Microsoft apparently wrote the iPod’s success story, saving Apple from plummeting and falling into imminent bankruptcy in the 90s

[Windows Central]

In a new antitrust case against Apple, the DOJ claims that the iPhone maker runs a monopoly through its products and services leaving its rivals at a competitive disadvantage. It also indicates that Microsoft heavily contributed to the iPod's success, ultimately saving Apple from bankruptcy.

Microsoft apparently wrote the iPod’s success story, saving Apple from plummeting and falling into imminent bankruptcy in the 90s : Read more

 

[Davin Peterson]

Apple stole the idea and patent from Creative Labs to make an mp3 player. Creative Labs has pioneered the mp3 player with it's ZEN Mp3 Player, then Apple came along and stole from Creative. Apple and Creative Labs sued each other. This is another example of Apple's unfair dominance allowing the Creative ZEN to be forgotten about. The Creative ZEN had features that the iPod didn't have making it a better mp3 player and it had no restrictions allowing you to download mp3's from anywhere wereas the iPod restricted to iTunes. This is the reason I hate Apple with their products dominating the market and competitors don't get the same attention as Apple.

 

[naddy69]

"The lawsuit details that Apple uses unfair tactics to dominate the smartphone market"

Except that Apple has only 25% of the smartphone market. How is that "domination"?

Apple is not a "monopoly" in any market that it competes in. Wildly successful, yes. But being successful is not against the law.

 

[GraniteStateColin]

Another reason not to be skeptical of claims coming from government officials. The DOJ anti-monopoly case against MS had virtually NOTHING to do with the success of the iPod. Even had there been no such case, there is no reason to believe that MS would have prevented Windows from working with the iPod. Windows has always been widely supportive of all hardware and networked just fine with Macs and systems with other OS's.

On the other hand, MS investing $400M in Apple when it was near bankruptcy may have saved Apple. That's what I assumed the article was going to point out based on the title.

 

[GraniteStateColin]

Apple stole the idea and patent from Creative Labs to make an mp3 player. Creative Labs has pioneered the mp3 player with it's ZEN Mp3 Player, then Apple came along and stole from Creative. Apple and Creative Labs sued each other. This is another example of Apple's unfair dominance allowing the Creative ZEN to be forgotten about. The Creative ZEN had features that the iPod didn't have making it a better mp3 player and it had no restrictions allowing you to download mp3's from anywhere wereas the iPod restricted to iTunes. This is the reason I hate Apple with their products dominating the market and competitors don't get the same attention as Apple.

I admit that I'm not well studied on the details of that case, but I am familiar with patent law. If Creative had patent protection on the ZEN, then Apple must have found a way around it without violating Creative's patent (at least in the court's eyes, even if Creative disagreed). This could relate to the very reduction in features you described.

Otherwise, at Creative's choice, Apple would have had to either pay Creative to license their patent or vacate the market and pay Creative damages for lost sales.

When companies win market share under fair competition, that's how it's supposed to work. It's not "unfair dominance;" it's exactly proper and earned dominance. Just because I may have preferred Windows Phone to iPhone or Android (and I preferred the Palm Pre to all of them), or you may have preferred the ZEN to the iPod, that doesn't entitle our pet products to market victory. We were obviously in the minority in our preferences, hence their failure to capture enough interest in the broader market to survive.