Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Doesn't Sony and Microsoft do the same thing then with their games for the Playstation 4 and X Box? They require proprietary files for generic games (the games end up being ported to several systems, music files get converted to multiple file types with multiple DRMs) that are only able to run on their systems.

Shush. We will have none of that logic here!
 
How is this so different from Sony with minidiscs? Sony took an already viable music container (magnetic media) and put it in a format that only worked with Sony devices or those licensed to use it. Some people, including myself, would not buy an iPod or use iTunes because it was too proprietary - those other MP3 manufacturers thrived off of that weakness, now they want to turn around and sue over its strengths.

SONY licensed MD. My MD player is branded "SHARP".
 
Minidisk is an optical format, not magnetic.

...actually, it was magneto-optical (read by a laser, but needing laser + magnetic field to write).

So you're both right (or both wrong) although "magnetic" is probably less right than "optical".
 
These are all the same reasons Apple would not support Blu-ray discs. Apple wants to limit your access to content. They want to funnel you into the content that they will sell you.

Apple doesn't do what is best for its customers; it does what is best for itself.
 
More to the point, it would be a ridiculous and certainly unsuccessful strategy for Honda unless they sold enough Civics to force gas stations to adopt their nozzle. See, market power.

Right, and that is what Apple is doing and I am not sure if that is in the best interest of the consumer.
 
You aren't reading what the complaint is if you don't understand why this is a lawsuit.

Apple sold two things:

1) A MP3 Player (iPod)
2) MP3 songs

As a consumer it is my expectation that if I buy #1 (a MP3 player) that I can play any MP3 that i own. According to the consumers this was not the case.

As a consumer it is my expectation that if I buy a MP3 I can play that MP3 on any MP3 player. According to the consumers this is not the case.


How many of you would be furious and posting if you bought a Honda and after the fact found out you could only use Honda manufactured gas? All of you

How many of you would be furious and posting if you bought a Chevron Gas and after the fact found out you could only use that gas in a Chevron manufactured car? All of you.

I have no clue who will win the case, but I understand why a suit was brought forward.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong - The iPod could always play .mp3 files from day 0 (23OCT2001.) So if you wanted to sell content for the iPod, just sell .mp3. So blame the content owners for that.

The issue is that no one else could build a device that could play protected iTunes purchased .aac because FairPlay was not freely available nor available licensed from Apple. FairPlay should have been covered under FRAND.
 
You aren't reading what the complaint is if you don't understand why this is a lawsuit.

Apple sold two things:

1) A MP3 Player (iPod)
2) MP3 songs

As a consumer it is my expectation that if I buy #1 (a MP3 player) that I can play any MP3 that i own. According to the consumers this was not the case.

As a consumer it is my expectation that if I buy a MP3 I can play that MP3 on any MP3 player. According to the consumers this is not the case.


How many of you would be furious and posting if you bought a Honda and after the fact found out you could only use Honda manufactured gas? All of you

How many of you would be furious and posting if you bought a Chevron Gas and after the fact found out you could only use that gas in a Chevron manufactured car? All of you.

I have no clue who will win the case, but I understand why a suit was brought forward.

You do know you could just return it then right....
 
How are these dirty tricks?

As far as I am concerned. For Apple to release a player that only plays certain formats is fine, if it is known in advance that this is the case. But if they take steps to actively prevent other music files from playing on it that’s different . That IS Apple all over.

I often question that fact that they can say things like, ‘Must not duplicate functionality’, in the App Store and get away with it. That’s stifling competition and is a monopoly. This sets an arbitrary qualification process that only Apple can administer.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't Sony and Microsoft do the same thing then with their games for the Playstation 4 and X Box? They require proprietary files for generic games (the games end up being ported to several systems, music files get converted to multiple file types with multiple DRMs) that are only able to run on their systems.

No actually they don't. They market PS4 as a PS4 game player. If they marketed it as any type of video game player then you would have a point.
 
Doesn't Sony and Microsoft do the same thing then with their games for the Playstation 4 and X Box? They require proprietary files for generic games (the games end up being ported to several systems, music files get converted to multiple file types with multiple DRMs) that are only able to run on their systems.

Not exactly. You can buy Xbox/PS4 games at any store you want. You are not forced to use a single source provider. The problem is that iTunes was forced EVEN after workarounds were found to get music from other sources.
It's like MS forcing you to buy games at Gamestop after you buy an Xbox.
 
You aren't reading what the complaint is if you don't understand why this is a lawsuit.

Apple sold two things:

1) A MP3 Player (iPod)
2) MP3 songs

As a consumer it is my expectation that if I buy #1 (a MP3 player) that I can play any MP3 that i own. According to the consumers this was not the case.

As a consumer it is my expectation that if I buy a MP3 I can play that MP3 on any MP3 player. According to the consumers this is not the case.


How many of you would be furious and posting if you bought a Honda and after the fact found out you could only use Honda manufactured gas? All of you

How many of you would be furious and posting if you bought a Chevron Gas and after the fact found out you could only use that gas in a Chevron manufactured car? All of you.

I have no clue who will win the case, but I understand why a suit was brought forward.

How is that different than Amazon selling books for the kindle? Sony selling games for the Playstation? Google selling apps for android phones? Microsoft selling programs for windows?
 
You do know you could just return it then right....

That is not what the lawsuit is about. If it were then you would have a point. Even if you could return the car or the gas it is irrelevant. Consumer based law has nothing to do with whether or not you can return it.
 
Wow. This suit was filed in January, 2005. And it's just hitting the courts now?

The wheels of justice turn slowly indeed.
 
Doesn't Sony and Microsoft do the same thing then with their games for the Playstation 4 and X Box? They require proprietary files for generic games (the games end up being ported to several systems, music files get converted to multiple file types with multiple DRMs) that are only able to run on their systems.

Yes. And it is crazy that the market (consumers) lets them continue to get away with that.
 
You aren't reading what the complaint is if you don't understand why this is a lawsuit.

Apple sold two things:

1) A MP3 Player (iPod)
2) MP3 songs

As a consumer it is my expectation that if I buy #1 (a MP3 player) that I can play any MP3 that i own. According to the consumers this was not the case.

As a consumer it is my expectation that if I buy a MP3 I can play that MP3 on any MP3 player. According to the consumers this is not the case.


How many of you would be furious and posting if you bought a Honda and after the fact found out you could only use Honda manufactured gas? All of you

How many of you would be furious and posting if you bought a Chevron Gas and after the fact found out you could only use that gas in a Chevron manufactured car? All of you.

I have no clue who will win the case, but I understand why a suit was brought forward.

I am quoting you to try and understand this case. I thought the same two points you brought up.

HOWEVER, I was under the impression that any MP3 could work, as it did with my brother and my old iPods. I think we had Version 2 and/or 3.
ALSO, the MP3s purchased via iTunes had DRM but there was an easy trick to get them into MP3 format to play anywhere. they had a Convert to MP3 and then there was the Make a CD, leave in the computer and then re-rip them...yes, not the best quality but neither was the mp3 you purchased from iTunes way back when.


I guess it depends on the lawyers though to see how this turns out.
 
How is that different than Amazon selling books for the kindle? Sony selling games for the Playstation? Google selling apps for android phones? Microsoft selling programs for windows?

Do they market Kindle books to be used on any book reader or do they market them as Kindle books? Does Sony sell games that they claim will work in any video game system? Does Microsoft sell programs they claim will work for OS X, Linux, etc?



----------

I am quoting you to try and understand this case. I thought the same two points you brought up.

HOWEVER, I was under the impression that any MP3 could work, as it did with my brother and my old iPods. I think we had Version 2 and/or 3.
ALSO, the MP3s purchased via iTunes had DRM but there was an easy trick to get them into MP3 format to play anywhere. they had a Convert to MP3 and then there was the Make a CD, leave in the computer and then re-rip them...yes, not the best quality but neither was the mp3 you purchased from iTunes way back when.


I guess it depends on the lawyers though to see how this turns out.

I would be lying if I said I knew all of the technology and many here would be better to answer your question, but this is the reason that there is a lawsuit. Are there workaround? Probably. I can only speak as to what the complaint is about. The courts will decide who was in the wrong.
 
Do they market Kindle books to be used on any book reader or do they market them as Kindle books?

11-7-07-ipod_itunes.jpg


They marketed iTunes as an iPod companion all the time.
 
How is this so different from Sony with minidiscs? Sony took an already viable music container (magnetic media) and put it in a format that only worked with Sony devices or those licensed to use it. Some people, including myself, would not buy an iPod or use iTunes because it was too proprietary - those other MP3 manufacturers thrived off of that weakness, now they want to turn around and sue over its strengths.

Same thing can be said about hddvd and bluray war. I don't see any Bluray players that can play old hddvd. Yes, I bought a hddvd player and could not play my media on a bluray player. Maybe I should start a class action lawsuit. #
 
"...exclusively promoting its products and services."

So, Apple is faulted because they don't promote other companies products? That seems like a given.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.