I think that is a great question, but can we at least agree that the article shows Apple admitting to deleting music in some capacity. They said it was for the consumer's well being, but lets not act like it did not happen.
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Deleted iPod Owners' Songs Downloaded From Competing Music Services Between 2007 and 2009
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think that is a great question, but can we at least agree that the article shows Apple admitting to deleting music in some capacity. They said it was for the consumer's well being, but lets not act like it did not happen.
Show me the facts and then we will discuss. As of right now, it's all just hearsay. Reading the actual story gives you nothing beyond factory resetting an iPod deleted music files, which is a given.
Except, if you do a factory reset, it also deletes Apple content. So, again, where's the issue?
Apple was under no policy to allow files that were intended to work around the current DRM mechanism, onto their devices. In fact, if a company felt the need to hack something together in order to work, it seems that maybe they were going about it the wrong way. Simply provide a simple mp3 file, and iTunes wouldn't have cared about it. However, wrap your mp3 file in a reverse engineered FairPlay hack and there's where Realplayer came into the issue.
Sure. Nice comeback, PeeWee.
I seem to remember ripping my cps through iTunes to mp3 format and iTune splaying them with no issue whatsoever. But, maybe I simply remembered it wrong. Guess it's time to get in on that class action lawsuit.
I think the issue is how this affects the user. But if what you have described is the actual situation, the finger is being pointed in the wrong direction.
If Real Networks claimed their music (which had DRM) was fully compatible with Apple devices, that is blatant marketing deception. So why isn't Real Networks being sued? Probably because the plaintiffs think they can get more out of Apple than Real Networks is even worth.
No, it's more like a printer only accepts ink cartridges designed for that printer model.
I did that all the time back in those times. iTunes and my iPod never caused me any trouble.
I call BS in this case.
----------
What brand of refrigerator also sells groceries? Bad analogy. Very bad.
We'll see, however
Let's watch this play out sans the sarcastic comment, Keirasplace. If I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge & if you are, I'll expect the same.
There are far too many on MR who thrive on the put downs & negativity to others & there's no place for that in an informative forum.
Let's watch this play out sans the sarcastic comment, Keirasplace. If I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge & if you are, I'll expect the same.
There are far too many on MR who thrive on the put downs & negativity to others & there's no place for that in an informative forum.
Honestly, don't expect an acknowledgment from her, she claimed something last week and when I asked for proof, crickets. Nothing more.Let's watch this play out sans the sarcastic comment, Keirasplace. If I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge & if you are, I'll expect the same.
There are far too many on MR who thrive on the put downs & negativity to others & there's no place for that in an informative forum.
I think something is being left out here, and the WSJ article doesn't help.
I was buying non-DRM'd MP3s from Amazon in 2007 (I just checked my HD for dates) and I never had a problem getting them to play on my iPod (along with music from CDs, lectures downloaded from the internet, and various other non-Apple content).
My guess is that the REAL story is something like
- company was selling DRM'd MP3 files with a .mp3 suffix
- iTunes scans the "MP3" file at some point (when it's added, when it's transferred to iPod or whatever) and sees that it doesn't look like a real MP3 (which of course it doesn't because the file contents are scrambled)
- so iTunes refuses to deal with the file
You can argue about the error message provided, but, if I am correct, WTF else is iTunes supposed to do? The file obviously is not a legit MP3 file, so at that point all iTunes CAN do is reject it.
I was buying non-DRM'd MP3s from Amazon in 2007 (I just checked my HD for dates) and I never had a problem getting them to play on my iPod (along with music from CDs, lectures downloaded from the internet, and various other non-Apple content).
My guess is that the REAL story is something like
- company was selling DRM'd MP3 files with a .mp3 suffix
- iTunes scans the "MP3" file at some point (when it's added, when it's transferred to iPod or whatever) and sees that it doesn't look like a real MP3 (which of course it doesn't because the file contents are scrambled)
- so iTunes refuses to deal with the file
You can argue about the error message provided, but, if I am correct, WTF else is iTunes supposed to do? The file obviously is not a legit MP3 file, so at that point all iTunes CAN do is reject it.
This is most likely it in a nutshell. However, instead of suing Real Networks and the Harmony hack (no money there), it's best to go after Apple (where there is plenty of money).
And really? What was the added bonus of purchasing from Real instead of iTunes? Were the prices that much different at the time?
How is Apple supposed to know that it is a legit file? Start checking files for the Harmony hack? Seems like something that really isn't their responsibility to do so. It's called erring on the side of caution - if a file looks like it might be suspicious, treat it as so.
How do you think DRM works?
If iTunes could simply read a DRM'd file then the DRM isn't doing much to encrypt the file, is it? Of COURSE it's not a legit MP3 file.
The basic issue is that if you mark a file as MP3 when it does not follow the specs of the MP3 standard, you can't complain when nobody else can read your non-MP3. And DRM is not part of the MP3 spec (except for the two header bits that are basically ignored by everyone that say that the file is copyrighted and is/is not a copy).
Apple solved this by not using the standard extensions like .aac or .m4a for its DRM'd music; instead it used .m4p for its DRM'd music.
Given some of the details of the case, I'm sure part of the allure was being ecosystem agnostic while still buying legally. At least I think Real Networks music worked on other devices. Price may have also been a factor, but like you said, how much of a difference could it have been?
That's all well and good, but this pertains to music being deleted off an iPod. Obviously, if you bought an iPod, you kind of knew you were buying into the iTunes/Apple ecosystem. Along with that, price as a factor kind of flies out the window, considering you could have bought a much cheaper MP3 player at the time.
This really boils down to people using a device that they really didn't understand and putting files on it when they really had no idea what the outcome would be. And then doing a factory reset and being shocked to learn that all the music files were then gone. So, end result? Sue Apple, just because.
Hmmm....
I would say Apple prevented unauthorized content from being on the iPod. The original source files were still on the Mac. Nothing was deleted.
I would say Apple prevented unauthorized content from being on the iPod. The original source files were still on the Mac. Nothing was deleted.