SuperSite Blog

I think apple is making a huge mistake by having touches/iphones not using the same underlying hardware.   you have now really two touch platforms, GS based and NON GS based, which sooner or later will be an issue.

Regarding iPod touch, both 32 GB and 64 GB gets 3GS-style update, with faster processor, Open GL ES, and voice control (and earphone with mic and volume). 8 GB model is last year's clear out model, just like 8 GB iPhone 3G.

And regarding iPod nano, I find it interesting that it is not capable of taking photos. Only video.

It looks like everything that is on the Zune is an improvement, and everything that isn't was a disappointment.

Apple has to be thankful they have Microsoft to copy.

Paul, the 32 GB and the 64 GB version of the Touch will receive the 3Gs underpinnings.

From Apple.com:

"The new 32GB and 64GB iPod touch models feature improved performance and support for OpenGL ES Version 2.0, which lets developers create games with superior graphics. So games launch noticeably faster, and you experience richer, more lifelike textures and detail."

Once again, we can count on Paul to give us a thorough overview of an Apple event with his sour, jealous, negative ramblings.

We get it, Paul. You hate Apple, but can't bring yourself to admit they somehow obviously satisfy their customers.

And what was the Zune's share of the MP3 market? 1.1% Really? No disclaimers? No latest market statistics claiming otherwise? 1.1%????? Even Sandisk got 7.2%! Geesh. MSFT can't even compete with them?

You know, Paul, maybe if the Zune was something people wanted Apple might have some competition. Ever thought about that? Hmm? Maybe?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I'm interested to see how the iTunes 9 sharing works out as compared to Zune. Well that and if you can record/timeshift FM on the Nano.

I think MS should take a hit from Apple and keep a couple of the Zune 3.0 models around. One with 160GB drive and an 8GB Flash. Bookend capacities as they may be.  

Nice to see that you're predicable as always Paul.

chipwinter: "Apple has to be thankful they have Microsoft to copy."

Riiigghhhttttttt... because NOTHING on the Zune is a direct copy of various iPod technology (except maybe that "squirting" thing that everyone raves about).

Paul said;

"Apple highlighted why the company is desperately in need of antirust oversight. It has sold over 30 million iPhones in two years. It’s users have downloaded 1.8 billion apps from the iPhone Apps Store."

What does this have to do with being a monopoly? 30M phones makes a company a monopoly? Steve Ballmer went on record saying the iPhone had "No chance" of being a contender. iPhone market share is a drop in the bucket compared to overall cell phone sales.

Talk about iTMS/iPods all you want, but don't bring in iPhone/App Store sales into the equation. That's simply a lie and it has NO merit.

@BladRnr

ever consider that your argument against ZUNE could be said almost exactly about the mac?

I guess paul was too busy hanging around the zune display at the colorado Best Buy to draw the obvious conclusion:  who is going to want to buy a zuneHD after this?  I mean, seriously, that product is as DOA to market as any I've ever heard of.

BladRnr: "And what was the Zune's share of the MP3 market? 1.1% Really? No disclaimers? No latest market statistics claiming otherwise? 1.1%????? Even Sandisk got 7.2%! Geesh. MSFT can't even compete with them?"

What's funny is that every time an Apple fan comes into one of Paul's Apple posts (and, to be fair, Microsoft posts) and starts going on about how much they like Apple and Macs, the WinFans start throwing around Microsoft's huge PC market share.

Yet the Zune is a revolutionary device that simply destroys the iPod; Even though no one actually owns one...

"Apple has sold over 225 million iPods (including over 20 million iPod touches and 100 million iPod nanos) and has 74 percent market share."

Anyone knows how many Zunes have been sold since launch? I'm not hating on the Zune just curious.

"The new 32GB and 64GB iPod touch models feature improved performance and support for OpenGL ES Version 2.0, which lets developers create games with superior graphics."

I have yet to see any games in iPod touch that use "advanced" texture filtering techniques like the PSP does (basic stuff like AF).  The iPod touch and iPhone have a long way to go to try and compete with the quality of games available on the PSP, but somehow the Apple mantra of quality over quantity seems to be lost on the Apple entertainment division.  The PSPgo is a better gaming platform, and the quality of games for PSP is one of a higher caliber.

"games launch noticeably faster"

"....because we're compensating for the speed of the flash RAM we used on the original model"

"and you experience richer, more lifelike textures and detail"

"....because the previous method sucked, so now we'll segregate the market into 2 iPhone OS developer platforms"

@Weathorn,

I loved the game counts.... how many of the iGames are just tic-tac-toe? just like how many apps are tip calculators ...

Excellent, unbiased, just the facts review, (with no snide comments about competitors) of the Apple hardware event at the Winsupersite!!!!

There is a reason David Pogue writes for NYT and sells 10x the books you do.  Its called "maturity".  You should try it once.

@Waethorn

Its an ipod that plays video games, not vice versa.

Plus the games are cheap and fun... period.

Anyone has the problem with iTunes 9 for Windows described here:

forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php

If this is true then I won't download it.

Meason,

I can't wait to see the Zune App store....how many tip calculators do you think there will be?

What is it they say about glass houses and stones?

Why all the ranting about anti-trust oversight.

Please name one thing that Apple does to lock out competition through a monopoly.

"who is going to want to buy a zuneHD after this?  I mean, seriously, that product is as DOA to market as any I've ever heard of."

Honestly, I don't know what you're getting at. The only thing that made me even think of considering an alternative to the Zune HD was the mention of a 64GB model Touch. I recall reading that the Zune team was considering a 64GB model as well at some point, but the ambiguity is somewhat of a dilemma -- I'd rather wait for a 64GB model if we know one is coming, but we don't. Regardless, as of this event I am absolutely positive I'll be going with the ZHD. None of the announcements today garnered any interest in the new devices at all in me.

@Panache1023

I would be critical in the exact same way if there were a Zune Store.  but they did not compare to a zune store did they? they compared to DS and PSP......

Meason,

1)  I did not mention anything regarding the games, just the tip calculators.

2)  Is it just me, or isn't there talk about a Zune App Store (maybe not called that, but the same idea).  Do you really think *EVERY* app that is available there is going to be an incredible app, or do you think there will be some useless apps too?

Maybe if you answer #2 with "yeah, there probably will be useless apps", then you should leave those ridiculous comments at the door instead of trying to team up with Waethorn to stir the *** on this board.

Believe me, the *** gets stirred enough with stupid comments like the one you made earlier.

why do you want a zuneHD, planetarian?  It has no cost advantage now, has no app store, has no native mail client, has no 3rd party accessories, etc.  If you get one, you'll be nearly the only one, will enjoy it for a couple of years until Microsoft decides it's too big a money sink for them and get out of it.  

@meason:

Not every PSP game is a "hit" either, but if you want an immersive, enduring game, they don't have those on the iPhone.

Mind you, they still have many good casual games.  Many are available as cross-overs from the PS3.

I'd like to see a PSP version of Flower.  That'd be incredible.

The touch thing is a flakey way of doing a game UI though.  I'd much rather have a standard analog stick and buttons and maybe a tilt-axis feature in there.  Wireless network controller speeds will still be a limiting factor towards game development too.  The PSP wireless is slow.  Not just Wireless-B slow, but even worse than the standard 11Mbps you can crank out of 802.11b.  The next revision should have N, and it should support Bluetooth transfers from the PS3, when the PS3 is used for initial game storage.  The PS3 wireless is also slow for being 802.11g also.  That needs to be fixed.  With Sony introducing a flash RAM-only model PSP (the PSPgo), it changes options for delivery methods.  Starting in October, PSP developers need to make their applications downloadable.  A developer might start to think that having a larger game will hamper its adoption because of download times (the PSP can't multitask either, so if you download something, you can't do anything else at the same time).  I fear that they may be treading down a path that might ultimately affect the quality of games, even if it results in more individual game sales, as it does with the iPhone OS platform.  This is what worries me about online distribution, and quite frankly, I don't want the PSP to have 21,000 whatever so-called "games" on it.  That'd just turn it into a big developer joke, like the iPhone.

Soooo, just to clarify:

Which player makes music sound really good?

Assume default headphones.

thnx.

Wow. That really MUST be a non-event press event when even the Mac Fanatics don't want to talk about iPods and quickly jump off topic to how much they want the Zune to fail.

"Please name one thing that Apple does to lock out competition through a monopoly."

Tiered pricing ala universal iTunes+ is not available outside the US.

So in response to that, I would say that iTunes, being the largest online music retailer, is charging more to customers using non-Apple branded PMP players.  Added to that, that they hold a monopoly in the MP3 player market, they are stifling competition by discouraging outside hardware by way of increasing prices of their online service, such as charging a $0.30 premium per song for compatibility with said outside hardware.

MikeGalos,

You may need to clarify your statement.

The Zune currently already is a failure.

You probably meant to say something like, "...when even the Mac Fanatics don't want to talk about iPods and quickly jump off topic to how much they want the new Zune HD to continue the line of Zune failures."

Waethorn,

Are you sure it's Apple's fault that the tiered pricing is not available outside the US, and maybe not the record companies?  I'm not sure, are you?

Also, are you suggesting that I am unable to go to the iTunes Music Store, buy a track, and play it on a Zune?  When you buy a song from the iTunes Music store, does it say, "$0.99 if you own an iPod, $1.29 if you own other PMP hardware"?

Wasn't that $0.30 charge to (remove) DRM to non-DRM versions?  Aren't all non-DRM tracks now the same price?  I'm not sure because I don't use the iTunes music store.

Waethorn,

Does Apple prevent a user from buying a track from Amazon, or the Zune Pass and play it on the iPod?

This blog gets getting worse by the day. So much Microsoft shilling. Such jealousy and bitterness in every post.

Microsoft's been busy too!

blogs.zdnet.com/security

"Wow. That really MUST be a non-event press event when even the Mac Fanatics don't want to talk about iPods and quickly jump off topic to how much they want the Zune to fail."

You're stretching, Mikey. It's so sad that this is the best you can do today.

" I’ll provide write-ups for iTunes 9, the iPod touch, and iPod nano next week."

Waiting for direction from Microsoft....

"Are you sure it's Apple's fault that the tiered pricing is not available outside the US, and maybe not the record companies?  I'm not sure, are you?"

I know that there already is a Canadian MP3 (not AAC or some other pseudo "standard") store that has tiered pricing, but Apple doesn't have theirs like that in Canada.

"Also, are you suggesting that I am unable to go to the iTunes Music Store, buy a track, and play it on a Zune?  When you buy a song from the iTunes Music store, does it say, "$0.99 if you own an iPod, $1.29 if you own other PMP hardware"?"

That's right.  Although they don't say it in so many words (more than that actually).  It's $0.99 for "iTunes music" which has Fairplay DRM.  Fairplay is only supported on iPods because Apple won't license the technology out (Microsoft never had a problem licensing out PlaysForSure).  If you don't want Fairplay DRM (ie. want the music for a non-iPod), then you pay $0.30 extra per track.

That is the way it was before the US iTunes store went to a tiered pricing scheme, but still the way it is in every other country that iTunes sells to AFAIK.

"Aren't all non-DRM tracks now the same price?"

No.  They charge anywhere from $0.69 to $1.29 per track.

"I would say that iTunes, being the largest online music retailer, is charging more to customers using non-Apple branded PMP players."

"Waethorn", it's absolutely unbelievable that you can be so wrong so often. Here's the truth, poutain-boy: A customer buying a song from Apple can play that song on virtually any "PMP player", and pays no more for the "privilege" of using in on, say, a Sansa player or a Zune (assuming you can find one) than they do on any flavour of iPod.

Seriously, you are so off the rails lately. Where do you get your information? Has "helper cat" been whispering in your ear at night? Or are you just a product of the Canadian educational system?

You can tell how much desperation Microsoft and their fanboys are feeling by looking at the posts on this blog.

"Does Apple prevent a user from buying a track from Amazon, or the Zune Pass and play it on the iPod?"

As you like to point out about Microsoft, the rest don't matter, because Apple is the one with the massive monopoly in the online music business (in the US, it's all retail music sales), so they are the ones to look at when it comes to competitive behaviour.

Waethorn,

It's weird that you can't answer the question.  But let me point out a difference...

When I want an OS and I go to Dell, the only really viable choice is MS.  And when it comes to a browser, the EU (for whatever reason) wanted them to unbundle...and I completely disagree with that.

Regarding iTunes Music Store.  They may be the biggest, but unless they are FORCING competition to change how they sell their product, or some other illegal means, you can't just say, "they are the monopoly so they are where you look".  They haven't been convicted yet of doing anything illegal with that monopoly power.

To make the point clear, if Apple prevented songs bought from Amazon to be played on an iPod, you would have a very real point.  But you don't.  What you have is some weird hatred toward Apple and when they are successful, you can't stand it.

It's really quite unhealthy.

In fact, you should be HAPPY the iPods have been so successful otherwise there (almost certainly) wouldn't be a Zune!

"are you just a product of the Canadian educational system?"

If by that, you mean by reading Apple Canada's website, then so be it.  I am only as retarded as Apple.

(Apple is an American company after all)

" A customer buying a song from Apple can play that song on virtually any "PMP player", and pays no more for the "privilege" of using in on, say, a Sansa player or a Zune (assuming you can find one) than they do on any flavour of iPod."

Wrong.  Read my post.  Universal DRM-free music on iTunes is only available in the US.  The rest of the world still has the $0.30 premium to pay per song to get it DRM free, otherwise they have to use an iPod.  Having the monopoly in online music sales means that's anti-competitive behaviour.

"iTunes-purchased songs now account for 25 percent of the overall music market--both physical and digital--in the U.S., says an NPD Group report released Tuesday. However, CDs are still the most popular format for music lovers, winning a 65 percent slice of the market for the first half of 2009."

news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10311907-37.html

Doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.

Waethorn,

Unless Apple does not have the rights to distribute those tracks DRM-Free outside of the US.

It is possible that the record labels let other companies do it and not Apple in an attempt to not let Apple become too big of a player.

Then who would you blame?

WebGuy3000,

On this site, if your products are better known / more well liked / have a larger market share / etc than MS's competing products, you have a monopoly in that market.

Now do you understand?

"When I want an OS and I go to Dell, the only really viable choice is MS"

It's not the ONLY choice though.  Dell offers systems with Ubuntu and Red Hat Linux too.

"the EU (for whatever reason) wanted them to unbundle"

That's not correct.  Microsoft offered to unbundle it after facing pressure from Opera, albeit indirectly through the EU.  The EU never issued an order forcing them to unbundle it whatsoever.

"They may be the biggest, but unless they are FORCING competition to change how they sell their product, or some other illegal means, you can't just say, "they are the monopoly so they are where you look"."

In countries outside of the US, that is exactly the case.  Whether or not countries outside of the US will judge Apple based on US antitrust laws, or similar laws remains to be seen, but Apple is walking a tight rope in Europe right now.

"To make the point clear, if Apple prevented songs bought from Amazon to be played on an iPod, you would have a very real point."

The issue is not consumer protection, it's business protection, similar to what Microsoft is facing with Opera.  What Opera is proposing is that consumers are not offered a good choice because the monopolist is using "unfair" advantages to stifle competition.  In Apple's case, there is a fact that they charge consumers $0.30 extra for the premium to play music on non-iPod MP3 players, which stifles competition from other MP3 player manufacturers.  The difference between the cases is that Firefox is a noteworthy competitor to Internet Explorer, and Google will leverage their online brand to leverage their own web platform.  In the MP3 player market, Apple is using predatory pricing with their online services to lure customers to their hardware (and as you like to state: they are a HARDWARE company, not a software company).  As you also like to state, the rest of the MP3 player market outside of Apple is in the single digit percentages.  The Apple iPod/iTunes division is becoming Microsoft from 10+ years ago.

iTunes = monopoly

other online music sales = single digit percentage = no major competition

iTunes music works on iPod only

non-iPods also not competitor

iTunes+ music costs consumers $0.30 extra, only option that works on competitor devices = anticompetitive

anticompetitive + monopoly = antitrust

What part of this don't you understand?

"but if you want an immersive, enduring game, they don't have those on the iPhone"

Spoken like someone who has never owned, used an iPhone/iPod touch.

As for me, I'm loving Assassins Creed, Wolfenstein 3D, and Doom Resurrection. I'm also considering Brothers In Arms, but I figure I'll get done with the first three before I go buying more.

"It is possible that the record labels let other companies do it and not Apple in an attempt to not let Apple become too big of a player."

In Canada, there's basically iTunes, Puretracks.com, and Napster going dead.  Puretracks leverages partnerships to expand their base, while Apple uses their brand.  Puretracks still isn't nearly as big as iTunes though, and their MP3 store was made through their partnership with Bell Canada, which is also hemhorraging money left and right.

I don't know if I'd call it a monopoly, but I think the iPhone and App Store's success should call for more scrutiny in general.  I think there's a cause for concern when a closed, proprietary platform like the iPhone is so quickly adopted and actually becomes a cultural/social phenomena.  For those who say that the 30 million iPhones are a only a sliver of the cell phone market share, I don't see developers and companies clamoring to support those other devices like they are for the iPhone.  Having an "app for that" is the cool thing to do, even if just for marketing purposes.  

But the last thing I want is to be shoehorned into the iPhone because, say, a certain business app becomes widely used within my company, and that app is only on the iPhone.  While iTunes is somewhat proprietary, it's not as proprietary as the iPhone, in which apps are tied to a particular device...  

"Doesn't sound like a monopoly to me."

Of course not. Regardless, as "Waethorn" would likely point out (if the conversation were about Microsoft) being a monopoly is not illegal in and of itself.

But then, facts never mattered to "Waethorn", only blind ideology.

"Universal DRM-free music on iTunes is only available in the US. "

I'm sorry, "Waethorn". You're under the mistaken impression that Canada matters. Besides, if you have a problem with DRM restrictions, talk to the labels, not Apple. That ship has sailed.

"95 percent of the music downloaded globally is pirated, a percentage that was unchanged from a year earlier."

www.nytimes.com/.../15iht-digital.4-408839.html

Oddly enough, that's roughly the same percentage of Windows users worldwide. Care to draw a correlation, Wae?

@Mason

"ever consider that your argument against ZUNE could be said almost exactly about the mac?"

No, because every Mac Apple sells makes money. On the other hand, Most Zunes sold have been at bargain bin prices. And, no one is proud of their Zune, but just walk into any Starbucks and you'll see prominent Apple Logos everywhere.

Actually I would struggle to find a DRM'd track on the Australian Itunes haven't come across 1 in ages it helps that biggest ISP has their own music store that sells MP3s and there download program automatically updates itunes. My purchases are split 50/50 between both stores.

@waethorn

"anticompetitive + monopoly = antitrust

What part of this don't you understand?"

Try this:

Go buy an iPod. Sync it with your PC. Buy a track from the iTunes Store.

Go buy a Zune. Sync it WITH THE SAME PC. Buy a track from the Marketplace.

What part of anticompetitive do you not understand?

I posed an idea on a previous thread:

What if there had never been an iPod Touch? And what if Microsoft had release their Zune HD a couple of years ago?

It would have been a big seller. Probably the best device in the PMP market. Hell even a few Mac fanboys might have bought it! Zune would have a much larger market share..... and there would be nothing Apple's music 'monopolies' could have done to stop it.

It's called competition. Build a better mousetrap.

In my opinion, I doubt having a camera in the iPod Nano would be a feature that would attract someone to the device considering every mobile phone comes with a camera built in. However, I do like the live pausing, rewinding and tagging feature of the FM radio. That is a very nice touch.

Is anyone aware of an MP3 player that comes with an FM radio with similar capabilities?

@gfryesc1 What the heck do you mean that the Zune HD doesn't have a price advantage? It is only $20 more for the 32 GB model of the Zune HD and it has an OLED screen despite that low cost! What isn't to like? LOL.

@mikegalos I know it! That was a fairly lame excuse for a conference this time! :) Zune HD FTW! Btw, I am not a fanboy. I enjoy my current Ipod touch, but I see no compelling reason to cancel my Zune HD preorder and get the Ipod touch this time. :)

@robertsjoe Nice assumption, but umm no Paul is not waiting for guidance from Microsoft to post a review lol! Ever heard of a person being busy and living their lives outside of work too? ;)

@robertsjoe Desperation by Microsoft and its fans!?! Hardly! I am usually very pleased with Apple and any of their products, but I will say that this conference hasn't shown me anything! How does that show desperation? I still own my Ipod and happily use it! The same goes for my Zune! lol. I for one hardly consider this the end of the world for either side, but Apple should definitely consider a better showing next time. OLED would be a great investment! :)

@RunTimeError No arguments there! Ipod does have very entertaining games! They are only getting better as well!

Pingback from  Apple offers up evolutionary iPod updates, Jobs at music event … « the mobile tech

Pingback from  Apple offers up evolutionary iPod updates, Jobs at music event … | GamingOpt.Com

All the arguing in the comments reminds me of this: http://xkcd.com/386/

This generation of iPods definitely is evolutionary; how much more can you really add to an mp3 player?

Huge win for consumers. MS has a great new device Apple responds. What more could gadget hounds want?

The new Touch looks amazing as does the Zune HD. Why didn't MS put a camera in it? They had to know what Apple was doing, still the new Zunes are great and I just a got flash 8gig for 89 bucks.

I am somewhat disappointed by all this. While I am definitely happy to see Steve Jobs front and center for Apple, its sad to see him so thin. I hope that in the coming months and years, he gets some healthy weight on him. However, I am very pleased that Steve seems to be doing better and he'll be with us for awhile.

While I'm also glad that the iTunes store gets a much needed revamp, the iTunes software is getting bigger and bigger. When I finished downloading the software, imagine my shock that the completed file took up 89.8 MB! Zune is also huge with 133 MB! Wow! Winamp by comparison is a very tiny 13 MB for its free editions and 13.5 for its paid for professional edition. Can we please get both Microsoft and Apple to cut down on the bloat here?

I'm also grateful for the modest performance improvement. The 64 bit version of iTunes for Windows seems to be somewhat faster than any of the iTunes 8 series. I'm glad Apple addressed that. I'm also glad I was able to update to 3.1.1 software very painlessly.

However, no video camera or still camera for the touch. While 64 bit touch is nice, I wish they would have done this earlier in the year. Before I bought my 32 GB. While I know they're clearing out the 8 GB model, honestly Apple might have to go lower to clear them out. Anyways, it would have also been nice if the iPod Touch was given an SD card or MicroSD reader.

The Nano's are cool. Love the colors and features. But honestly, who listens to FM radio anymore? With the exception of NPR and ESPN Radio, all of my music is from my iPod's and custom CD's from iTunes. Now if it was HD-Radio, they might have had something.

Also, video camera but no still shots? Very disappointing and sloppy. People still want to do still photography. That should have been a no brainer.

I just think Apple could have done better and brought the must have factor. I honestly could skip this. While it certainly doesn't hinder or help the Zune HD in anyway, I think the status quo will remain. Zune HD doesn't go far enough to make a compelling argument against this ecosystem

However, it does make room for some PMP designer who is ambitious to trump both Apple and Microsoft here, in my opinion.

@yoshipod: Apple have this unfair tactic of producing quality products that focuses on features that benefit the users, instead of creating longer bullet points.

Very unfair, and hard to compete with, not even bought reviewers can counter it in the long run. And short of actually doing their job, the competitors have nothing to counter with. This Apple gets this "monopoly", with their usability "lock-ins".

@whiplash55: "Why didn't MS put a camera in it? "

If the Zune is still around by then, I'm sure they will. Microsoft will do things that Apple does first. It's called copying.

"Nice assumption, but umm no Paul is not waiting for guidance from Microsoft to post a review lol!"

Correct assumption. When he makes his living (indirectly) from Microsoft, you can be sure this blog is extremely biased. Why else do you think he's so obsessed with Apple with the enormous amounts of trashy posts, trashing Apple? It's generally referred to as "not biting the hand that feeds you".

"why do you want a zuneHD, planetarian?  It has no cost advantage now..."

$289 vs $299 - it's still cheaper.

"...has no app store..."

Except for the one in the Zune Marketplace.

"...has no native mail client..."

Touché, but I can use Web mail. And... oh, wait, there's an app store.

"...has no 3rd party accessories..."

lmgtfy.com

So, want to try again? And this time, with feeling.

Too the Apple faithful (lobotomized zombies) let me point out something from a completely unbiased user's perspective:

I am thoroughly disappointed by the announcements and that will affect my purchasing decision.

Here's why:

I was considering getting a Touch, subject to new features.  I use iPod as an alternative media for music vs. flipping numerous CDs, as well as for Nike+ integration during workouts.  Now, it is integrated into my alarm clock, my surround sound system, and my Nike+ stuff.  

Those are the only factors that keep me from switching - the ecosystem.  The Zune HD is a superior piece of hardware, at least for me.  It has everything I need: plenty of storage, nice interface, good management software, radio.  But it doesn't have the expansive ecosystem of the Touch.  And in terms of Apps and all that - WHO GIVES A CRAP?!  Not normal users.  They make sense on iPhone, but a for Touch - they are kind of a useless slap on.

Now, what happened to radio on the Touch?!  That would have been a highly welcome useful addition.  As it stands now, I am stuck with the new Nano, when I need a new Touch wit nano's features.  When Nano can outfeature a high end device (and no, I don't need the camera) - we're in trouble.

@robertsjoe - "Microsoft will do things that Apple does first. It's called copying."

You mean like the fm radio that allows you to pause and tag songs? Not too long ago, Apple and its followers said that nobody needed an fm radio. Now we are hearing the opposite. Explain that one, please.

--tayme

Waethorn,

Your "anti-competitive" examples are not only off base, but are hardly anti-competitive.

I think you are just stung by the fact the MS has been proven to be an anti-competitive monopolist (at least in the past), and you want the same treatment for Apple...

So weird.

"To make the point clear, if Apple prevented songs bought from Amazon to be played on an iPod, you would have a very real point."

My point stands...preventing another store's tracks to be played would be anti-competitive.  If you can't understand why, I think you are the one that needs to figure out what "anti-competitive" means, instead of just throwing the word around because you don't like Apple's success.

In addition, it appears that 100% of tracks on the iTunes Music Store are now DRM-free.  The "iTunes Plus" no longer exists, because it is now the default and only option.  Your "points" are really getting weaker and weaker.  If you are referring to what goes on in Canada.......maybe your government should take action if it's really unfair.  Or maybe there are legal issues as to why Apple can't offer the same thing to Canada as they to do the US.

Now maybe you should bash the US some more, and the companies that are founded here, and then go pray to MS (which is ironic since they too are from the US)

Mark KB:

Specious.  Is $10 really a cost advantage when talking $300??

The Zune Marketplace is a joke, it's an embarrassment that you even mentioned it.

Likewise the accessories.  Why don't you try hooking up your zune to your new BMW or Mercedes or Volkswagen [Paul drives one].  the first time you need a dock connector, you'll realize how everyone has an iPod.  You can even get iPod connectors at truck stops!  

And webmail?  Really?  You'd spend $289 to read gmail in IE6 on an HD?  Really?  Why don't you try again with feeling...  instead of telling me that Facebook in IE6 on your $289 HD is great.

I can't believe the press this event had.  What a joke.  Although it's fun to watch the fanboys revel around new Apple releases and waste their money.. Oh well keep that economy pumping fellas.

Waethorn,

Your examples do not show ANY kind of anti-competive behavior.

There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly.  

There are literally HUNDREDS of portable music players on the market.

There are DOZENS of ways to get music onto those players.

If Apple was anti-competitve they would be using that monopoly to PREVENT competition, like Microsoft has done in the past with their OEM license agreement.

Apple in no way prevents other companies from entering the marketplace with either hardware or software.

They do not undercut the competition by selling their products below cost to force out others (like IE vs. Netscape)

Apple does not hold the type of control over the Music Labels where they can force better deals for themselves or prevent other stores from starting up.

The fact that Apple's offerings are the dominant ones are because consumers have chosen them.  Not because Apple is anti-competitive.

@All: This is really incredible to see how many Apple lover come here in this *low credibility* blog...

If Paul is so *low in credibility*, Why they all come here in mass to read its articles... This is a mystery for me...

Has a Windows user, I never lost my times going in Apple blogs...

Apple lovers really have time to lose... Apple is really like a religion, like Raeliens, They try interfere in all around us... Duh!!

"There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. "

No, but the rules change when you do have a monopoly, as Microsoft realized. The same behavior which got you the monopoly in the first place cannot continue once you've achieved it. Of course, Apple can choose to redefine the market if and when the Justice Department does go after them, as they've done on so many occasions in the past.

The Zune marketplace is a joke?

Unlike iTunes it loads quickly even on my netbook. ITunes is the 2004 Symantec Internet Security of 2009, its a worthless bloated piece of crap. I can get unlimited songs for 5 bucks a month after I download 10 I can keep.

The new IE on the Zune and Win mobile is not IE6. It's a hybrid that uses code that's compatible with sites needing 6 through 8.

Shark,

What do you mean, "The same behavior which got you the monopoly in the first place cannot continue once you've achieved it"

That is the biggest load of crap.  If you aren't doing anything illegal (abusing your monopoly to hinder competition), then a monopoly can continue with business as usual.  They may be under more scrutiny, but that doesn't mean they must all of a sudden change how they do business.

Just because MS abused their monopoly position repeatedly, as was proven in court, doesn't mean *ALL* monopolies do so.

"If and when the Justice Department does go after them..."  Really?  What exactly is the Justice Department going after Apple for?

"...as they've done on so many occasions in the past."  I'm curious as to which "many occasions" you are referring to?

Wow, the petty and juvenile infighting between the Apple and Mac camps is well and truly alive on this blog.

Anyone remember the days when Paul could actually review apple products/events without such an obvious bias? What happened, Paul? Maybe you should go back to your journalistic roots and not make your opinion so obvious, that is if you actually want to be considered a journalist.

As for myself, I own both Apple and Microsoft products. Both have their merits, both have their shortcomings. I think Apple makes better MP3 players, I think MS makes better Oses. I love my iPhone, but I think Blackberrys are good too, and I'm sure the new MS OS based Smart Phones will be fine, too. For me, the iPhone is the best choice, but that doesn't mean it is for everyone.

Just because someone uses a different product than you doesn't make them any less intelligent or you any more superior. A LOT of people on this blog could stand to remember that.

Finally, Grannyville, I didn't see anyone respond directly to your question, so I will: as far as I know the Sony Walkmans with radio can also pause, rewind, ff, and tag live FM.

"Go buy an iPod. Sync it with your PC. Buy a track from the iTunes Store.

Go buy a Zune. Sync it WITH THE SAME PC. Buy a track from the Marketplace."

Again, Apple is the monopolist, so the law applies to them, not Microsoft here.

If you want the law to apply to Microsoft here, then the same law should apply to Apple for bundling iLife, Safari, and Quicktime with their operating system, as well as bundling their operating system with their hardware and preventing others (ie. Psystar) from including it with theirs.

"maybe there are legal issues as to why Apple can't offer the same thing to Canada as they to do the US."

There are no "legal" reasons because it doesn't stop any other companies from offering DRM free music in Canada.

" Really?  What exactly is the Justice Department going after Apple for?"

Ask what the EU is threatening to go after Apple for.

Oops, My first line was supposed to read, "...infighting between Mac and PC camps."  That's what I get for staying up too late. LOL. :-)

Also, having said that Apple makes good MP3 players, I feel the need to also say that iTunes is a piece of crap, and if I could use something else to sync my iPod and iPhone, I would in a second. :-) Maybe v. 9 will be an improvement?

"That is the biggest load of crap.  If you aren't doing anything illegal (abusing your monopoly to hinder competition), then a monopoly can continue with business as usual."

Sorry, but that is not true. Apple can bundle Safari with OS X because it doesn't have a monopoly in that space. Microsoft cannot bundle any software it wishes with Windows because it has a monopoly. A different set of rules applies to monopolies. Apple is no longer the snarky upstart that you guys cheered on 5 years ago. The same goes for Google. They're big enough to start behaving in a more mature manner. Paul was right when he said Apple is the new Microsoft.

Waethorn,

You keep referring to "the law" and how it applies to Apple, but you aren't ever specifying WHAT LAW?!  What law should we be applying to Apple here and not MS?  What law has been broken, or violated?  You haven't specified anything.

There could be "legal" reasons if Apple doesn't have permission from the record labels to offer the same deals that other companies are offering.  Are you familiar with the contracts between Apple and the record labels, or are you just angry?

How does the difference between MS OS licensing and Apple licensing rules have anything to do with bundling applications?

You are REALLY REALLY stretching here.

Are you saying because MS chooses to license their OS to anyone, that Apple must?  Why?  Why does Apple have to follow that same business model?

"I feel the need to also say that iTunes is a piece of crap, and if I could use something else to sync my iPod and iPhone, I would in a second"

There are other programs, but if you have DRM'd content, you need iTunes to sync it.

Also, I'd like to point out to all that say that iTunes+ doesn't exist, that Apple still charges $0.30 to convert your media to DRM free, and (this is important): EVEN IF THE NEW VERSION OF THE SONG COSTS LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL $0.99.

That's called price gouging.

Shark,

What do you mean "you guys cheered for"...WTF is with that commentary.  You have no idea what I thought about Apple 5 years ago (not much)

Maybe the reason that MS has been haggled by the EU for bundling IE is because of the way it was proven that MS included IE to begin with in order to destroy Netscape which at the time was selling a browser.  So my point held true...MS went out with a mission to destroy Netscape and take over the browser space, which they did.  THAT is why it was a problem.  They abused their monopoly position to dominate that area.  How is Apple doing this?  You keep writing, but you aren't making any points.

It's weird that you compare one company's predatory business practices to another company that SO FAR has not been predatory in trying to shut out competition....or at least not tried/nor convicted of doing so.

Paul was right when he said Apple is the new MS?  Really?  How so?  What companies is Apple targeting for destruction?  What anti-competitive actions is Apple taking that would make you say that?

Waethorn,

I can't find anything about the EU going after Apple...can you send me a link?

Waethorn,

Why can't the user just buy the new, DRM-Free version then?

how is it price gouging?  I don't get it....let's say for example that Apple charges $0.30 as a service fee to remove the DRM...should they be forced to provide a service for free?

@robertsjoe: "If the Zune is still around by then, I'm sure they will. Microsoft will do things that Apple does first. It's called copying."

Shame on Apple for coping Microsoft and putting an FM radio on the iPod.

There is nothing wrong with copying when it is something simple, like a feature.  Copying becomes a problem when unique procedures or interfaces are copied.

yes, whiplash55, the zune marketplace for apps, is a joke.  The subscription model for music is nice, not really for me, but I can see how people would like it.  

If itunes is so bad, and the ipod so inferior, why is Paul calling for antitrust investigations?  Competitors only call on the sherman act when they cannot compete...  and microsoft has such deep pockets that they could give away a HD with every copy of windows if they wanted.  They've bundled before, but they're out of their depth in the hardware sphere.  Apple is just the superior hardware maker [and retailer]..  Manufacturing is not simple.

And yes, the zunehd browser is based on IE6.  It is what it is.  But hey, everyone that thinks the HD is the superior product, good luck with that.  I think it'll continue to limp along with <2% of the share until microsoft cancels it in 2 yrs.  

"Also, I'd like to point out to all that say that iTunes+ doesn't exist, that Apple still charges $0.30 to convert your media to DRM free, and (this is important): EVEN IF THE NEW VERSION OF THE SONG COSTS LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL $0.99.

That's called price gouging."

Thats the Music Labels gouging, not Apple.

I bet Apples cut of that $.30 just covers the cost of running the store and the bandwidth to send the file.

gfryesc1

"If itunes is so bad, and the ipod so inferior, why is Paul calling for antitrust investigations? "

Wow is that backwards. That's precisely WHY there's a need for antitrust investigation. That people have to buy inferior products because of vendor lock-in is a classic case of abuse.

Some possible resolutions:

Apple has to open the iTunes Store APIs so 3rd party apps could compete with iTunes

Apple has to open the iTunes APIs so that users could choose different or multiple stores for shopping

Apple has to open the iTunes APIs so that users could use iTunes with other media devices

Apple has to open the iPod APIs so that iPods could sync with 3rd party software

Apple has to open the iPod APIs so that iPods could shop at 3rd party stores

Apple has to freely license the iPod hardware interfaces so that 3rd parties could produce add-ons without Apple permission

Apple has to remove hardware/software that detects and blocks 3rd party hardware

Get the idea? It's the fact that iPod owners have no choice in integrated sync/shopping ecosystems that means they're locked into using the clearly awful iTunes software.

While none of that would be required for a vendor without monopoly power, these are typical solutions expected of monopolies. And there's no question that Apple has monopoly power in the music sales and distribution markets.

"You keep referring to "the law" and how it applies to Apple, but you aren't ever specifying WHAT LAW?! "

"Are you saying because MS chooses to license their OS to anyone, that Apple must?  Why?  Why does Apple have to follow that same business model?"

They don't because they aren't a monopoly in the computer industry.  I was just saying that if you want to apply the rule of tying iTunes to iPod and offering an incentive for consumers to stay within the Apple ecosystem, just as the Zune did, even though Zune isn't a monopoly, then the same rules should apply to Apple in the computer industry with tying their operating system to their computer systems and not allowing other computer builders to offer OS X, just as Microsoft offered OEM deals, as you like to point out.  You can't give Apple a pass in the MP3 player market when they're doing the same thing that Microsoft did with OEM's in the past.

The law in question (at least in the US) is the Sherman Antitrust Act.  In the EU, anticompetitive acts are challenged by the Commissioner for Competition, presently Neelie Kroes, and yes, they are still actively investigating Apple's iTunes monopoly, and how they charge different prices in different nations (within the EU).  This has far-reaching ramifications of charging different prices for the same content internationally though, and directly applies to what I'm talking about with DRM-free music.

Here's the thing, panache:

How many rival media player applications does the iPod connect to? How many other Media players can sync with iTunes? Apple's decision to lock down iPod/iTunes hurts competition.

Just like the convenience of having a browser bundled with Windows prevented any rival browser from achieving a significant marketshare (until Firefox), the convenience of buying music from the iTunes store has and will ensure that no other digital music service will do well. In fact, the iPod/iTunes lock in is worse than Microsoft's bundling. At least people are able to download alternate browsers and change defaults. There is no way to select an alternate store in iTunes or to select an alternate media player software to sync media with iPods. Add to that all the accessories that one of the commenters on this site was bragging about earlier.

Apple and its fans suffer from the worst case of RDF and Peter Pan complex.

Here's just one example of what could be done by a competitive market with Apple forced to remove their anti-competitive tying:

A 3rd party could produce their own sync/shopping app to replace iTunes that would look at multiple vendors sites for the songs you want, find the cheapest price for each song and let you buy those songs from whatever sites are cheapest.

(And, no, doing that manually with multiple Internet searches for each song is NOT equivalent)

"And yes, the zunehd browser is based on IE6."

It is based on "Internet Explorer 6 for Windows Mobile", NOT the desktop version of IE6, which is completely different.  IE6 for Windows Mobile has a rendering engine that is closer to IE7 on the desktop (it was released before IE8 was out), but has some limitations (no desktop ActiveX plugin support for instance) and tweaks to make it work for a mobile platform, since IE7 could never be expected to run well on such a limited hardware platform.  It's compiled for a completely different platform, so there are many differences still, but the rendering engine is more 7 than 6.  6 was just the next browser version number for Windows Mobile.

Comparing it to the desktop version of IE6 is not one bit accurate.

@mike:

You forget another possible outcome:

Apple has to be split up into separate hardware and service businesses and their service off-shoot must offer compatibility with competitors hardware on the market.

Let's not forget that Palm is also making an argument against Apple for breaking the webOS connection to iTunes.  iTunes 9 disabled the option again too.

"A 3rd party could produce their own sync/shopping app to replace iTunes that would look at multiple vendors sites for the songs you want, find the cheapest price for each song and let you buy those songs from whatever sites are cheapest."

Likewise, a 3rd-party could build a software product with:

a)  an international IP anonymizer

b)  connections to all iTunes international stores

c)  connections to realtime currency convertors

That way, you could find the cheapest music on any iTunes store internationally, calculated by the conversion rate to your local currency, so that you don't get hosed by your local iTunes store.

MikeGalos and Waethorn,

Your points are moot.  (also Waethorn, I am aware of the Sherman Anti-Trust laws, but you have not yet pointed out how they apply)

First of all, do you really think that Apple will be broken up?  Was MS broken up into multiple companies?  It may have been suggested at one time, but never became a mandate.

Second of all, there is no "vendor lock in".  Just because you don't like that there is no alternate "synch/shopping app" that replaces iTunes, there are plenty of alternate ways to get music onto your iPod, and there ways to buy music through iTunes for alternate players.  This "lock in" you are talking about is actually made up in your own minds.  What's weird is that for some reason you feel that Apple has to open the doors to their device, when there are multiple other devices that exist, where they manufacturer can do as they please, and Apple isn't using licensing restrictions to try to force them out of business (ala MS)

What you are asking for is a way for other developers to write their own apps in order to synch with the iPod, yet you aren't pointing out how any of this would help competition, which you are claiming is damaged by this iPod / iTunes monopoly.

You guys go on about software that can help find the cheapest price.  Then claim doing it yourself doesn't count, and because of that, Apple is running an abusive monopoly.

Charging more for something when there are cheaper alternatives is not illegal, nor abusive, since those choices are freely for all to use.

Waethorn,

Regarding iTunes+ and that $0.30 charge.....let's say i NEVER bought a track from iTunes (which is true), so I don't have to pay anything extra.  Is there something now preventing me from buying a track from iTunes and using it on Zune, or Sansa, or any other player?  I'm just trying to see how you can keep claiming that there is incentive to stay with "Apple music" or whatever you called it.

mikegalos, free market monopolies are a myth.  Only government sponsored monopolies naturally occur.  Microsoft's OS market share is the same as Apple's music market share...  more people just like the products.  It's as ridiculous as bringing suit against Sony in the 1980s for their walkman product.  

Just build a better mousetrap or a new one!  If Microsoft cannot do that, then their product deserves to languish, no matter how much derision you and Paul put on Apple products.  The market is spoken...  and when the market gets it wrong or is altered by new economics/products/services, it always self corrects.  Having Microsoft induce the power of government is like Goliath whimpering to God to kick out David's legs.  

hmm, isn't the Xbox ecosystem completely closed?  you can only buy approved games to work on the console, with Microsoft taking profit off of that.  Why don't they open up their xbox live APIs so anyone can use any console or game with it?  It's a completely closed architecture and xbox live is the dominant online system...  denoting a monopoly if we're using that loose definition.  And the zuneHD will tie into xbox and live?  I'm sure they'll open those APIs up to everyone to hook whatever they want in there.

no?  We need the government to intervene then!

"hmm, isn't the Xbox ecosystem completely closed?"

And what is its marketshare? If Microsoft had a monopoly in the gaming market, what they're doing now would be illegal.

" Just because you don't like that there is no alternate "synch/shopping app" that replaces iTunes, there are plenty of alternate ways to get music onto your iPod, and there ways to buy music through iTunes for alternate players. "

Sure, just like there are ways to jailbreak the iPhone to get rejected apps onto it. I wonder why the FCC is even investigating Apple.

Paul Thurrot writes: "Apple highlighted why the company is desperately in need of antirust [sic] oversight."

Gee Thurrott, where was your concern when Microsoft was desperately in need of antitrust oversight?

Friggin hypocrite.

shark47, Microsoft has a monopoly in online gaming:

community.winsupersite.com/.../xbox-360-has-the-most-active-users-in-2009-wii-has-the-least.aspx

games.venturebeat.com/.../microsoft-xbox-360-sales-top-30-million-xbox-live-accounts-cross-20-million

we need the government to look into Live!

Shark,

You have evidence that the FCC is investigating Apple....for what?

Can you send a link please?  I haven't heard of the FCC investigating Apple for not allowing users to circumvent their security systems.

Or maybe your point of that post was to say that there are no ways to put music purchased through iTunes onto a non-iPod PMP?  Or maybe you are suggesting there are no applications that can synch with the iPod without having to circumvent the devices design?

I don't understand the point of your comment....

But your pointless posts are becoming more and more common.

"Gee Thurrott, where was your concern when Microsoft was desperately in need of antitrust oversight?"

Can you prove that he wasn't concerned before calling him names, gadfly?

panache and gfryesc, your arguments could very well have been used to defend Microsoft's bundling practices. Yes, Microsoft wanted to take over the browser space and destroy competiton. I doubt that Apple's lock in when it comes to iPod/iTunes is actually an attempt to foster competition in the digital music space. If it is, it's a very lame attempt at it.

In fact, Apple controls the market to such an extent that the company can afford to price music based on the CEO's whims and fancies, rather than market conditions and competitor action.

"shark47, Microsoft has a monopoly in online gaming..."

Sure, just like it has a monopoluy in the Zune music subscription space. Oh, that should be investigated too.

shark, I defend Microsoft's bundling policies...  whether it's with media player, antivirus, browsers, xbox/xbox live, or lollipops.

I also defend Apple's.  That's business and when one company calls for the government to intervene, it means they're not the right competitor to topple the market leader.  That's why Paul is off his rocker...  he wants the government to regulate the 'coolness' factor that makes people want ipods and not zunes.  

I suggest you guys get your zune tattoos and buy a bunch of HDs to give away at christmas to spread the word of the technological advantage of the zune/zune software.  Just stop complaining that Microsoft can't compete...  they couldn't against citrix, google search, or quicken, it just goes that way sometimes.

Shark,

It's weird...I have repeatedly said I think that MS's inclusion of browser, especially in today's world, is normal, good, etc.

And again, people on this board keep taking about vendor lock in with iPod...but you aren't explaining it.  Yes, if I buy an Apple iPod, I am locked in to using that iPod....however, I can buy music from the iTunes music store and play it on any iPod...I can buy music from Amazon and play it on iPod...I don't think that is the definition of lock-in...do you?

@shark47

You wrote: "Can you prove that he wasn't concerned before calling him names, gadfly?"

Yes, the proof is simple enough: that you can't produce anything that indicates the contrary.

Show me where and when Paul Thurrott called for antitrust oversight on Microsoft. I mean, he just called for it against Apple, right? So let's see how he's so fair and objective in his journalism.

Show me. Come on now, should be easy for you right?

Ya, thought so.

"I don't think that is the definition of lock-in...do you?"

Well, it is about as much of a lock in as (or maybe a little more than) bundling a browser with Windows. Irregardless of whether MS was justified or not, the fact is that the company was heavily penalized for it, and now, over ten years later, is still paying for it. I think the Justice Dept under Clinton was right in investigating and penalizing Microsoft. The European Commission, on the other hand, has gone too far and might actually be doing more harm than good.

@gadfly, that is silly. You made the claim, the onus of proof is on you.

Shark,

The issue with IE bundling wasn't lock-in, it was anti-competitive behavior.

However, through "embrace-extend-extinguish", it was in some weird way, a lock-in attempt.  Once the web no longer worked with a browser other than IE, what would have happened then?

You buy music through iTunes, and then you decide you hate iPod and get Zune, your music will still work...not locked-in.

Anyway man, this thread is really getting stale with unjustified accusations of anti-trust / anti-competitive behavior that doesn't exist being compared (in an ineffective way) to a company that has been convicted of anti-competitive behavior.

I'm tired of this...Paul is a very biased individual who feels that everyone that beats MS should be penalized for it...it's really weird!

On a final note....I agree the EU has gone too far with the browsers as I've stated multiple times....the times have changed and all the most popular / best browsers are free and included or whatever, so blah blah blah.

See you on a different thread.

@waethorn

"Spiotr said:

"Go buy an iPod. Sync it with your PC. Buy a track from the iTunes Store. Go buy a Zune. Sync it WITH THE SAME PC. Buy a track from the Marketplace."

Waethorn said: "Again, Apple is the monopolist, so the law applies to them, not Microsoft here"

You missed the point. I new you would!

Yes "the law" probably does apply to Apple but despite Apple's "market power"..... Microsoft (for example) can release their own player, their own sync software and their own music store.  What has Apple done to prevent that?

Amazon has (only recently) opened a download store. By all accounts it's pretty good, It has cheaper prices, is easy to use and has proved popular. What has Apple done to prevent that?

You want a radio on your PMP? You want  a subscription music service? You want MP3 downloads and not AAC? All freely available from competitors offering COMPETITIVE products.

Where is Sony in this space? They are the ones that lost out big-time to the iPod phenomenon. Why are they not pleading to the DOJ that Apple must be stopped? Could they prove that Apple is preventing them from selling their players to millions of music-thirsty Americans? Could they demonstrate that the "barrier to entry" into the PMP market is just too great... because Apple has made it so?

The anti-trust laws are there to encourage competition... and ultimately to benefit the consumer. It's just bad luck for you and Paul et al, that the consumer has found Apple's solution to be the best... and that the likely competitors have previously fumbled the ball,

Remember a couple of years ago,when every new MP3 player was dubbed an 'iPod Killer"? Well the fact is they COULD HAVE killed the iPod .... if more people have bought them. History is now repeating itself with the iPhone.

I agree, in business, it might be nice if you could take your competitor to court because their product is more popular than yours .... but you need a better reason than that.

"You buy music through iTunes, and then you decide you hate iPod and get Zune, your music will still work...not locked-in."

You buy accessories for the iPod (like a charger, dock, etc.). Will they work on the Zune too? what about all the DRM-protected music that you bought? Can you use iTunes to sync media to the Zune? What about being able to connect that Zune (or any other player) to your BMW or Audi? Sorry, but replacing a digital media player is not the same as replacing a DVD player or a television. Once you're in, you're more or less in for life.  

@Waethorn

" In the EU, anticompetitive acts are challenged by the Commissioner for Competition, presently Neelie Kroes, and yes, they are still actively investigating Apple's iTunes monopoly, and how they charge different prices in different nations (within the EU)."

Ah so that's the EU Apple probe that you are going on about! The one that got Paul so 'hopeful' a couple of years ago. The one where even , your friend, 'Neelie Kroes said she was more interested in the Record Companies' strategy than Apple's. The one where it was said "the European Commission agreed to close its antitrust investigation into the company (Apple)" (Source arstechnica). The one that was over nearly TWO years ago.

So that's the EU Apple case that you meant.

I thought it was the other one. You know the one that doesn't exist.

Pingback from  How to Find a Legal Music Download&nbsp;||&nbsp;MusicDownloadsGuide.com