Apple online store opens in Mexico; AT&T mulls Android; more...

[AppleInsider]

Apple has followed up the launch of an online store in Portugal with one in Mexico. Meanwhile, AT&T is mulling a move to join Google's Android effort. And watch as Apple's public relations crew nearly pulls the plug on a television interview that begins to stray off course.

Apple opens online shop in Mexico

Hot on the heels of a similar move in Portugal, Apple on Monday took its business in Mexico digital with the launch of a localized online store -- dubbed simply the Apple Store Mexico.

"Hello, Mexico," the company wrote on its Mexican homepage. "The Apple Online Store is officially open."

The store, which offers free shipping on any order, arrives just days after Apple stepped up its efforts in Portugal by launching its first-ever Apple Portugal website and online store.

AT&T mulls Google alliance

Meanwhile, AT&T Wireless has talked with Google about joining its mobile-phone software alliance and participating in its Android platform. The phone company is "analyzing the situation" and may use Google's software for phones, Ralph de la Vega, chief executive officer of the wireless unit, said in an interview today.

Apple damage control agents move in

A new video offers a rare glimpse at Apple's public relations department reacting to a code red.

Shot by Britain's Channel 4 News during the UK iPhone launch earlier this month, the clip shows Apple media relations folks putting the brakes on an interview after journalist Benjamin Cohen repeatedly bombards Apple marketing boss Phil Schiller with questions about an iTunes monopoly.



A class-action lawsuit filed in August has charged Apple with illegally tying iPods to its iTunes Store in order to forge a monopoly over the digital media market so it can inflate prices, exclude competition, and force consumers to continue to buy into its closed ecosystem.

Leopard Achieves UNIX 03 Certification*

The Open Group, a consortium which focuses on open standards and global interoperability, has announced that Mac OS X Leopard and Mac OS X Server Leopard have been awarded a certificate of conformance to the UNIX 03 standard.* UNIX 03 is the certification mark for systems conforming to the latest UNIX product standard developed by The Open Group Platform Forum for the Single UNIX Specification version 3.

The certification is significant as it further broadens the installed base of UNIX systems in the marketplace to include a popular desktop platform, the group said. In addition, Apple’s UNIX 03 certification*is a milestone for the UNIX certification program since Mac OS X is the first operating system derived from the open source BSD base of historical UNIX products*to meet the certification requirements.*

"For over ten years, the Single UNIX Specification has consistently provided both scalability and stability to end users – one hallmark of a tried and true technology standard," said Allen Brown, president and CEO for The Open Group. "Operating platforms conforming to the UNIX 03 standard assures enterprises with industrial strength products, as well as an opportunity to avoid limited choice in vendor partnership. In achieving UNIX 03 certification, Apple has shown true commitment to its customers in providing open solutions that are warranted and fully supported.”

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[digitalclips]

I don't agree about the Phil event

[alienzed]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

I don't agree about the Phil event

Could you be any less specific? Perhaps sum that statement up with something shorter.

[christ]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple damage control agents move in

A new video offers a rare glimpse at Apple's public relations department reacting to a code red.

Shot by Britain's Channel 4 News during the UK iPhone launch earlier this month, the clip shows Apple media relations folks putting the brakes on an interview after journalist Benjamin Cohen repeatedly bombards Apple marketing boss Phil Schiller with questions about an iTunes monopoly.

Benjamin Cohen has anti-Apple form:

Trademark dispute over itunes.co.uk

In November 2000, Benjamin Cohen of CyberBritain registered the domain name itunes.co.uk. The domain was initially pointed to skipmusic.com, then to cyberbritain.com and then inoperative for some time. Apple applied for a UK trademark for iTunes on October 23, 2000 and this was granted on March 23, 2001. Apple launched its popular iTunes music store service in the UK in 2004. Once they had done this, Cohen reactivated the domain name, which was then for a while redirected to iTunes' then-biggest rival, Napster. The domain name then forwarded to CyberBritain's cash back/rewards website.
In 2005, Apple took the matter to the Dispute Resolution Service operated by .uk domain name registry Nominet UK, stating that they had rights in the name "iTunes" and that the use of the domain name by Cohen's company was abusive (these being the two tests under the Dispute Resolution Service). The dispute was not resolved at the free mediation stage and Apple paid for an independent expert to decide the case, who decided in Apple's favor in the dispute. The full text of the decision, including the full history of the use of the domain, is available. Cohen immediately launched a media offensive stating that the DRS was biased towards large businesses and made frequent threats of lawsuits against Nominet.
This version of events gained wide press coverage, and although Nominet responded by publicizing the facts of the case, their version of events did not capture public imagination to the same extent. However, Cohen then stated that the DRS was unfair for a number of reasons and stated that he would take Nominet to the High Court via judicial review. Nominet said that he should appeal the case via the appeal process in the DRS. Cohen refused to do this, and after several months did issue proceedings. The judge at first instance rejected his case noting that Cohen's company, Cyberbritain Group Ltd, should have used the appeal process which forms part of Nominet's domain resolution service, and Cohen's company asked for a rehearing. As that case progressed, the interim domain name was transferred to Apple in accordance with the expert's decision and it now points to the music site. The High Court proceedings are not an appeal of the Nominet DRS Decision.
In December 2005, Cohen dropped all legal action against Apple.

[Matthew Yohe]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"Hello, Mexico," the company wrote on its Mexican homepage. "The Apple Store Online is officially open."

JFC. Let's try: "The Apple Online Store is officially open."

Google translate can only get you so far.

[aplnub]

Originally Posted by christ

Benjamin Cohen has anti-Apple form:

Trademark dispute over itunes.co.uk

In November 2000, Benjamin Cohen of CyberBritain registered the domain name itunes.co.uk. The domain was initially pointed to skipmusic.com, then to cyberbritain.com and then inoperative for some time. Apple applied for a UK trademark for iTunes on October 23, 2000 and this was granted on March 23, 2001. Apple launched its popular iTunes music store service in the UK in 2004. Once they had done this, Cohen reactivated the domain name, which was then for a while redirected to iTunes' then-biggest rival, Napster. The domain name then forwarded to CyberBritain's cash back/rewards website.
In 2005, Apple took the matter to the Dispute Resolution Service operated by .uk domain name registry Nominet UK, stating that they had rights in the name "iTunes" and that the use of the domain name by Cohen's company was abusive (these being the two tests under the Dispute Resolution Service). The dispute was not resolved at the free mediation stage and Apple paid for an independent expert to decide the case, who decided in Apple's favor in the dispute. The full text of the decision, including the full history of the use of the domain, is available. Cohen immediately launched a media offensive stating that the DRS was biased towards large businesses and made frequent threats of lawsuits against Nominet.
This version of events gained wide press coverage, and although Nominet responded by publicizing the facts of the case, their version of events did not capture public imagination to the same extent. However, Cohen then stated that the DRS was unfair for a number of reasons and stated that he would take Nominet to the High Court via judicial review. Nominet said that he should appeal the case via the appeal process in the DRS. Cohen refused to do this, and after several months did issue proceedings. The judge at first instance rejected his case noting that Cohen's company, Cyberbritain Group Ltd, should have used the appeal process which forms part of Nominet's domain resolution service, and Cohen's company asked for a rehearing. As that case progressed, the interim domain name was transferred to Apple in accordance with the expert's decision and it now points to the music site. The High Court proceedings are not an appeal of the Nominet DRS Decision.
In December 2005, Cohen dropped all legal action against Apple.

Don't like it, don't buy it.

[CREB]

Android poses a very serious threat to the iPhone. Google was very smart in opening its software to others even before the launch of the gPhone. I held off purchasing an iPhone as I have ceased being an early adopter of Apple hardware and software so I may well get the gPhone over the iPhone. Had Apple opened the iPhone to third-party developers much earlier than they have planned then Apple would have received my business; bad business moves on Apple's part with no amount of damage control able to resurrect the iPhone where it should be at this point.

[heaven or las vegas]

Bravo to Phil for recognizing the interviewer was off course, stepping back and letting his handlers take over. Boo to the journalist who can't stay on point.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by CREB

...I held off purchasing an iPhone as I have ceased being an early adopter of Apple hardware and software....

So you'll be an early adopter for the gphone?

On a side note, I thought the gphone was a hoax? Didn't Google come out and say they were developing a platform not a device?

[Wally]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

...A new video offers a rare glimpse at Apple's public relations department reacting to a code red....

I guess an olive pull-over blocking Phill Schiller constitutes this "rare glimpse"...

Could you BE anymore sensationalist?

[skottichan]

Originally Posted by CREB

Android poses a very serious threat to the iPhone. Google was very smart in opening its software to others even before the launch of the gPhone. I held off purchasing an iPhone as I have ceased being an early adopter of Apple hardware and software so I may well get the gPhone over the iPhone. Had Apple opened the iPhone to third-party developers much earlier than they have planned then Apple would have received my business; bad business moves on Apple's part with no amount of damage control able to resurrect the iPhone where it should be at this point.

Actually, sir/madam, there will be no such animal as the gPhone. Google is creating a platform that will be installed on 3rd party phones (ie. standard handsets). The iPhone is still more in the smartphone category. With that said, if you're still butt hurt that Apple put off 3rd party software until the major bugs were worked out (and making sure enough sold to even warrant support), then don't buy it. It's really that simple, you don't need to do the flailing attention seeking on a rumors site, just express your dissatisfaction with your wallet.

Originally Posted by Wally

So you'll be an early adopter for the gphone?

On a side note, I thought the gphone was a hoax? Didn't Google come out and say they were developing a platform not a device?

Exactly.

[bdkennedy1]

Oh bull. It was simple question that turned into a circus when all Phil had to do was answer yes, no or no comment. Instead Apple pays $50k or more a year to a bunch of latte sipping tight-asses to wipe his back-side for him.

Maybe "Think Different" should be "Think For Yourself".

Originally Posted by heaven or las vegas

Bravo to Phil for recognizing the interviewer was off course, stepping back and letting his handlers take over. Boo to the journalist who can't stay on point.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by alienzed

Could you be any less specific? Perhaps sum that statement up with something shorter.

LOL ,,, sorry I had to rush out and never finished ... I was going to say the news guy was just trying get a dramatic story ('Apple is a Monopoly OMG!!!') when he and others were there for a specific opening on a specific product. I thought the Apple staff were very courteous. Sadly it all back-fired else we would not even know about it and I am sure SJ would have handled it far better.

[Guartho]

I would've liked to see Steve or Phil just come unglued and say "For the 10,000th time, it's not a fucking Monopoly because it's not fucking locked! You can put music from other sources on the iPod and you can convert music from the iTunes store for other devices. It's all right there in the software that we provide for free! Are you fucking retarded?"

[aplnub]

Agreed.

[bdkennedy1]

LOL right on!

Originally Posted by Guartho

I would've liked to see Steve or Phil just come unglued and say "For the 10,000th time, it's not a fucking Monopoly because it's not fucking locked! You can put music from other sources on the iPod and you can convert music from the iTunes store for other devices. It's all right there in the software that we provide for free! Are you fucking retarded?"

[trevorlsciact]

Originally Posted by Guartho

I would've liked to see Steve or Phil just come unglued and say "For the 10,000th time, it's not a fucking Monopoly because it's not fucking locked! You can put music from other sources on the iPod and you can convert music from the iTunes store for other devices. It's all right there in the software that we provide for free! Are you fucking retarded?"

I wish all public figures did that! I hate the formalities they hide behind >:-(

[CREB]

Originally Posted by skottichan

Actually, sir/madam, there will be no such animal as the gPhone. Google is creating a platform that will be installed on 3rd party phones (ie. standard handsets). The iPhone is still more in the smartphone category. With that said, if you're still butt hurt that Apple put off 3rd party software until the major bugs were worked out (and making sure enough sold to even warrant support), then don't buy it. It's really that simple, you don't need to do the flailing attention seeking on a rumors site, just express your dissatisfaction with your wallet.

I believe you will be in for a big surprise...

[Delfoniq]

Originally Posted by Guartho

I would've liked to see Steve or Phil just come unglued and say "For the 10,000th time, it's not a fucking Monopoly because it's not fucking locked! You can put music from other sources on the iPod and you can convert music from the iTunes store for other devices. It's all right there in the software that we provide for free! Are you fucking retarded?"

Or even better Phil could just have said "Thanks for pointing out the obvious...Indeed the iPod owns nearly all of the market leaving no room for its competitors...We are very excited about that. We're also pretty confident that this could soon be the case with the iPhone."

That would have brought the focus back on the iPhone launch. SJ would have handled it much better, I think. IMHO, the video is just another unworthy effort to bring negative attention to big US corporations that are largely disliked in the UK and the rest of Europe. The reason behind it, simple, nobody likes monopolies .

[aaarrrgggh]

It will be interesting to see if Android ends up creating a better broad customer appeal than the iPhone. My gut says that the platform will have the same challenges that Nokia has had with the internet tablet series, and Linux in a broader case. While this will create a low barrier for entry for third party applications, will too many of the applications be like most of the current 3rd party iPhone apps-- with more of a hobbyist developer?

Likewise, from a hardware perspective, will Android be a selling point for phones-- at least as "Not Windows Mobile?" Most people seem generally comfortable with the hardware options available today, but the total experience is where there is failure.

Apple hasn't lost yet, but they had better come out with a rock-solid SDK and extremely flexible signing procedures in February. A tablet that supports the same SDK might do a lot to help.

[CREB]

Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh

Apple hasn't lost yet, but they had better come out with a rock-solid SDK and extremely flexible signing procedures in February. A tablet that supports the same SDK might do a lot to help.

This is a wake-up call, if not a challenge for Apple. There are many business people waiting to see how this plays out to determine which way they will go in the future.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

Oh bull. It was simple question that turned into a circus when all Phil had to do was answer yes, no or no comment. Instead Apple pays $50k or more a year to a bunch of latte sipping tight-asses to wipe his back-side for him.

Maybe "Think Different" should be "Think For Yourself".

Meh. The reporter went into the interview with an agenda. Apple tries to control media events and interviews as much as possible, naturally. Rest assured, this interviewer and whomever he represents will never get access to Apple again.

[SpamSandwich]

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think there's any downside to Android. After the at&t deal is done with, Apple can freely adopt the innovations that will surely develop with Android, and they will simply be 'improved' and customized for iPhone2 or iPhone3 in the future.

Anything to improve the cell phone UI is a step in the right direction.

[Elijahg]

Channel 4 News has often got into trouble for not telling facts, and twisting people's comments to make the argument sound the way they want. Seems this is another situation where Channel 4 is pressuring the interviewee for what they want to hear, not the truth.

[trevorlsciact]

Originally Posted by Delfoniq

The reason behind it, simple, nobody likes monopolies .

COMMUNIST!!!!


haha, nevermind, I just woke up----I'm like really wierd right now.

[CAM]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think there's any downside to Android. After the at&t deal is done with, Apple can freely adopt the innovations that will surely develop with Android, and they will simply be 'improved' and customized for iPhone2 or iPhone3 in the future.

Anything to improve the cell phone UI is a step in the right direction.

I agree. Apple will have full access to Android just like everyone else. You can rest assured that they will adopt any and all technologies to make sure they are at least as good as Android and then improve upon them.

The important thing is that Apple will still have the significant advantage of being in control of both the hardware and the software, unlike most other hardware vendors that will be adopting Google's software.

It's Apple's ability to to create a seamless integration of software and hardware in general that creates the unique Apple appeal.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think there's any downside to Android. After the at&t deal is done with, Apple can freely adopt the innovations that will surely develop with Android, and they will simply be 'improved' and customized for iPhone2 or iPhone3 in the future.

Anything to improve the cell phone UI is a step in the right direction.

Agreed. These devices can easily coexist and build off each other.

[ajmas]

As to the issue of the close relationship between the iPod and iTunes, then there is some truth in it. If Apple allowed for a drag/drop mode via the Finder or a syncing API then it might alleviate some of the worries.

If you are on Linux then there are certainly alternatives to the iTunes for transferring to the iPod. On the Mac alternatives are almost non-existent.

As for online music services: if you buy iTunes Plus tunes there is no lock-in and as for other services you just better hope that you have MS-Windows available, since most of them seem to only work on Windows and have more lock-in with the more limited WMA format.

[irnchriz]

I think Android will be good for the market. It will bring a similar experience to other handsets (hopefully more stable and user friendly than WM devices) and hopefully reduce the cost of devices. If it is actually any good then the pressure will be on Apple to reduce their prices and increase availability of the iPhone to other markets. Plus they could also highlight the fact that the iPhone does all of that plus it has multi touch and a smoother interface etc etc.

As to that reporter..

Phil should have grabbed that prick by the throat and said "your that asshole that had itunes.co.uk" and then had him taken round the back of the store, given concrete wellies and sent for a swim in the Thames.

[potterhead4]

Originally Posted by ajmas

If you are on Linux then there are certainly alternatives to the iTunes for transferring to the iPod. On the Mac alternatives are almost non-existent.

What are you talking about? There are several programs for both Mac and Windows that offer alternatives for putting music onto and getting music off of the iPod, a feature iTunes doesn't even support. I have several of them on my computer - Senuti, iPodDisk, iPodRip. You are not locked into iTunes for anything, on any platform.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Guartho

I would've liked to see Steve or Phil just come unglued and say "For the 10,000th time, it's not a fucking Monopoly because it's not fucking locked! You can put music from other sources on the iPod and you can convert music from the iTunes store for other devices. It's all right there in the software that we provide for free! Are you fucking retarded?"

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO CONVERT.
IF CDs ONLY PLAYED ON SONY CD MACHINES IN EIGHTIES I GUESS YOU'D BE HAPPY MAKING A LOT OF CASSETTE TAPES.

[aplnub]

Originally Posted by teckstud

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO CONVERT.
IF CDs ONLY PLAYED ON SONY CD MACHINES IN EIGHTIES I GUESS YOU'D BE HAPPY MAKING A LOT OF CASSETTE TAPES.

You shouldn't type in all caps either.

Last time I checked, a set of Ford heads don't bolt on a Chevrolet motor. You can't convert heads, so the car industry cows are being even more monopolistic!!

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

Oh bull. It was simple question that turned into a circus when all Phil had to do was answer yes, no or no comment.

That's an interesting spin. It looked like he DID answer the question, or at least gave whatever answer he was willing to give. The circus came from the interviewer not being satisfied with what he had to say and repeating the question and refusing to move on.

If an interviewer gets fixated on something and won't continue the interview, sometimes it's necessary to end it like happened here.

And you don't have to do "convert" to get content on the ipod, just buy a CD and rip it. Or buy an mp3 from Amazon or any other source. It's not remotely a monopoly, this guy was just fishing for a story that isn't there.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

.

And you don't have to do "convert" to get content on the ipod, just buy a CD and rip it. Or buy an mp3 from Amazon or any other source. It's not remotely a monopoly, this guy was just fishing for a story that isn't there.

Wrong understanding of what is being adressed by the meaning of "convert".
Any music purchased on iTunes has to be converted to be played on any other machine besides an Apple one. The music purchased is only playable on an Apple machine. You are locked into keep buying Apple machines if you want to play them as you bought them- monopoly.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Wrong understanding of what is being adressed by the meaning of "convert".
Any music purchased on iTunes has to be converted to be played on any other machine besides an Apple one. The music purchased is only playable on an Apple machine. You are locked into keep buying Apple machines if you want to play them as you bought them- monopoly.

Not true; most iTunes Store customers use PCs.

Also, when you buy a CD and wish to put on your computer or music player you usually convert it to reduce its size. Even though a CD can be easily copied to another format doesn't make iTunes Store a monopoly. I believe Apple is only 3rd in music distribution. Do you not find it monopolistic that big retails sell music below the retail price in order to get people in their stores, thereby killing off local competition? All Apple has done is make fair compromises to combat both these large brick-and-mortar retailers and illegal downloads. You think that finding a working model that Apple has suddenly become a monopoly despite not being the largest or only music distributer around?

According to the RIAA copying music from a CD to another media and altering the format of music from a CD are both illegal. After a great deal of fighting in favour of the consumer, Apple is the only one to have have found a middle ground with the RIAA which allows tracks purchased from iTunes to be burned to a CD which is both a different media and format. I bet you think iTunes Store should have used MP3 instead of AAC, too.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Not true; most iTunes Store customers use PCs.

. I bet you think iTunes Store should have used MP3 instead of AAC, too.

I meant it has to be put on a machine that has iTunes on it. And as for portables that means only Apple devices.

I bet if CD's could only be played on Sony CD machines , then you would be content to convert it and make cassettes of all your music to play other devices back in the eighties through mid-nineties.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by teckstud

I meant it has to be put on a machine that has iTunes on it. And as for portables that means only Apple devices.

I bet if CD's could only be played on Sony CD machines , then you would be content to convert it and make cassettes of all your music to play other devices back in the eighties through mid-nineties.

You said 'machines,' not software. Are you talking about tying a product to a device/program or are talking about a monopoly? If such a law is passed--which it won't-- then everyone who ties music to a player will be in the wrong. This means no subscription music services or Zune marketplace using Protected-WMA. Just because Apple has the most well known, online music store doesn't automatically deem them as evil.

I have no comment of copying music from CDs to tapes because the logic escapes me and the topic is irrelevant. But I can say that RIAA tried to make tape copying illegal and Sony has tried several times to make a new digital music format. All have failed yet iTunes is thriving. Why do you think that is?

[CREB]

The disturbing aspect of the Schiller video is that Schiller needs handlers to defuse the situation. A situation where Schiller is obviously disturbed. One would think that Schiller would be better able to handle himself given his position in Apple? You cannot hide behind lawyers and handlers all your life.

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Wrong understanding of what is being adressed by the meaning of "convert".
Any music purchased on iTunes has to be converted to be played on any other machine besides an Apple one. The music purchased is only playable on an Apple machine. You are locked into keep buying Apple machines if you want to play them as you bought them- monopoly.

Absolutely not true, you can play them on a PC or burn them to a CD. It seems like you have no clue what a monopoly really is.

Having to burn to CD to play on a CD player doesn't make a "monopoly". Nor does selling music that doesn't play on other mp3 players. By that logic, sony would have a monopoly on playstation games. Selling two different items that are compatible isn't a monopoly, and it's not remotely illegal.

The comparison to dubbing to cassettes is almost as idiotic as the previous USE OF ALL CAPS. If you don't want to use the iTunes store, use any other mp3 player or any other option to buy music - since there are tons of those options (regardless of whether they have a small market share) how could there possibly be a monopoly?

IF XBOX GAMES ONLY PLAYED ON MICROSOFTS XBOX...oh wait, they do...

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

Absolutely not true, you can play them on a PC or burn them to a CD. It seems like you have no clue what a monopoly really is.

Having to burn to CD to play on a CD player doesn't make a "monopoly". Nor does selling music that doesn't play on other mp3 players. By that logic, sony would have a monopoly on playstation games. Selling two different items that are compatible isn't a monopoly, and it's not remotely illegal.

The comparison to dubbing to cassettes is almost as idiotic as the previous USE OF ALL CAPS. If you don't want to use the iTunes store, use any other mp3 player or any other option to buy music - since there are tons of those options (regardless of whether they have a small market share) how could there possibly be a monopoly?

IF XBOX GAMES ONLY PLAYED ON MICROSOFTS XBOX...oh wait, they do...

music is music, IDIOT- GAMES ARE NOT.
YOU PROBABLY THINK MONOPOLY IS A BOARD GAME!
FYI:
A monopoly (from Greek mono(μονό), alone or single + polο (πωλώ), to sell) is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market= APPLE:MUSIC:ITUNES:IPOD