Except for Sony, every other media player disregarded DRM. You may not have noticed this if you only had an iPod. The fact that they joined the ranks of their competitors in this regard should not be seen as a positive, it should only be seen as PR.
The Sandisk Sansa Fuze[1] had the bizarre "slot radio". http://gizmodo.com/5126743/how-sandisks-slotradio-turned-a-g...
Surprising that it's from 2009. I thought that the big players had worked out the public's opinion by then, but it may be that that product was in development during the DRM battles and Sandisk had to either release it, or scrap the product.
The record labels only stepped in when your quoted companies/brands entered the fray.
But then Zunes and iPods could also always run DRM free MP3s copied from other sources as well, so I'm not sure what you think the difference was, or what advantage you think these independent players had with respect to DRM.
You almost had me choke on that one. Yeah, yeah, they did everything for the best interests of the customers. Oh wait, like preventing to put your own songs if you did not use their proprietary software (iTunes) that ran like shit on Windows (Hey, even I had to use it) and was impossible to run under Linux or anything else. And let's not forget they did not embrace the non-DRM MP3 until everyone else started to do it - they were far way from leading the trend to benefit customers in providing interoperable devices. As a matter of fact, iPods were locked and you were NOT able to use the songs you licensed on iTunes with any other music player.
Yeah, what a great experience that was. Thumbs up for User Freedom! But I'm sure you will build a case to tell me that Freedom is not good, and everyone is better in an Apple jail.
A good example of when Apple became a market share elader is the iPod. If you look at Apple's product strategy though, they never did anything to gain market share at the cost of profits and premium branding. The combination of devices and services via iTunes created a dominant platform. They didn't do anything to avoid that, it's not that beign dominant is itself a bad thing, it's just that it wasn't a strategic goal. They never under-cut competitors to achieve it. Yet at the height of their market dominance, when they were best placed to use their position to exert market control, instead of using that power against customers to increase lock-in, they used it to force reluctant labels to embrace DRM free content. They then used it again to coerce the labels to sign up to iTunes Match. They did this becaue these moves ease customer pain points and improve the customer experience, making their products more attractive and therefore more valuable.
Can you imagine Microsoft or IBM making moves like that? I can't. As another example, Apple has always maintained that they don't allow third party keyboards, or third party browsers to use the accelerated Webkit engine for security reasons. These explanations were widely derided as fig leaves to cover a lock-in strategy, yet as soon as Apple has implemented controls to open these restrictions securely, it did so. It turns out their stated reasons for doing that really were their actual reasons for doing it. So if you want to make your 'Apple lockin would be worse than IBM' thesis stand up, you need to explain why their actual behaviour when they're in that situation doesn't match the thesis.