If their intention was to stifle the competition, it seems logical that they would have prevented the device from accepting music ripped from CDs or music downl

If their intention was to stifle the competition, it seems logical that they would have prevented the device from accepting music ripped from CDs or music downloaded illegally. Alas, they did not do this, because the success of the ipod was predicated on widespread copyright infringement. Who would pay 350$+ for a music player if they had to pay for all the music too? No, this was a simple case of keeping the record companies happy with the DRM scheme. Remember, when the iPod and other players hit the market, the record companies wanted to sue them for facilitating music theft. Same thing happened with writable CDs. The consumer was not harmed.