iTunes 8.2.1 now available for download - Page 4

Originally Posted by melgross

Why SHOULD Apple be working on a platform for sync, that I suppose you mean would work with competitors devices?

That's not something they should be working on. It's something they might think about working on, but I don't see why. Apple is a hardware company as we continually state, and iTunes is a service for their hardware customers. Now that their music is DRM-free, they have done their bit. We can hope that other industries will eventually allow DRM-free content, but I won't hold my breath.

Other than that, Apple doesn't have to do anything.

Apple isn't trying to crush competition. What have they done to other player manufacturers that was an attempt to crush them other than to make better software and hardware?

Is it Apple's fault that they had the foresight to approach the music industry they way they did and convince them to sell music at decent prices?

Others could have done that first. Surely Sony, with a big music company and Walkmen could have done it by themselves.

MS did some nasty things that resulted in their monopolies. Apple hasn't.

Apple just expands its ecosystem by coming out with better products and services, which is fine and perfectly legal. MS expanded theirs by doing illegal things to others, and preventing others from doing what they should have been allowed to do, often with under the table threats. This has been established in TWO ant-trust cases against them here in the US.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

This means it doesn't carelessly dump IBEC and IBSS files during your iPhone 3GS restore into /tmp/ or &TEMP* directories. I can already sense the coming pain.... "I followed your guide but it didn't work! I can't jailbreak anymore! WTF unlock doesn't work anymore!"

Its coming guys... Apple's really serious on jailbreaks now. Its a shame, really is.

Originally Posted by DocNo42

One other point
They are also a convicted monopolist.

Not apples to oranges at all.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to throw around unfounded accusations, please continue. Just don't get defensive when you are called on it.

Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns

Geohot has shown time and time again, create an iPhone and he will unlock it. He even posted how he exploited Apple's attempt to lock the iPhone. Humans make iPhones, a human will break the lock. Just that simple.

Originally Posted by crahen

All I know is that my iPhone works wonderfully and has a great signal at my beautiful home here in Rockford, MI (outside Grand Rapids). I get a great signal even when I walk down to my private river front in River Bluffs.....AND I even have great coverage while I'm kayaking here on the Rogue River. I'm just glad that www.whitneyvilleland.com has created such a great neighborhood in a wooded setting that provides the perfect balance of nature and technology that I need in my life.

Originally Posted by ouragan

Apple doesn't own or licence the unprotected music (and other programs) it sells, and guarantee that they will play within iTunes, either on its own Apple devices or on any Windows PC. To restrict the number of devices the iTunes content can play on is illegal, discriminatory against a singled-out manufacturer, anti-competitive, and a breach of antitrust provisions.

Success breads success, and pettiness, resentful, anti-competitive actions bread failure.

As Apple makes a profit out of the unprotected content it sells to the general public, it cannot restrict the devices it can be played on. iTunes is no longer restricted to the Mac OS platform, but extends to the Windows ecosystem.

What Apple tries to do is just like phone companies or internet providers trying to filter the content of phone conversations or web browsing. Once an unprotected music track is out the door, sold, Apple looses any control it had on it. It should be played on any device with iTunes or a competing software enabling the playback of iTunes unprotected music tracks.

Sorry, Apple, but you damage your reputation as you persist with these anti-competitive actions. And you will bring on yourself further investigation by the anti-trust authorities. Is that really what you want?

Originally Posted by yuusharo

What are you talking about?? "Apple has no monopoly."

They're the #1 distributor of all digital music sold in the US, they're the #1 distributor of ALL music sold in the US, and they have over 70% of the MP3 player marketshare for Q1 of 2009.

Apple *IS* a monopoly in those fields, and yet they are still held to a different standard than Microsoft.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

I'm not even sure how I got myself into this rat hole. I feel like a sandwich....

Originally Posted by crahen

All I know is that my iPhone works wonderfully and has a great signal at my beautiful home here in Rockford, MI (outside Grand Rapids). I get a great signal even when I walk down to my private river front in River Bluffs.....AND I even have great coverage while I'm kayaking here on the Rogue River. I'm just glad that www.whitneyvilleland.com has created such a great neighborhood in a wooded setting that provides the perfect balance of nature and technology that I need in my life.

Originally Posted by ouragan

First, thanks to Melgross for stating his arguments clearly and with logic. Also, thanks for his business experience. I don't have any issue with his opinion, but will express my own opinion which tends to go to the exact opposite.

First, why should the iTunes Store and iTunes software be an open platform for everyone who installs either the Windows or the Mac version of iTunes?

Because iTunes is a public internet store which sells unprotected music tracks (and other programs and software) to anyone with a credit card, provided that they install either the Windows or the Mac version of iTunes.

Apple doesn't own or licence the unprotected music (and other programs) it sells, and guarantee that they will play within iTunes, either on its own Apple devices or on any Windows PC. To restrict the number of devices the iTunes content can play on is illegal, discriminatory against a singled-out manufacturer, anti-competitive, and a breach of antitrust provisions.

Success breads success, and pettiness, resentful, anti-competitive actions bread failure.

As Apple makes a profit out of the unprotected content it sells to the general public, it cannot restrict the devices it can be played on. iTunes is no longer restricted to the Mac OS platform, but extends to the Windows ecosystem.

What Apple tries to do is just like phone companies or internet providers trying to filter the content of phone conversations or web browsing. Once an unprotected music track is out the door, sold, Apple looses any control it had on it. It should be played on any device with iTunes or a competing software enabling the playback of iTunes unprotected music tracks.

Sorry, Apple, but you damage your reputation as you persist with these anti-competitive actions. And you will bring on yourself further investigation by the anti-trust authorities. Is that really what you want?

Originally Posted by yuusharo

Dude, call me out on anything you'd like. I'm not sitting here claiming to be the know-everything guy. My point is my opinion, one that only someone who is incredibly naive would *NOT* believe. <---edited statement there, forgot the "not"

Microsoft was founded to have a monopoly over its desktop OS years ago. Since that time, its become modular and much more compliant in the eyes of the US government, and even the EU, who is exerting its power over Microsoft to this day (again, in my opinion) unfairly. But my point is they're image alone is enough to get people's blood boiling, even in areas where they are NOT considered a monopoly.

For instance, the zune. Say Palm released a new phone, and it just so happens that this phone syncs perfectly and flawlessly with the Microsoft Zune software. Do you truly, honestly expect me to see the same reaction to Microsoft's actions as you do with Apple's actions? Please, Microsoft would be punched into the ground and everyone would stick up for Palm. There's no way you'd get this much support for Microsoft's cause, even if the motivation and principles were 'in sync' with Apple's. <-- Pun intended.

I'm not even sure how I got myself into this rat hole. I feel like a sandwich....

Originally Posted by rgbfoundry

I smell an anti-trust lawsuit in the making. This is the beginning of the anti-competitive legal battles for Apple. Intentionally inhibiting a consumer's use of non-Apple products. Here comes the legal pain. They deserve the lawsuit.

Originally Posted by holywarrior007

This is a clear case of monopoly from the Apple, which is bad. What if tomorrow the MS doesn't allow the iTunes and Safari to run on the Windows. Will the Apple then cry foul?

Originally Posted by melgross

Why SHOULD Apple be working on a platform for sync, that I suppose you mean would work with competitors devices?

Originally Posted by ouragan

Apple doesn't own or licence the unprotected music (and other programs) it sells, and guarantee that they will play within iTunes, either on its own Apple devices or on any Windows PC. To restrict the number of devices the iTunes content can play on is illegal, discriminatory against a singled-out manufacturer, anti-competitive, and a breach of antitrust provisions.

Originally Posted by vinea

Benefits to Users

Users might have several computers, at home and at work, a PDA, an iPod and multiple cell phones. Users will want to automatically sync data on all their computers and devices—especially, contacts and calendars which are supported on most devices.

For example, users may want to sync their phone and iPod devices with Address Book and iCal (see Figure 1). If they have a .Mac account, they might want to sync their contacts, calendars, and bookmarks across multiple computers. But why stop there? They might want to sync their music, photos, some arbitrary folders, and Mail rules, too. Even large enterprises such as companies and universities might want to sync their custom objects across the network. Syncing is a service available to all applications, not just Apple applications.

The goal is for syncing to be ubiquitous, available to all as just another service on Mac OS X, so that users don’t have to think about syncing; all applications, devices, and computers should sync quickly and quietly in the background.

http://tinyurl.com/lqbckf

Yah, Apple does work on synching with other devices for obvious reasons. It just doesn't work on them for competitor's devices on Windows.

iTunes Agent may, or may not still work. Haven't looked in detail how it works but given you have to have a dedicated playlist for your device and it lives as it's own App, I think it just looks at the XML for that playlist and copies over the files when you connect.

http://ita.sourceforge.net/

This would have been pretty danged easy for Palm to have replicated instead of purposely thumbing their nose at Apple. I suppose their intent was to get Apple to shut them out to be able to play the victim.

Originally Posted by Trajectory

You do realize that the AAC files from the iTunes Store can be easily converted into MP3 files, which can be played on any MP3 player.

Originally Posted by Timon

You pay $40 in taxes Where the heck do you live and remind me to never live there

Originally Posted by crahen

All I know is that my iPhone works wonderfully and has a great signal at my beautiful home here in Rockford, MI (outside Grand Rapids). I get a great signal even when I walk down to my private river front in River Bluffs.....AND I even have great coverage while I'm kayaking here on the Rogue River. I'm just glad that www.whitneyvilleland.com has created such a great neighborhood in a wooded setting that provides the perfect balance of nature and technology that I need in my life.

Originally Posted by addabox



Spam gets better all the time.

I must admit, I first read that link as "Whiteyville" and thought it was some kind of joke.

Originally Posted by ouragan

The iTunes Store is a public internet store, open to anyone with a credit card.

When Apple made a Windows version of the iTunes software for Windows devices, it stopped playing to the exclusive crowd of Apple fans.

iTunes songs can be synced and placed in neat folders on any Windows PC and any Apple built devices, iPods, iPhones and Macs. Song tracks can also be copied on any device with a hard drive and played with a number of music playing software.

The only issue seems to be whether syncing can occur only on a Windows PC or an Apple branded device. To remove syncing on a Pre device seems to be retaliation on a successful cell phone competitor. I believe it is ill advised (and the sort of thing Microsoft was accused of doing a number of times).

Success should be enjoyed and celebrated, but you can't prevent others from going in business and marketing successful products.

Originally Posted by melgross

Apple isn't preventing Palm from doing what they need to do. They are just requiring them to do it themselves. Palm has already responded that they might look at some third party software, or maybe do it themselves.

If they were smart, they would have done that from the beginning instead of subjecting their customers to this nonsense they caused.

and, by the way, palm is not at this point a successful competitor. If Pre sales begin to do better, they might be, but they aren't now.

Originally Posted by NasserAE

It is interesting that all other phone makers didn't attempt what Palm did by connecting their device to iTunes. I am interested to know if Apple ex-employees who worked on the Pre used their knowledge of iTunes and iPod to get to that and how that will effect their NDA, if any, with Apple when they left.

Originally Posted by melgross

I know what you're saying, and many devices sync to the computer, either using Apple's software that Apple wrote to enable it, or with third party software.

But that's in areas where Apple doesn't have any major product lines at stake. For this, they do. But even here, these companies can write fairly simple software that will do some of this for them. This has been pointed out here several times.

I can't see any reason why Apple shouldn't reserve some functionality for their own devices giving them an advantage.

If other companies want some of the advantages, they can hire a couple of guys to do the work.

Or possibly a company such as Mark/Space will do it if there's enough demand. I have their software. When my Samsung i300 and 1330 didn't work with the Palm Desktop supplied, their software made it happen. It also made the phones, as well as my later Treo 700p work with Apples software. So this isn't impossible, and Apple shouldn't stop it.

But for Apple to enable it would be silly.

Why should they give people the ability to say; "Hey, I can auto sync a Pre to iTunes, now I don't have to buy that iPhone."?

Originally Posted by sdfisher

Let's review something here:
- iTunes includes an unencrypted XML file listing the tracks in iTunes.
- The music is not encumbered by DRM (at least, the new stuff).
- Any desktop application has full access to that XML file, the file system, and the USB bus.

Add it all up, and there's one inescapable conclusion: Palm doesn't need iTunes to perform the sync of iTunes music to the Pre.

So Apple's denying them iTunes access. So what? They can write their own Pre music sync program. Just don't rely on Apple's code doing the work.

Originally Posted by AppleStud

absolutely. Apple created a wildly popular program, iTunes, to go along with their wildly popular devices, iPods and iPhones. Why on EARTH shoudl apple allow other companies to encroach on their territory? All these iphone-killers are trying their hardest to copy Apple, and Apple is supposed to just sit back and let them copy one of the biggest assets they have (the iTunes ecosystem)?? Get real. Palm was outrageously audacious in publicy promoting iTunes integration.

Originally Posted by nikon133

But if someone already decided to get different phone/player, why wouldn't Apple still grab couple of hundreds from them selling them music from iTunes store..?

It is not like they can't get their music elsewhere, they are not doomed by this Apple's move - only question is who will get their money for selling them music.

Much like MS selling their OS to Mac owners. I guess they could find a way to make Windows non-compatible (or at least non-applicable) with Macs... but why would they? It is the same good old green dollar going into their pockets.

I can't see any reason based on economy. Ego - that's completely different story.

Originally Posted by melgross

But that DRM isn't the fault of Apple. It's a requirement of the content companies. Wherever that content is sold, there is DRM.

Originally Posted by teckstud

Apple didn't create iTunes, Casady & Greene (SoundJam MP) did.

Originally Posted by yuusharo

What are you talking about?? "Apple has no monopoly."

They're the #1 distributor of all digital music sold in the US, they're the #1 distributor of ALL music sold in the US, and they have over 70% of the MP3 player marketshare for Q1 of 2009.

Apple *IS* a monopoly in those fields, and yet they are still held to a different standard than Microsoft.

Originally Posted by AdamIIGS

It's pretty obvious you are a teenager and weren't even born when the anti-trust suits, involving not only Netscape, but Real and Quicktime were brought against M$.

You should probably stop asking people for proof and go read up on it, do yourself a favor you have most of this board rolling their eyes at you.

Originally Posted by melgross

I don't really want to go looking for links right now. But this is all well known.

MS was accused of, and was found guilty of, hiding information from these companies about Windows (they were originally DOS programs) that they needed to, in a timely fashion, re-write their programs for proper, and enhanced use under Windows 3.0 and up.

It was also found that MS's own developers were using advance information about the OS, which violated the wall they must maintain. They were also found to have been using API's that were not available to third party developers that were crucial to the operation of those apps. As a result all those apps were well behind MS's own on the 3.1 platform, and ended up in their demise to the benefit of MS's own apps, now known as Office.

If that had not occurred, its very possible that Office would just be one suite among several. It also could have hindered MS's growth and profits, as well as their subsequent power in the industry.

Being more recent, you should be familiar with the Netscape case. One of the main problems Netscape had was MS bullying the computer manufacturers with a lack of early release information for their OS if they installed Netscape on their machines.

Computer manufacturers need this pre-release info in order to come out with computers with the proper specs. MS was saying that if a company cooperated, they would get the info, and those that did not, wouldn't. This would have put the non-cooperating companies at a severe disadvantage, so they cooperated.

That was just one of their tactics. They also used their monopoly profits to give IE away for free when Netscape needed to charge.

It's a complex situation, but you get the point.

They also threatened Apple about Quicktime. They said they would stop producing Office for the Mac, a required program for Apple, if Apple continued to produce Quicktime. They came to arrangements when Apple caught them using Apple's code in their own video playback software that ended in the five year commitment to produce new versions of Office and the $150 million non voting investment in Apple. Before MS stole that code, videos in Windows would just play jerkily. Many people noticed the sudden improvement, and now you know why it happened.

Over the years, MS has stolen code from more than a few "partners". You may not like that this is being said, but it's true.

A long time sentiment in the MS world of partners is that MS will eventually steal your code if they want it. You even sign agreements stating that they can see your code. It's a tough business.

Originally Posted by Mac Voyer

Seems to me this entire debate is based on two things, an entitlement mentality and ignorance of Apple's business model. Apple makes software to sell hardware. There will never be OS X on generic boxes, nor is there a law that can force them to do it. If you want the benefits of OS X, you have to buy the hardware Apple sells with it. iTunes exists for the sole purpose of selling iDevices. It is not a public service; it is a business model. It does not exist to sell Pal Pres and BB Storms. There is a Windows version of it only to facilitate the sell of iDevices, period!

Palm and their users feel like they are entitled to what Apple has produced. They feel like it should be freely available to the world at large as if it were a public utility like gas or water. Apple provided back door access, but Palm felt entitled to front door access. So they bashed the door down and are now complaining that they got splinters in their eye. That entitlement mentality will not fly here. Here, you have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a right to run OS X on just any hardware or sync iTunes with just any device.

Originally Posted by brosamond

How about a source for your numbers? Estimates agree with you that Apple probably has a 20% market share. The problem is that is all music, while the gentleman your admonishing is talking about digital downloads which is probably at around 80%. Yes, that is a monopoly.

Originally Posted by Erunno

The last sentence is obviously not true as Apple themselves and Amazon sell at least music without any DRM restrictions. The DRM might not be Apple's fault but what has Apple stopped from providing an open specification to sync with iTunes in way the content protection is retained when it was still mandated by the content providers? The coupling between iTunes and the Pods in both ways has been hugely beneficial to Apple when building their monopoly on both the music player as well as content seller market. I still don't buy Jobs' claims that getting rid of the DRM on music was out of the goodness of their heart and for the best of the customer (although it was a positive side effect) but to prevent anti-competitive lawsuits which had a good chance to succeed.

Originally Posted by DavidW

Almost. Apple bought out SoundJam two years before iTunes 1.0 came out. The whole company, all two of them (Casady and Greene?) was working for Apple when they wrote iTunes 1.0. When SoundJam cease to exist, it was just a music manager/player for a Mac. iTunes 1.0 was also just a music manager/player for a Mac when it first came out. It eventually managed music for the iPod on a Mac. And then on a PC. And then the iTunes Store was added. Apple already knew that iTunes would eventually manage the music on their yet to be released iPod when they released iTunes 1.0.