Because right now you look like a moron by saying that. Apple is vicious in its protection of it's self, but they really are not anti-competitive.

In this situation, Palm would have to prove that iTunes is the ONLY way you can sync a Palm Pre to the mac, which is just not the case at all. It may be the way PALM wants to do it, but many other companies (Microsoft, RIM) either dont care about making it work with the OSX system or use solutions to syncing their devices developed by third parties.

 Reply

In this case, it's the other way around. Apple isn't muscling its way into the Pre, it's simply saying it doesnt guarantee its software will work with 3rd party hardware. Palm isn't obligated to make sure WebOS works with every phone on the market. Apple isn't obligated to make sure iTunes works with every phone as well.

 Reply

Microsoft not only did what frigg said, they also punished any computer vendor that dared to bundle any other browser with their computers, and i belive they were proactively changing stuff in windows so that no other browser would keep up.

There's a difference between the two actions and also between the busines models. Nobody is obligated to support third parties with software designed to work with some hardware. However Microsoft lets you install whatever software you want and it's suposed to work with any computer since they don't make hardware. But it used his dominant position to take out any competition by threatening any of their vendors.

There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly, i might add, also there's nothing illegal about the apple busines model that is also the busines model for any hardware vendor. Just becaous someone thinks it's EVIL or simply doesn't like it doesn't make it so.

If apple were to make OSX incompatible and actively destroy any other music player on the platform or any browser then people would have a point, specially after so many years of leting anyone develop on the OS.

 Reply

As for your statement, people have the right to charge for goods and services, and music is no different. While I don't like the predatory terms of big record labels, I likewise disagree that music should be free. Artists need to eat too, and unless they're widely renowned and very active in the public eye, concerts and donations alone aren't a viable source of funding.

 Reply

Now, think about painters, or sculptors, or any artist other than a musician. They don't make money until AFTER someone's seen their art, and liked it. I go to an art gallery. If I like their artwork, I give them money, if I don't like it, well, then I don't. Art isn't about money, it's about expression.

 Reply

I agree, otherwise you have John Mayer.

 Reply

Which is why that statement/post has come out from Apple. If they have no money to lose, why should they support others? And they've probably seen an increase in people trying to contact Apple for support.

 Reply