Former iTunes Engineer Claims Apple Aimed to Block '100% of Non-iTunes Clients'

[MacRumors]

As a part of the ongoing class action iPod lawsuit Apple is facing in court this week, former iTunes engineer Rod Schultz testified that he worked on a project that aimed to block non-iTunes clients and shut out third-party music providers competing with the iPod, reports The Wall Street Journal.

A former iTunes engineer testified in a federal antitrust case against Apple Friday that he worked on a project "intended to block 100% of non-iTunes clients" and "keep out third-party players" that competed with Apple's iPod.

Subpoenaed by the plaintiffs to prove that Apple's moves to block outside music from playing on the iPod drove up prices, Schultz told the court that his project was codenamed "Candy" and that he didn't really want to talk about his work on iTunes from 2006 to 2007.

Schultz went on to reiterate Apple's argument in the case, suggesting the security measures introduced in iTunes reflected the digital music landscape at the time. Record companies, Apple says, demanded DRM and forced Apple to keep the iPod secure.

Both Schultz and Apple also argued Apple's DRM efforts were designed to protect its systems and user experiences, which could have been compromised by being opened up to third-party music players and file formats. Schultz did, however, say that this also led to iPod's market dominance.

Schultz was the final witness in the case, and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said she plans on sending the case to the jury for deliberations next week. The plaintiffs are requesting $350 million in damages, which could triple under antitrust laws.

Article Link: Former iTunes Engineer Claims Apple Aimed to Block '100% of Non-iTunes Clients'

 

[joshwenke]

Or you could just not buy super old iPods and move on. But, ooh, money! And tripled no less. Might as well just sue Apple for something stupid!

 

[friednoodles]

"designed to block third-party music from playing on the iPod"

That's not what he said at all, he said they were trying to block third-party clients. A very important difference, especially in this case. There was never a problem with putting third-party music on iPods as long as they were in supported formats.

 

[spectrumfox]

"designed to block third-party music from playing on the iPod"

That's not what he said at all, he said they were trying to block third-party clients. A very important difference, especially in this case. There was never a problem with putting third-party music on iPods as long as they were in supported formats.

You seem to know so much about the case for someone who is not involved with it in any capacity.

One wonders why you're not in the courtroom yourself helping out.

 

[jclo]

"designed to block third-party music from playing on the iPod"

That's not what he said at all, he said they were trying to block third-party clients. A very important difference, especially in this case. There was never a problem with putting third-party music on iPods as long as they were in supported formats.

Clarified that sentence.

 

[KiwiAdventure]

I don't understand the whole case as people didn't have to buy the iPod so why take Apple to court over a product people new would only play certain music?

 

[Gasu E.]

You seem to know so much about the case for someone who is not involved with it in any capacity.

One wonders why you're not in the courtroom yourself helping out.

LOL. You've been outed!

 

[FieldingMellish]

I had an iPod 1. It was groundbreaking in its interface and accessibility. The competition was arcane and hard to decipher at that time. The first Apple ad for it featured music from the propeller heads. A dancing guy slipped the iPod in his shirt pocket and boogied.

 

[mainstreetmark]

You seem to know so much about the case for someone who is not involved with it in any capacity.

One wonders why you're not in the courtroom yourself helping out.

He seems to know so much because he read what the article said. It said "third-party music players" or "third-party music providers", and no where does it just say "third-party music" was what was blocked, which is what the comment you replied to was addressing.

 

[gavroche]

You seem to know so much about the case for someone who is not involved with it in any capacity.

One wonders why you're not in the courtroom yourself helping out.

What he said really is not rocket science, genius. I, and millions of other people put music on our iPods. Music that we did not buy from the iTunes store. Such as inserting a music cd, and importing the tracks to iTunes. And such music never got deleted or removed by iTunes. Guess you never did this. Perhaps you are a kid and never owned one of the iPods at the time. Who knows. But save your smart a** comments for somewhere else.

 

[lordofthereef]

Or you could just not buy super old iPods and move on. But, ooh, money! And tripled no less. Might as well just sue Apple for something stupid!

I am not saying they are right in the suit (I don't know enough about it, honestly), but saying "move on", if you have been legitimately wronged, isn't terribly helpful. If Apple did something not legal, they should be dinged for it, just like they expect cmpetitors to be dinged for their illegal actions. Unfortunately, in cases like this, money is really the only avenue of "righting a wrong".

----------

I don't understand the whole case as people didn't have to buy the iPod so why take Apple to court over a product people new would only play certain music?

I think it's a matter of anti competitive practices. The "damages" here are a result of claimed anti competitive behavior.

 

[4jasontv]

You seem to know so much about the case for someone who is not involved with it in any capacity.

One wonders why you're not in the courtroom yourself helping out.

Are you stressed? Is everything ok?

 

[rmatthewware]

You seem to know so much about the case for someone who is not involved with it in any capacity.

One wonders why you're not in the courtroom yourself helping out.

Good, let the hate flow through you...

 

[MikhailT]

Did Apple ask the engineer if the experience and security could be done without blocking out the competitors? If he said no, then, it can be seen as not anti-competitive.

 

[SoAnyway]

As much as I'm in favor of competition, why should Apple have been forced to allow their devices to work with a competitor's on every level? It's their device, they can do what ever they want with it, even restrict access from competing technologies.

I liken this to how Apple restricts OS X to work with only Macs and Apple isn't forced to have it work with other hardware.

 

[usersince86]

Of course they were.

 

[MikhailT]

As much as I'm in favor of competition, why should Apple have been forced to allow their devices to work with a competitor's on every level? It's their device, they can do what ever they want with it, even restrict access from competing technologies.

I liken this to how Apple restricts OS X to work with only Macs and Apple isn't forced to have it work with other hardware.

The same for every game console, you can't play Playstation games on Xbox.

Walled gardens aren't illegal and that's not what is at case here. Monopoly itself isn't illegal either.

What's illegal is anti-competition behavior, when you use your powers to intentionally prevent others from entering the market and gain their share in their own ways. You also cannot behave in ways that cause harm to customers by increasing prices, preventing their access to competitors, colluding with other businesses intentionally to push other competitors out.

 

[eac25]

The same for every game console, you can't play Playstation games on Xbox.

Walled gardens aren't illegal and that's not what is at case here. Monopoly itself isn't illegal either.

What's illegal is anti-competition behavior, when you use your powers to intentionally prevent others from entering the market and gain their share in their own ways. You also cannot behave in ways that cause harm to customers by increasing prices, preventing their access to competitors, colluding with other businesses intentionally to push other competitors out.

Yes, all the pillars of the American Way...

(For the record, I completely agree with you - I just think this particular case is attempting to stretch the laws cited a tad beyond credibility.)

Nice though how the witness for the plaintiffs helped reinforce Apple's position all along. I wonder if they'll next get sued for witness tampering, or maybe that's just how it actually was...

 

[a0me]

Both Schultz and Apple also argued Apple's DRM efforts were designed to protect its systems and user experiences, which could have been compromised by being opened up to third-party music players and file formats. Schultz did, however, say that this also led to iPod's market dominance.

Can someone explain how NOT being able to play a whole bunch of music formats could led to the iPod's market dominance?

 

[IJ Reilly]

The elephant not in the room: testimony from anyone in the music industry.

----------

Can someone explain how NOT being able to play a whole bunch of music formats could led to the iPod's market dominance?

I would, but it's all in the complaint. Anybody could read it themselves, but hardly anyone does.

 

[a0me]

The elephant not in the room: testimony from anyone in the music industry.

----------



I would, but it's all in the complaint. Anybody could read it themselves, but hardly anyone does.

Maybe a link to it in the article would help? Am I missing something?

 

[G4DP]

As much as I'm in favor of competition, why should Apple have been forced to allow their devices to work with a competitor's on every level? It's their device, they can do what ever they want with it, even restrict access from competing technologies.

I liken this to how Apple restricts OS X to work with only Macs and Apple isn't forced to have it work with other hardware.

And you miss the point completely.

They did not have to support anything. The deliberately prevented it from being done, not the same as supporting.

 

[applegeek97]

And so what?! You bought an Apple device and apple only lets you use their music or ones you upload through iTunes? Sounds acceptable to me. I don't buy a Mercedes and throw a fit when a Volkswagen part won't work! OR buy Xbox games expecting them to play in a Playstation.

BOGUS LAWSUIT

 

[sshambles]

Who the **** cares... ?













Greedy lawyers, oh yeah, forgot about them.

 

[TalkAboutApple]

Still waiting for FLAC support...and too stubborn to keep a mirrored store of ALAC copies.