Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Steve Jobs' Testimony Expected to Play Major Role in iPod Antitrust Lawsuit

odditie said:
Image

They marketed iTunes as an iPod companion all the time.
Click to expand...

Again you are missing the point. We all know iTunes songs are marketed as a companion to the iPod. Were they also marketed as a plain old MP3 at any point. If so then the consumer has an expectation that any MP3 player will work.

Microsoft markets box games as a Xbox companion all the time. Do they also market it as a plain old game that will work with any system? No they do not.
 
My friend wouldn't buy an iPod because it was restricted to iTunes. Apples closed wall garden is why he won't buy anything apple. Even though it's not as bad now and I actually think most restrictions are to make sure what is on our device is quality... To an extent
 
This is stupid. Apple is allowed to design its products and services however it wants. If consumers didn't like how the music could only be played on an iPod, they shouldn't use the service or purchase an iPod.
Had Apple allowed operability between devices, iPod would not have been as successful.
 
queshy said:
This is stupid. Apple is allowed to design its products and services however it wants. If consumers didn't like how the music could only be played on an iPod, they shouldn't use the service or purchase an iPod.
Had Apple allowed operability between devices, iPod would not have been as successful.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely allowed to design its products and services how it wants. It is not allowed to market those products however it wants. Again you need to understand consumer law. Apple could not market it as a cure for cancer without repercussions. The argument will be that the iPod was not a MP3 player. It was an apple music player.
 
mikef07 said:
Again you are missing the point. We all know iTunes songs are marketed as a companion to the iPod. Were they also marketed as a plain old MP3 at any point. If so then the consumer has an expectation that any MP3 player will work.

Microsoft markets box games as a Xbox companion all the time. Do they also market it as a plain old game that will work with any system? No they do not.
Click to expand...

So because you are wondering something, I've missed the point? I understand that if they sold DRM songs as free to use MP3s it would be unreasonable. I think you need to research rather than tell me what I do or don't know.
 
mikef07 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed--but were they standard MP3 files or a DRM-wrapped non-standard variation? If the latter, I'd tend to blame the seller of the non-standard files, who shouldn't have simply called them "MP3s." I don't blame the device maker that can't play them. (But if the seller made clear that the files were something other than normal MP3, then buyer beware.)

Apple, for instance, used the term FairPlay as I recall, and they were AAC files. So at least you could know you needed a player that could play FairPlay AAC files. (An iPod is the only one you'd find.)

So did Apple fail to assist competitors' DRM schemes? Or did Apple write special programming to block truly standard MP3 files?
 
mikef07 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Then those consumers would be wrong. You can play MP3s and AACs from any source. That is what they sold. They never said they could play RealMedia, or Windows Media, or any other proprietary media.

Actively blocking hacks from Real? Well, I don't know why they did that. I think they could have just said that voids the warranty and be done with it. Still, that is not what they sold.

H2SO4 said:
As far as I am concerned. For Apple to release a player that only plays certain formats is fine. But if they take steps to actively prevent other music files from playing on it that’s different . That IS Apple all over.
Click to expand...
Again, I don't know why Apple made such a fuss over it, but the fact is, THEY DID NOT SELL A "WE PLAY ANYTHING" device. It was clearly stated what it could play.


mikef07 said:
We all know iTunes songs are marketed as a companion to the iPod. Were they also marketed as a plain old MP3 at any point.
Click to expand...
No, they were not. They ALWAYS marketed iTunes music as somehow "special".


What gets my goat more than anything is that this case was deemed to have merit, but the Comcast/Warner merger is being allowed to happen. I mean really, WTF.
 
Last edited:
mercuryjones said:
Apple licensed the iPod. One of my old iPods was branded HP.
Click to expand...

Remember U2 edition iPods? Similar thing. It's not that HP or U2 were licensing iPod to Apple, Apple just made a deal with those entities and in turn they (HP, U2) got their names on the iPod.
 
odditie said:
So because you are wondering something, I've missed the point? I understand that if they sold DRM songs as free to use MP3s it would be unreasonable. I think you need to research rather than tell me what I do or don't know.
Click to expand...

I am not wondering anything so I have no clue what you are talking about. However you misspoke before.
 
mikef07 said:
I am not wondering anything so I have no clue what you are talking about. However you misspoke before.
Click to expand...

I am happy with my statements and stand by them. You said if apple marketed iTunes files as music they are free to use, then this lawsuit has a point. I don't have anything to do with your question and I think you need to ponder that rather than try to correct me.
 
Rantipole said:
Again, I don't know why Apple made such a fuss over it, but the fact is, THEY DID NOT SELL A "WE PLAY ANYTHING" device. It was clearly stated what it could play.
Click to expand...

Except that I don’t think that it was. My memory is a little hazy as it was a while ago but I certainly don’t remembver every iPod ad, (or parts of the Keynote stage time), even suggesting this.
 
nagromme said:
Agreed--but were they standard MP3 files or a DRM-wrapped non-standard variation? If the latter, I'd tend to blame the seller of the non-standard files, who shouldn't have simply called them "MP3s." I don't blame the device maker that can't play them. (But if the seller made clear that the files were something other than normal MP3, then buyer beware.)

Apple, for instance, used the term FairPlay as I recall, and they were AAC files. So at least you could know you needed a player that could play FairPlay AAC files. (An iPod is the only one you'd find.)

So did Apple fail to assist competitors' DRM schemes? Or did Apple write special programming to block truly standard MP3 files?
Click to expand...


All great questions and obviously many of these and more will be addressed or argued in the suit. I am not siding with one or the other because I think that many people have valid arguments for Apple. I was merely speaking as to why a suit occurred.
 
nagromme said:
Agreed--but were they standard MP3 files or a DRM-wrapped non-standard variation? If the latter, I'd tend to blame the seller of the non-standard files, who shouldn't have simply called them "MP3s." I don't blame the device maker that can't play them. (But if the seller made clear that the files were something other than normal MP3, then buyer beware.)

Apple, for instance, used the term FairPlay as I recall, and they were AAC files. So at least you could know you needed a player that could play FairPlay AAC files. (An iPod is the only one you'd find.)

So did Apple fail to assist competitors' DRM schemes? Or did Apple write special programming to block truly standard MP3 files?
Click to expand...

I had a 3rd gen iPod and it played all standard non-drm MP3 files. I do remember it saying either on iTunes or the iPod it didn't support drm protected MP3 files. Back then everyone was just downloading win media files or reg MP3s on pirate sites and all of those had the drm stripped from their files. I guess this stems from people confusing non-drm and drm MP3 files.
 
octothorpe8 said:
I totally agree. But it's funny how we all scream bloody murder when Microsoft does the same thing.
Click to expand...

Microsoft got hammered about the Internet Explorer thing but nothing stopped me from downloading an alternate browser. This fact will be forgotten very quickly indeed.
 
odditie said:
I am happy with my statements and stand by them. You said if apple marketed iTunes files as music they are free to use, then this lawsuit has a point. I don't have anything to do with your question and I think you need to ponder that rather than try to correct me.
Click to expand...


"Image

They marketed iTunes as an iPod companion all the time."

No you said this. While true you missed half the equation.

If I said buy my snake oil and marketed it as "snake oil - tastes like snake and cures cancer" and then later said see I marketed it as "Snake oil- tastes like snake" you would absolutely have a valid reason to sue me. Whether or not you win (or consumers win) is to be seen. I am not arguing Apple was wrong, only pointing out why there was a suit.
 
itr81 said:
I guess this stems from people confusing non-drm and drm MP3 files.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. If that's the case, sue the seller of the non-standard DRM files for pretending they were normal MP3s!

(Or if that WAS stated clearly by the seller, I don't see a clear reason* to sue anyone.)

Maybe details of something more serious will emerge.

* Lawyer fees?
 
mikef07 said:
It is absolutely allowed to design its products and services how it wants. It is not allowed to market those products however it wants. Again you need to understand consumer law. Apple could not market it as a cure for cancer without repercussions. The argument will be that the iPod was not a MP3 player. It was an apple music player.
Click to expand...
This is antitrust, not whether ads were misleading. None of your marketing conversation matters to the suit.
 
KdParker said:
This is more like having a gas nozzel that will only fit you Civic, so you can only get gas from flying J stations and no where else.

I think that would be unfair to the consumers whether you owned a Civic or not.
Click to expand...

It would be unfair to consumers if Honda hid this fact. If not, no one would buy the Civic. It would be a major competitive disadvantage.
 
I want to sue the razor blade companies. I bought a Gillette and now can't fit the other makes of blades to it. Damn them for making it proprietory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back