I know what you're saying, it was just that it's impossible to kill a Hydra by going for it's head
(sorry, I'm being a bit pedantic here, it's just I read a lot about Greek mythology when i was younger).
File-sharing is a wonderful example of this. Napster was, roughly speaking,
'the iTunes of P2P' and killing them off did nothing to help get rid of file-sharing as a whole.
In this case, however, it may well be the way to do it. If you can force Apple to back down, you may well get everyone else to do so too. Though what will happen now that Apple have released non-DRMed tracks on iTunes is anyone's guess.
Also, whilst I think about it, whilst iTunes is a closed system, the likes of Rhapsody, N2Go and so on probably can't be targeted in quite the same way by anti-monopoly legislators as they allow you some choice as to the brand of DAP you purchase.
I'd touched on the idea of going after Apple first previously, though it was mostly speculation on my part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Step666
They're being singled out, none of the other music stores are getting the same sort of heat. Possibly because the governments involved reckon that if they can break Apple, everyone else'll just fold but they run the risk of Apple just sticking up two fingers and ignoring them.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Step666
iTunes being successful doesn't make them any more or less illegal than any other DRM-based service.
It wouldn't be preposterous of Apple to take the view that they are being unfairly targeted in all this.
As for being tied into one system, surely the Zune and the Zune marketplace are even worse - it's not one brand of player, it's just one player.
If the governments of these various countries are targeting Apple first from the point-of-view that if you can force them to back down, everyone else will follow suit then it's just about understandable but, if not, then this is an unfair and probably illegal witch-hunt.
|