient than any other fuel and the company being able to control who can be compatible with it.

I think that the French are mad that they didn't invent either one. Makes you wonder about the ability of a more socialist economy to innovate, doesn't it?
I'm gonna ride some people's asses to hell and back if I ever see them say shit about Microsoft.

Anyone with half a blind eye can see that iPod is edging out competitors by having tons of Apple and non-Apple created extras that expand capability of only iPods then having services that only work with the iPod.

Because Itunes just provides so much more music then any other company.

That is true, but that still does not mean you have to wrok with them. You could shop around, you could buy entire CDs from Amazon, or you could go without your luxury services if you have a problem with the company providing them.

Companies do not exist to serve you, they exist to make money. Apple is not providing medical care or food to starving refugees, they are providing luxury goods and services to a generation of spoiled children who throw temper tantrums when they do not get their way. You want access to Apple's selection, you want to buy single songs instead of entire albums(both services that Apple had to fight in order to provide), you want them at a low price, and you want them unencumbered. Tough, thats not the way the real world works. Sometimes you don't get everything you want, sometimes you have to compromise.

I'm gonna ride some people's asses to hell and back if I ever see them say shit about Microsoft.

Anyone with half a blind eye can see that iPod is edging out competitors by having tons of Apple and non-Apple created extras that expand capability of only iPods then having services that only work with the iPod.

What's wrong with Microsoft?

And what's wrong with writing your web site to talk only to your products?

Meh, sounds like everyone is happy(well, maybe not microsoft)

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/03/22/atr.on.french.law

""On the surface, this [draft law] appears negative for Apple, but we believe interoperability could ironically become a catalyst for driving more iPod units." Apple today responded to the French law, also proposing the possibility that its iPod sales could balloon as users freely load up their iPods with interoperable music, "which cannot be adequately protected."

American Technology also believes that Apple has a superior product to other players, which will give the company an advantage should the French law pass the senate.

"In our view, customers are attracted to Apple's ease-of-use, industrial design, iconic brand name, and competitive prices. Moreover, we do not believe Apple is that dependent on its iTunes music store as we estimate that about 2-3 dozen songs are purchased from iTunes over the life of each iPod, meaning most consumers get their music another way.""

Something tells me that France would not be a "considerable" loss to worldwide sales.

Actually, loosing a potenal 60 Million Wealthy Music-Loving Frenchies COULD dent your profits slightly.

Your thoughts?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060630/ap_on_hi_te/france_itunes_law_5



If I were Apple, I would stop selling iTunes and iPods in France.

Good news! I've glanced over a few comments here and there's a really twisted notion in the air about freedoms being infringed because consumers make commitments to a brand and therfore make a decision as to what format they get their media in.

I hope this is the way things go globally with technology in general (particularly at a domestic level). Compatablility is key for progression. Someone hereeven had the nerve to suggest that forcing Apple to make their products more compatible was in some way damming up creative freedoms. What nonsense! Give everybody a level playing field and you have the closest thing to freedom that is possible in the technological world. Give ALL consumers the ability to access ALL media formats, and not only is it then more fair, it also means that truely ailing technologies dissappear or are improved rather than maintained by a consumer base that has commited to a brand.

Apple Fanatics... ...not so much consumers as commodity-fetishistic disciples! Quite sad!



Kin Wicked

The analogy can be extended: Take a car, imagine the manufacturer builds it to run only on one type of fuel - which the manufacturer is the only supplier of. Still sound reasonable?

Regardless of Apple's right to use whatever software they want, the fact remains that iPods are good music players, and people want them regardless of Apples attitude. The incompatibility of iTunes with other mp3 players is not aimed at the consumer, but at shafting Apple's rivals. As such, it's anti-competition. If Apple want people to use iTunes, they should focus on making iTunes better than all the competition, not using their market dominance to force that choice.

If you want that specific car, then you agree to deal with the hassle of finding the special fuel. There is a reason that flex-fuel cars aren't doing well right now.

The issue of compatability is not solely aimed at shafting the competition. apple spent a significant amount of money developing a sound compression format that worked for them. Apple has a right to decide who can and cannot use this technology it has developed(and at what price), if it didn't there would be very little innovation in the world.

If someone wants to use an apple product, then they have to deal with the apple mindset. If someone dislikes it, there are other companies out there making good products, they just aren't quite as stylish or small. Welcome to the real world, you have to pay a premium for luxury, it is something you purchase, not something you deserve.

reverse the analogy. It'd be the fuel that's exclusive. The fuel only works in one type of car. That car can run other types of fuel, but other cars can't run on that type of fuel.

So the question is this; is it the responsibility of the rival carmakers to make their product to run on that fuel, or is it the fuelmaker's responsibility to make their fuel more universal?
Yeah, thats correct. Thanks.

I don't think i know enough about this to debate further. Suffice to say, I believe itunes should be compatible with the competitions services.

Hmm...Yet people hate illegal immigrants because they offer a service that employers perfer over the services of their competition.

Go figure.

I don't, I'm actually a pretty big fan of open borders. Then again, I'm not a protectionist.

Ok. I didn't read every thing but, all I have to say based off the first page is that Apple can pull out if thay want. And if you don't like apple don't use it. If you do, and everyone is entitled to stupid opinions, then go with apple.

If they go through with this they may as well make all cell phone manufacturers standardise their chargers/everything else. I think that it's entirely reasonable to make all of your products exclusively compatible with each other.

What would people think if the next law they passed was that the XBox 360, PS3 and Wii all had to have intercompatible games, all have access to XBox Live! etc. Would it still be reasonable?

Given the choice between pulling Apple products from France and making it universally compatible, I say they should pull it from France. Either way they're going to lose market share, may as well just lose market share in France rather than opening up iTunes to all formats globally, cause who'd need an iPod if they could use iTunes regardless of what kind of MP3 player they had?

If they go through with this they may as well make all cell phone manufacturers standardise their chargers/everything else. I think that it's entirely reasonable to make all of your products exclusively compatible with each other.

What would people think if the next law they passed was that the XBox 360, PS3 and Wii all had to have intercompatible games, all have access to XBox Live! etc. Would it still be reasonable?

Given the choice between pulling Apple products from France and making it universally compatible, I say they should pull it from France. Either way they're going to lose market share, may as well just lose market share in France rather than opening up iTunes to all formats globally, cause who'd need an iPod if they could use iTunes regardless of what kind of MP3 player they had?

Good point about the post and your name.

I find your opinion hilarious given your username.
That's only because I couldn't remember the translation to Latin.

http://www.electric-chicken.co.uk/itoilet.html

*sigh* I wish I knew latin, or russian, or italian, or icelandic, or galiec, or spanish,ect.

What would people think if the next law they passed was that the XBox 360, PS3 and Wii all had to have intercompatible games, all have access to XBox Live! etc. Would it still be reasonable?

Bad example. Musicians make music for anyone to listen to. They don't make it for apple, or the ipod, or itunes. Apple is selling music that can be exclusively used on their program, music that they didn't create; the only reason its exclusive is because they are the one selling it. Its more apt to you only being able to use gamestop bought games on a gamestop bought xbox 360, which would be completely inane.

Edit: And if you really think itunes is why people buy ipods... you are sadly, sadly mistaken.

Bad example. Musicians make music for anyone to listen to. They don't make it for apple, or the ipod, or itunes. Apple is selling music that can be exclusively used on their program, music that they didn't create; the only reason its exclusive is because they are the one selling it. Its more apt to you only being able to use gamestop bought games on a gamestop bought xbox 360, which would be completely inane.

Edit: And if you really think itunes is why people buy ipods... you are sadly, sadly mistaken.

I understand it's not an exact match to the situation, but either way it's ultimately up to the publishers of the music, the record companies and if they decide to sell their music to iTunes knowing that it will be available exclusively to Apple customers then that's their choice and the responsibility to make sure that their product is fairly distributed should lie with them.

Although multi-format games could be viewed in a similar way to the music, as they would be third-party published but then only available to owners of a particular console. In the same way the music is not owned by Apple, but it is distributed by them exclusively to their own customers.

And no, I don't think that's the only reason people by iPods, it isn't why I bought mine, but opening iTunes to all MP3 players globally would impact their sales worldwide, rather than just in France.

my 5 cents worth.

this is nothing to do with freedom for businesses or innovation, its consumer protection pure and simple.

its like the microsoft case a few years ago; what do apple gain from not allowing rival players to use itunes products? its abuse of market dominence and saying you can just shop elsewhere isnt the point. what if every seller decided to adjust the mp3 format for themselves? its anti-competitive, plain and simple. you and i dont gain from this unneccescary technical constraint.

comparing music to computer games is spurious for 1 simple reason. no-one records a song for itunes alone. whereas the xbox and ps2 are different systems with different technical specs, you create the game for the system, not vice versa. apple derive the music to digital format and then put protections on it. thats tecnhnically illegal.

would this debate be panning out the same way if it was the brits or a 'friend' of the US?

I understand it's not an exact match to the situation, but either way it's ultimately up to the publishers of the music, the record companies and if they decide to sell their music to iTunes knowing that it will be available exclusively to Apple customers then that's their choice and the responsibility to make sure that their product is fairly distributed should lie with them.

Although multi-format games could be viewed in a similar way to the music, as they would be third-party published but then only available to owners of a particular console. In the same way the music is not owned by Apple, but it is distributed by them exclusively to their own customers.

And no, I don't think that's the only reason people by iPods, it isn't why I bought mine, but opening iTunes to all MP3 players globally would impact their sales worldwide, rather than just in France.

Still, these games are made for the systems exclusively. Its not a mere change in a few lines of code; you would have to substantially change the games so every game played on every system. With music, its not nearly the same thing; all music players are capable of playing them, its only the companies decision to make it incompatable.

Its more apt with a computer game analogy, if anything. Should your alienware be the only brand that can use games from steam? Even if there's really nothing stopping someone else's dell, or cyber power computer to run it?

Still, these games are made for the systems exclusively. Its not a mere change in a few lines of code; you would have to substantially change the games so every game played on every system. With music, its not nearly the same thing; all music players are capable of playing them, its only the companies decision to make it incompatable.



correct. xbox games are specifically designed to be played on xboxs. music is not recorded specifically for apple plc' patented mp3 player

Actually no.

I don't know what rules there are in France, but this sounds like complete bullshit to me. France cannot force a company to design their product in any way. Its a business, they are out to make money, and what they do is compete. If France wants, it can exclude the sale of iPods, not force the company to do soemthing like this.

If people don't like how he iPod works, buy a different mp3 player. There are so many kinds. That's the whole idea of competition. A business makes something and the customers decide whether or not they want to buy it, not whether or not they want to change it.
France can do this, because the UN Constitution says France can do whatever it wants in its own borders. Besides, it is still going to be more profitable for Apple to redesign the iPod than to drop France completely.

The thing is, allot of other mp3 players are completely unknown to most people. You see plenty of ads for the iPod, but when have you seen a Creative product on TV?

Because Itunes just provides so much more music then any other company.
Actually, no it doesn't. It provides a library roughly on par with several other major services, such as Napster. Or, even better, just going to your local music store, purchasing the CD itself and ripping the files to your computer. That way you've got two copies, automatically.

I think that the French are mad that they didn't invent either one. Makes you wonder about the ability of a more socialist economy to innovate, doesn't it?
Not really. Europe in general is more socialist than the US, and look at what CERN and Tim Berners Lee for example have innovated recently.

The analogy can be extended: Take a car, imagine the manufacturer builds it to run only on one type of fuel - which the manufacturer is the only supplier of. Still sound reasonable?

Regardless of Apple's right to use whatever software they want, the fact remains that iPods are good music players, and people want them regardless of Apples attitude. The incompatibility of iTunes with other mp3 players is not aimed at the consumer, but at shafting Apple's rivals. As such, it's anti-competition. If Apple want people to use iTunes, they should focus on making iTunes better than all the competition, not using their market dominance to force that choice.
I use iTunes and a non-iPod MP3 player. It's a simple operation really. All you have to do is burn the music onto an audio disk as backup, then re-rip it as MP3 or WMA and load it onto your new MP3 player. What I typically do is rip the music as MP3 to my external harddrive, so I've got two forms of backup, and even if I should lose two of them, I'll still have my music.

Furthermore, no one is forcing you to purchase that car. You could go to a competitor and get a car that runs on all gasoline. Just use a bit of economical sense.

Actually, no it doesn't. It provides a library roughly on par with several other major services, such as Napster. Or, even better, just going to your local music store, purchasing the CD itself and ripping the files to your computer. That way you've got two copies, automatically.
Isn't that technically illegal (in some countries at least) ?

Isn't that technically illegal (in some countries at least) ?
No, at least not in any country with a notable population and western affiliations. You are licensed to reproduce the music for your own private purposes.

No, at least not in any country with a notable population and western affiliations. You are licensed to reproduce the music for your own private purposes.

which is what apple are trying to restrict you doing....

circle closed

There is nothing wrong with the ipod being sold as a mac designed product! It is not specifically designed for macintosh computers!!! A usb cable is avalable for cheap if your computer does not have firewire, the installer disk even comes with pc drivers! Itunes is a fee download!!! Itunes will accept any mp3 among several other audio formats. Whats is the frenchs' problem!?!? many other mp3 players are designed with restricted compatibility, why not just ban all mp3 players. if Ipod is out selling other players, there's a reason! ever since the original first through third gen ipod battery problem, it has had no problems affecting its ability to work. If the other companies dont want to make a better quality product that people would actually want to buy, thats their fault. I personally use a pc with the third gen ipod and constantly update to the newest software for ipod and have absolutly no problem! I have more trouble trying to get my buddies creative mp3 player to even show up as a device on my computer than i ever had with my ipod. the french government should not discriminate against a superior product because it sells! its not like it's a monopoly! this is why nobody likes the french, what was the last smart thing they did?

There is nothing wrong with the ipod being sold as a mac designed product! It is not specifically designed for macintosh computers!!! A usb cable is avalable for cheap if your computer does not have firewire, the installer disk even comes with pc drivers! Itunes is a fee download!!! Itunes will accept any mp3 among several other audio formats. Whats is the frenchs' problem!?!? many other mp3 players are designed with restricted compatibility, why not just ban all mp3 players. if Ipod is out selling other players, there's a reason! ever since the original first through third gen ipod battery problem, it has had no problems affecting its ability to work. If the other companies dont want to make a better quality product that people would actually want to buy, thats their fault. I personally use a pc with the third gen ipod and constantly update to the newest software for ipod and have absolutly no problem! I have more trouble trying to get my buddies creative mp3 player to even show up as a device on my computer than i ever had with my ipod. the french government should not discriminate against a superior product because it sells! its not like it's a monopoly! this is why nobody likes the french, what was the last smart thing they did?
I think you just turned me straight-edge.

Good for France. If I buy a video, I want it to be playable on any VCR. Same with my music.

whats a VCR?

is that something like the record player legend?:D

Bad example. Musicians make music for anyone to listen to. They don't make it for apple, or the ipod, or itunes. Apple is selling music that can be exclusively used on their program, music that they didn't create; the only reason its exclusive is because they are the one selling it. Its more apt to you only being able to use gamestop bought games on a gamestop bought xbox 360, which would be completely inane.

Edit: And if you really think itunes is why people buy ipods... you are sadly, sadly mistaken.

Anyone who says that musicians make music for anyone to listen to is either hopelessly romantic or completely ignorant of the music industry. Musicians make music for their labels, who pay them in for a profitable product. Anyone of a high enough level in the music buisness to have their music on iTunes is likely already quite aware that they're music is only for people able to afford it.

More to the point, there seems to be this perception that apple has "locked" the music it sells so that it cannot be used on other systems. This is untrue. Apple sells music on iTunes encoded in the .AAC format, which happens to be a proprietary compression format that Apple chose to use over the more traditional(and less sophisticated) .MP3 format. The main reason apple uses .AAC is because it is one of the better formats available: it has a greater range of sampling frequencies, better performace above 16kHz, more efficent encoding(which means more songs per MB), better stereo flexability, and more available channels.

The DRM issue with music bought from iTunes seems almost laughable to me. Anyone with the technical proficiency to encode their CDs and get iTunes running should be able to perform a goole search and find a half dozen free programs that strip the code of DRM features. Even then, if you have a problem with the concept of DRM, you're free to take your buisness elsewhere. No one ever said you had to use iTunes or own an iPod.