ummmm... your statement, "MS has argued for DRM-free works as much as Apple has" shows just how full of BS your entire post is. Show me ONE event where MS has championed for DRM-free ANYTHING, and I'll show you TEN where they tell us that it's good for us.

Microsoft is all about Microsoft, where Apple, for the most part, is standing up to the corporations who want to get more & more out of my wallet for less and less. And until the day comes where Apple starts using illegal moves in an effort to keep me within the fold, I'll keep on buying their products (and enjoying them). But you can keep on thinking that Apple is just as evil as MS if you like, but all you have to do is look at the court records to see the reality.

my TIVO should play back VHS and Betamax tapes too. Damn closed format.

Doofuses.

do a wikipedia search for AAC. It costs nothing to stream or distribute media using AAC. In your MS world, you'd have to license WMA AND the MS DRM. AAC is also a well-supported, international standard.

And in case YOU'VE been living under a rock, Steve Jobs has pubicly denounced DRM in an open letter to the world, and a substantial portion of the iTunes library of music is now DRM-free.

MS, on the other hand, continues to push their DRM restrictions as a means to expand their market share, appease the content providers, and s**** the consumer. Their DRM is also the most restrictive on the market. NBC will soon notice this as they've recently switched DRM schemes from Fairplay (iTunes) to Amazon (MS Windows Media). So take your pick.

I don't think they'll successfully argue that Apple is doing something anticompetitive by using a proprietary secure content format. There are many companies rolling their own secure formats and keeping them proprietary.

This seems more like a wager than a legit complaint. They appear to think that the case is strong enough to at least get a settlement with Apple. I believe they don't understand a number of things about this case, one being that there may be bona fide reasons to use proprietary formats for reasons of maintaining the secure aspect.

There have been comments in other areas of the web to the effect that everyone's content security has been broken. That, actually, is not true.

It is certainly true that unsecure content sharing is widespread, and it is also true that not everyone has the means or wherewithall to play secure content unsecurely.

And next year 20 cents per iPod Next year 50 cents per iPod Next year $1 per iPod ... This would be a dumb move for Apple, maybe doable if they would get a 20 year fixed price.

If you don't like the way the iPod works, then don't buy one. That's how the free markets work. If Apple felt it was in their interests to support WMA, they would do it. Apple is #1 because they have the best product, not because of shady business practices.

We don't want the government dictating how a company's products should work. Period.

Wikipedia does states that: "However, a patent license is required for all manufacturers or developers of AAC codecs, that require encoding or decoding." It was the line after the one you shared with us.

So it looks like AAC is not free for software/hardware companies.

So our friend Testudo is indeed right in his posting. And is also, as often, using his spicy provocative language to add flavour to the discussion. ;-)

regardless of what testudo says (which just seems to be bashing others and harping on minor points, rather than the big picture) lets consider this...

has anyone had any problem playing a WMV11 video on their Mac before? Or any DRM WMV encoded video on the mac? Yes.. why? Because MS is not making the player for any other platform.

How about a site that requires IE only? (Try going to Staples.com print store sometime)

So if companies can make software that doesn't work on all hardware, then Apple should be allowed to make hardware that does not work with all software.

I believe iTunes possesses the ability to convert WMA files into a compatible MP3 or AAC file, so there is one less reason to need to support WMA directly.

Secondly, Microsoft's DRM is rarely 100% compatible with even the devices that support the anti-piracy scheme. iTunes and iPod succeed in that they are simple to use andFairPlay DRM works well, preventing the user from usually ever bumping into the confines of the DRM protection.

It's the fact that things work in the itunes/ipod ecosystem, and work well, that make it the choice for most consumers. Artificially forcing a less effective format and DRM system only further complicates what clearly already works well, and what consumers are accepting of.

I must be coming down with something because yet again I find myself agreeing with Testudo ;-). Of course, what almost everybody ignores is the fact that the foundation of an anti-trust issue is the exploitation of one's dominance in one area to leverage one's position in another. Apple is certainly exploiting it's dominance in one area, hardware, to leverage it's position in another, software, music distribution whatever you want to call it. The argument that that iPod+iTunes(Music Store) is a single ecosystem is tenuous at best, undermined by the fact that you can rip MP3's from your CD's and put them on an iPod, ie: the iPod can function without the ITMS, therefore separate domains and the foundation of the anti-trust argument. Testudo is right, just because one empire may be evil, doesn't mean that all the others, including Google BTW, aren't.

It's the Record and the Motion Picture industries who created this DRM mess. By refusing to step into the world of electronic distribution and panicing in the face of declining sales and file sharing competition- we have the end result- drm. Apple, in order to re-adjust the industry, is delivering a nice product (iPod) - and content installed within isn't required to be issued from Apple. People generally look at this problem as an Apple vs MS issue but it's really all about Big Media ripping off consumers and artists in an era of declinng sales. Just look at what has happened to internet radio lately and you see how all of this benefits nobody but some top floor executives with political power. Sueing Apple is not the solution, it's a political issue, so register to vote and check out your reps. Unfortunately the US government is hardly enlightened when it comes to implementing "consumer protection" -still- i see it as the only way to react outside of a "people's revolt". "Music Lovers of the World Unite!"

now you know how Mac users feel. The same has been going on for years. you go to a website, windows only...you play a file..wmv only..

After MS too, since the Zune can't play that PlaysForSure music from those stores either.

I guess they should go... After MS too, since the Zune can't play that PlaysForSure music from those stores either.

Why? As everyone says here, only 5 Zunes have been sold, so suing MS isn't really helping anyone (but would be funny, since Ballmer would be suing Ballmer).

Huh, why does Apple have too? You want WMA compatibility go buy a c*** ZUNE! Apple doesn't rely on WMA so why does Apple have to license it? This makes no sense at all and this case should be thrown out of court. That's like saying Okay Ford you have to make Chevrolet motors compatible with your vehicles. Come on let's get real here folks!

Before all the "experts" weigh in on the evil monopoly they accuse Apple of, they should at least be familiar with US law: from Wiki---

U.S. antitrust law, the Sherman Act addresses single-firm conduct by providing a remedy against "[e]very person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize . . . any part of the trade or commerce among the several States."[3] This prohibition does not condemn monopoly per se but only monopoly that has been acquired or maintained through prohibited conduct.

Monopoly power alone, without some act of wrongful exclusion or other legally cognizable anticompetitive conduct is not prohibited. To the contrary, as the respected jurist Learned Hand noted, "[t]he successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned on when he wins."[6] U.S. antitrust law thus does not attack monopoly power obtained through "superior skill, foresight and industry."[7]

From the WalMart website for purchase of MP3 music:

We're sorry, your operating system is incompatible. To provide the best download experience, we can no longer support Windows 98, ME or NT. Please visit again after you upgrade to Windows 2000 or XP. Visit our Help section for complete system requirements information.

At least Apple makes a player/store that is compatible with Mac and Windows. Plus, once you download an MP3 or MP4-AAC (non-protected) file from one of the other services you can import it into iTunes for connection to your iPod. WMA (non-DRM) and unprotected AAC can easily be converted to MP3 to be used in 'most' music cataloging software. As a fact, the open standard MP4-AAC codec is gaining ground in the music device market due to to its (debated) superiority, thus, Apple's AAC (non-DRM) encoding CAN be exported to these machines via their bundled software. Almost all Windows Jukebox software now support MP3, MP4-AAC and WMA or some combination of the three!

But only the iTunes software seems to support an on-line store that is compatible with Mac OS X. Apple is the only company producing a MusicStore-player combination that supports the two most popular desktop platforms.

testudo is full of it here. Just because Apple pays for AAC and MP3 licensing, doesn't mean they should be legally required to pay to license other formats.

There is no monopoly here. If you want to buy music that works on your iPod, you can buy it in a store, or the online stores can sell DRM free music in MP3 or AAC format if they want to.

And sorry testudo, iTunes Plus songs are DRM-free but yet other MP3 makers are not expected to support AAC? Why not?

One thing I forgot to mention, Apple supports formats that are supported on Macs and Windows - the same OS that the iPod supports.

WMA does not fit in here. Protected WMA does not work on Macs, but yet, testudo and others think Apple should provide additional features to windows users? Where's the outcry for protected WMA support on MacOS, testudo?

Apple could license the WMA format from Microsoft for less than 2 cents per iPod... or Microsoft could license the AAC format (a world standard) from Apple.

Re: "How exactly would enabling WMA files be a 'bad' thing?"

It would be a bad thing because it would give a convicted monopolist felon (Microsoft) the ability to proprietize another format for content.

I'm all for the iPods supporting more formats (ogg vorbis for example) but anything that hurts Microsoft is good for consumers.

This kind of c*** makes me angry. WMA is not an open or free format. The iPod can play the most ubiquitous audio file formats to date, including MP3 and AAC, and Apple has no legal or ethical obligation to support a competitor's proprietary format which has no significant advantage over the already established, more popular formats anyway.

Ok, antitrust arguments that the ITMS should allow protected content to be played on other devices, I can at least accept as something legitimate to consider. Of course, the recent change to DRM-free music pretty much is that, and you could always burn-and-rip if you REALLY wanted to play your iTMS music on a Zune or whatever.

Arguing that the iPod should play music from other services, however, is just stupid. It DOES play music from dozens of sources--anything that can rip unprotected MP3, AAC, and even lossless formats like AIFF and Apple Lossless.

It's NOT a closed platform at all, so it's pretty hard to call it a monopoly--any CD can, in theory, be put on an iPod just fine. Likewise, eMusic (unprotected MP3 download service) works fine on an iPod, too.

Arguing "You must make this device play other proprietary formats... because it's not fair otherwise!" is sort of silly. It's like saying that a tape deck MUST play Type II tapes (or 8 tracks, or CDs, or whatever).

The real legit argument is "If you have content that is only capable of playing on one system, that's a monopoly" is much more legit. But that isn't the iPod--that's iTMS-exclusive tracks that will ONLY play on an iPod (which of course is only half true since you can burn CDs from a FairPlay track).

And by that argument, it should be protected WMA stores that are forced to offer tracks that can be played on a Mac (at ALL--remember, no protected WMA on MacOS or Linux that I'm aware of), or played on an iPod.

Sorry, but no. Of course, if EVERYBODY would just switch to completely unprotected OGM, life would be better, but I don't have much hope for the RIAA doing anything not blatantly anti-consumer anytime soon.