Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I think the details are a little vague to be honest. Were only the files in question removed? I would assume that a factory restore of an iPod would entail wiping the entire library and require a re-sync for ALL content. Were the files in question part of an iTunes library, synced via iTunes, and subsequently deleted in iTunes, or were they synced via third party application?

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:
If Apple was being evil and using iTunes DRM to maintain their dominant position in the market, then why did they push to get rid of that very same DRM?
 
More Big Brother behavior from Apple. We now need them to decide for us when and how to protect us from hackers and malicious content? And to use that excuse is ridiculous. If they got caught doing this, what else do they do?

you didnt read the story, did you.
 
This is about the iPod, not the iTunes Store (ie. an iPod isn't a store). A similar analogy would be Apple taking "unapproved" groceries out of your car or house.

If you restore it to factory settings what would you expect?
 
Deleted purchased media from outside of Apples control. Big difference.

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.
 
I think Apple got rid of DRM mainly because users complained (I'm sure the music companies were involved too)
 
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.

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.
 
This is about the iPod, not the iTunes Store (ie. an iPod isn't a store). A similar analogy would be Apple taking "unapproved" groceries out of your car or house.

No, it's more like a printer only accepts ink cartridges designed for that printer model.
 
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 did that all the time back in those times. iTunes and my iPod never caused me any trouble.

I call BS in this case.

----------

The proper analogy is; I purchased your brand of refrigerator and you only want me to buy my groceries from you. So you went into my fridge and threw out all my snacks that I bought from someone else. It's my fridge to put in what I want. Stay The F out of my Fridge!

What brand of refrigerator also sells groceries? Bad analogy. Very bad.
 
We'll see, however

Really.. I don't think so. Did you read what the hell is behind the headline. Probably not.

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.
 
So what is the problem here? Users expect Apple to support music that was purchased from other stores? Why would Apple do that? Do users expect Ford parts to work on a Chevy? A fake K-cup in a coffee maker? The wrong cartridge in a printer? Lots of companies insist on using their parts and consumers accept that as reasonable - why pick on Apple? Is it because they have the deepest pockets?

No, money has nothing to do with it..... :rolleyes:
 
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 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.
How is it not a legit file? Because Apple says it's not? Bullocks.
 
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.

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 it not a legit file? Because Apple says it's not? Bullocks.

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 is it not a legit file? Because Apple says it's not? Bullocks.

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.
 
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?

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?
 
How is it not a legit file? Because Apple says it's not? Bullocks.

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....

Except if you actually read the article in the WSJ Apple pretty much confirmed that the headline is 100% true

...DVD Jon” and “Requiem” made Apple “very paranoid” about protecting iTunes. Updates that deleted non-Apple music files were intended to protect consumers from those system break-ins.

Apple will argue why they deleted the files.

SO the headline is misleading yet a spokesman for Apple said that updates deleted non-apple music files to protect consumers?

Explain was exactly is misleading?

So did Apple delete people's music after an update?

It is a yes or no question.

Can you 100% for sure say that anytime someone updated who had 100 songs they had 100 songs after the update? Only a yes or no is needed

I would say Apple prevented unauthorized content from being on the iPod. The original source files were still on the Mac. Nothing was deleted.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.