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

silentmajority said:
I haven't been following this too closely, but it sure sounds like a lawyer driven lawsuit. You don't run out of plaintiffs if you have a legitimate complaint...
Click to expand...

You can bet your bippy it is lawyer driven! That they cannot come up with a 'named client' that meets the criteria shows you they are shopping for the lawsuit.
 
I'm trying to believe this, yet I have not heard one single first hand story of it, or a sinlge SCREENSHOT of it from iTunes, which in 2014 should be everywhere.
 
the7th1 said:
So when are people going to just accept the fact that Apple has had quite a few first mover advantages and that they simply had to protect their inventions? Partly because the navel-gazing music industry demanded DRM but also because they did not want all the lemmings to follow suit, steal and copy their inventions.... Or should I sue Apple because I THOUGHT of an online music store a few years before iTunes opened...? I THOUGHT about it, but did not have the slightest chance in hell, because I was not loaded with money and important enough to get the attention of the music industry. Apple had all the right cards, and moved before anyone else knew what was happening... It has happened since, and every time it is so appalling to see when plaintiffs try to monetize their laziness, arrogance and stupidity!
Click to expand...


Well. you might as well try suing them... Everyone else is.
 
Piggie said:
How about if Microsoft only allowed Internet Explorer to work with Windows, so if you did not like it, then don't buy Windows.
It's Microsofts product, so they can do what they like with it.....

Yes?
Click to expand...

Yes. Absolutely and I will tell you why...

Microsoft is not owned by the people even though the people can heavily influence corporate policy, it should never be the policy that the consumers control a corporation's intellectual property. That type of control implies that the consumer population has the right to determine the path of any corporation when that is not the case and should not be.


There are also currently and have been previously fairly liberal return policies for electronics devices and once it was discovered that the musical field was limited to the Apple ecosystem, then the purchaser of said iPod(s) should have returned them for a refund.

Then they could have gone to JVC or Sony to use their mp3 players.
 
Can someone explain this to me?

I bought my first iPod in 2005 and there was no problem importing music from a CD or downloaded from anywhere on the web.

Is this something from before 2005? I've never even heard of not being able to get a music file onto an iPod as long as it's mp3, wav, aiff, Apple Lossless etc.

Maybe someone who understands the complaint better can give me an example of an option that was limited in an anti-competitive way.
 
This all certainly doesn't seem to matter as much now, but,

What if this was said from the very start the player was being introduced? "iPod, the greatest music device known to man... BUT, you can only buy music from apple and iTunes."

Now THAT would have laid a goose egg.
 
The next lawsuit against Apple will be the fact that they restrict OS X to only run on their Macs, and restrict iOS to only run on their iPhones, iPads, & iPods. Sheesh.
 
a0me said:
Maybe a link to it in the article would help? Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Sorry, no, you're not missing anything. Just a lament that hardly anyone bothers to educate themselves about what is actually at issue here legally.

Here they are:

Amended Complaint

Apple's Answer

It's a lot to wade through, and will also require a bit of side research if you want to understand it more completely. Warning: None of what you learn will be of much interest to anyone here. It seems knowing what this case is about gets in the way of expressing feelings about it.
 
J. Jizzle said:
The next lawsuit against Apple will be the fact that they restrict OS X to only run on their Macs, and restrict iOS to only run on their iPhones, iPads, & iPods. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Groan. No. Do you remember Psystar? They tried to sue Apple under antitrust laws over their alleged illegal control of the "Macintosh Compatible Market." The problem is this market did not exist. They were trying to create one. That suit lasted about five minutes in court.
 
spectrumfox said:
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.
Click to expand...

56250879.jpg
 
Rufuss Sewell said:
Can someone explain this to me?

I bought my first iPod in 2005 and there was no problem importing music from a CD or downloaded from anywhere on the web.

Is this something from before 2005? I've never even heard of not being able to get a music file onto an iPod as long as it's mp3, wav, aiff, Apple Lossless etc.

Maybe someone who understands the complaint better can give me an example of an option that was limited in an anti-competitive way.
Click to expand...

Real Networks had software that allowed DRM'd files from their store to be used on the iPod in 2004 (link to Macworld article ) which they called "Harmony". Apple then fairly promptly (4 months I believe) released software updates locking out purchases from Real Networks music store.
 
friednoodles said:
"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.
Click to expand...

The "supported formats" were proprietary to apple.
 
I think this suit is a load of garbage. Apple has said multiple times that they DID block other clients, but for security. This does not block their progress. It is in no way Apples fault that they own both the hardware and software used by the masses. Take the iPhone for example. Can android run on it? No it can't, because it is a security issue. Can iPods run programs, files, or software Apple hasn't approved? No, and there is no issue legally trying to keep your hardware working on the software and approved files that will keep it working
 
MikhailT said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apple didn't really stop competitors from entering the market to do their own thing though. Music could still be purchased from many other locations and put on to other devices.

I don't get how this is a problem when console exclusives do basically the same thing.
 
J. Jizzle said:
This lawsuit is so ridiculously stupid. What's next? ...Apple getting sued because you can't install or run a Microsoft Windows-based program on a Mac (i.e. Microsoft Office)? People want to sue for anything these days just get have a chance at striking it rich. They don't care about anything except money.
Click to expand...

You can run windows programs and even windows on a Mac. Been doing this myself since the G3 era. Since moving to Intel cpus, you don't even need an emulator. And Apple provided the tools. And now you can even run windows programs without windows with the use of what is essentially a translation layer, and run said programs directly in os x (as you can with Linux as well).

So not the best comparison.
 
EnderTW said:
The "supported formats" were proprietary to apple.
Click to expand...


Wrong. MP3 and WAV are not. The Real Player crap theyre bitching about is totally proprietary...to Real Player and its garbage. Real Player was SPAM and SCAM central at the time. Thy should've been shut out.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Groan. No. Do you remember Psystar? They tried to sue Apple under antitrust laws over their alleged illegal control of the "Macintosh Compatible Market." The problem is this market did not exist. They were trying to create one. That suit lasted about five minutes in court.
Click to expand...

Actually, the problem was that they used Apple's proprietary code without license. That's what got them in trouble.

There is no law against making clones if your clone does not duplicate code that you have no license to use and also doesn't violate any patents etc. Doing this to produce a mac clone would be very tricky, but possible. In the end, the number of man hours would prove it to be impractical and without profit.

Take for example Intel's attempt to sue Nec over Nec's v20 chip that cloned Intel's 8088 (or was it 8086?). Intel lost that suit because Nec did their clone without duplication. No code was duplicated. Yet it was 100% compatible. Nec hired one team to write down what Intel's chip did without writing down any code or design information. Then they brought in another team that never saw the code or design and had that team produce a chip that did the same thing. Perfectly legal.

It possibie to produce a Mac clone legally. Just impractical for such a small market.
 
spectrumfox said:
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.
Click to expand...

No he's here helping out. And the editor corrected the sentence. If we are going to report - report it correctly. Thanks to him for the correction.

----------

Ahh, the usual droll troll - spectrumfox. I should have known ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top