Truth is that we don't really have all of the facts. Maybe this is a last resort because of how the lawsuit has played out? Maybe Monster is continuing with unreasonable demands in court, months after they first filed? We don't really know. Monster is not being stopped at making compatible products, they just can't use Apple's technology and can't brand their products with the MFi mark... a mark that I trust and always look for.
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 Revokes Monster's 'Made for iPhone' License Following Beats Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Truth is that we don't really have all of the facts. Maybe this is a last resort because of how the lawsuit has played out? Maybe Monster is continuing with unreasonable demands in court, months after they first filed? We don't really know. Monster is not being stopped at making compatible products, they just can't use Apple's technology and can't brand their products with the MFi mark... a mark that I trust and always look for.
Quite true. Will be interesting to see if at some point Apple refocuses Beats to actually sound as good as they should for the price.
Given their history with earbuds, doubt it.
It's a shame as Monster earbuds sound much better to my ears than the Beats I previously owned.
You're still working under the assumption that iOS devices lock out third parry products that aren't MFI certified, which is not entirely accurate.
I can change an iOS device with a certainly *not* approved charger and cable just fine - the device doesn't stop it from working. What will occasionally happen is if the device you're attaching has been wired incorrectly or in a way that the iOS device does not expect. This isn't "locked out" so much as simply being made incompatible in the first place. For example, for USB chargers, there's a documented method to indicate higher current draw than the 500 mA mandated by the official USB-IF spec but if the device doesn't appear as a default USB device (and thus, the phone requests 500 mA) and doesn't have the right resistance across the pins (to indicate high power availability) then a message will pop up that suggests it's not supported. *Even in this case* the device can still function - the message is not necessarily blocking it from working, but serves as a potential caution.
This isn't always the case, for example, some adapters that try to pass plain line audio (which was supported on the 30 pin connector) to the lightning connector can result in an unsupported message since the pinout is not compatible, even with the lightning to 30 pin adapter.
As far as the headphones go, the connector is pretty simple with some basic control functions. There's no locking out of non-certified headsets and headphones that work via the extended 3.5mm jack.
For most devices, there's no "lockout" coming from the phone for things like headphones and chargers and so on.
This is also ignoring the fact that for antitrust to apply, the abuser has to be leveraging their *monopoly* position in one market to affect the situation in another market. The textbook example is Microsoft's monopoly position in operating systems at the time being used to force Netscape out of the browser market by using IE to squeeze them out, or using the Windows monopoly to force OEM PC vendors to only ship Windows-installed machines (and not a mix of Windows and OS/2) or face a rise in the OEM price of Windows licences.
In Apple's case, they're not in a monopoly position in smartphones, so there's no antitrust regulation to break - the market for headphones for cellular phones is not controlled by Apple. It might be a bit of a dick move on Apple's part, and highly retaliatory (note: it also wasn't used as a threat to drop the suit you notice, merely a result after the fact) but it's clearly not illegal.
Of all the posts in this thread, this one pretty much sums it up perfectly I think. The certification is just a guarantee to the user that it will work properly with their device to Apple's specs. I try and stay away from non-certified accessories but have used them before and they work just fine. The error does sometimes come up but I've had that with Apple cables before too. In regards to the move they made, I am willing to bet that the agreement they received when they got the certification had stipulations suggesting either party could end the agreement at any time for any reason. When you acquire a certification of any sort you are agreeing to do things a certain way. So its possible they are no in compliance. Its been well advertised that Apple has over the top requirements and contracts so its not a big surprise. It may hurt a smaller start-up company but I highly doubt it would affect Monster any since they are an established cable/accessory provider known to the masses. The biggest problem they have is having to change the packaging on devices to remove whatever is on there stating it is certified and it sounds like they have a few months to do so meaning anything new would be changed. This would allow enough of the inventory on shelves to be sold without having to recall it.
It's marketing partnership offered by Apple. No, Apple should not be required to partner with anyone and everyone.
typical 
"you have a lawsuit which "we" accquired, so we're using running away from Monster."
Grow up Apple.. its only a lawsuit......
If everyone ran away and ended agreements just because they didn't like what they were doing to an acquisition, it would be a pretty sad world.
Someone p**sed of the big guy. ... Never p*ss off the big guy !!
"you have a lawsuit which "we" accquired, so we're using running away from Monster."
Grow up Apple.. its only a lawsuit......
If everyone ran away and ended agreements just because they didn't like what they were doing to an acquisition, it would be a pretty sad world.
Someone p**sed of the big guy. ... Never p*ss off the big guy !!
I guarantee you that the license says Apple can revoke it at any time for any reason. Why on earth would Apple, which created the program, create a license it couldn't revoke. It's also the way Apple deals with its suppliers, etc.
I wonder if this puts a significant dent in Monster's sales or not. I'd have to think they make most of their money from non Apple stuff.
"According to Monster, 900 of its more than 4,000 products produced since 2008 have been made under the MFi program..."
4,000 PRODUCTS?! #overkill #whatever
How. Then buy the $5 cable. What does this have to do with a MacBook? If you prefer the $5 cable, buy that one.
Clearly monster is selling a lot of cables. They are a multi million dollar corporation. You don't like their cables....don't buy them.
In Samsung and LGs case they're not in a monopoloy position either. But if stuff like this was legal, LG and Samsung would just kick Apple out of the LTE patent pool whenever some senior Korean executive got pissed off about an Apple lawsuit.
There is a specific law dealing with standards patent pools (Google "FRAND").
There is no law that says Apple has to license its trademark to anyone.
Never said it's not.
Friendship has nothing to do with business. Apple had huge lawsuits with Samsung, so by your rationale Apple should have stopped doing business with Samsung long ago. Apple still does business with them and the reason is simply that Apple needs Samsung too much and cannot afford the same strong arm tactics it's using against Monster.
Also you assume that Monster didn't try to work out the issue directly before the lawsuit.
Or they could have caught the suite on its own merits. They still work with Samsung because they're not strong enough to bully Samsung (mores the pity).
Someone p**sed of the big guy. ... Never p*ss off the big guy !!
Thats one way of solving a lawsuit...
His mad as hell that he sold his stake and lost $100m. This makes Apple look like the bad man but business is business. F**k em.
