or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iTunes 8.2.1 now available for download
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iTunes 8.2.1 now available for download - Page 4

post #121 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.


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?


post #122 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

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.

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.
post #123 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

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.

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....
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
post #124 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

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.

Musclenerd, from the iPhone Dev Team, is already predicting than Apple will have an "i" device that will be pretty much impossible to jailbreak through software alone in as little as 18 months.

http://twitter.com/MuscleNerd/status/2434206336

Besides... No offense, but Geohot comes off as kind of a ****** to me, to be honest. I don't know, its not like I know the guy personally, but he seems to enjoy doing things his own way vs what should be best for everyone. He hates Nitrokey for leaking certain baseband vulnerabilities to Apple before they can be used for an unlock, but then has no issue leaking the temporary iBoot exploit that the dev team held off in order to help the most amount of iPhone 3GS owners to jailbreak. Double-standard, if you ask me.
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
post #125 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by crahen View Post

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.

Your interesting post made me instantly think of a 1971 film titled Perkele! Kuvia Suomesta. And it wasn't so much the "Images of Finland" bit that triggered the association.
post #126 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

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?



You can play unprotected music you bought using iTunes on any number of software, devices, or computers. Apple is not preventing you from copying your iTunes music to any other music software. What Apple is doing is preventing other devices from syncing with iTunes by pretending to be Apple devices. Alternatively, Palm or any other company can create their own software that can import or access your iTunes music for syncing with their device. iTunes places your music in regular folders that you can access using the Finder (On Mac) or Explorer (on Windows).
post #127 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

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.

You can be the number one distributer and still have a minority of sales, which is what Apple has. They sell about 20% of the music in the USA, far from a monopoly. They sell even a smaller percentage around the rest of the world.

Why don't you look this stuff up before making these statements?

It has nothing to do with the method of distribution, only the percentage of total distribution.
post #128 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

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

Would you like some cheese with that whine sandwich?
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #129 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by crahen View Post

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.

“Our mission is to acquire some of the most beautiful land in West Michigan, and to develop unique residential communities while preserving as much of the natural features as possible. Rather than developing 100 percent of the land in a community into individual lots, we choose to cluster the lots and leave much of the property in its natural state for the homeowners to enjoy.”

Ah, the latest ploy from your friendly local developer. Instead of having a larger yard area for your family and friends to enjoy, you get the developers vision of common areas to enjoy with everybody else. Not to mention the wonderful ability of the developer to cram that many more McMansions into a smaller area, thereby reducing his cost structure while lowering your quality of life while living there. What's not to like? Meh.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #130 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

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?



Well, thanks, I think, for your complements in the beginning.

The reason why I don't agree is because Apple never opened their "store" to the general public. If they had done that, then restricting sales to a few favored devices would have been problematic. But as they only used the store for their own devices, the situation is different. Many companies have in-house services that are only allowed for their own customers of other services or equipment. This usage is not in dispute.

Since this subject is one that is open to the public because of it's wide ranging interest, it seems different, but it's not.

The real question is whether others can sell to Apple's products, and they can. There is no law that I know of that states that a company must sell to all and sundry when it's clear that sales are to be made only to specialized devices sold by that company. This is what Apple has done.

But it's even less than that. We're not talking about music sales, but merely syncing to a device that Apple doesn't sell. Pre owners can buy music from Apple's store and put it on their phones. No restrictions! What is happening here is simply a syncing situation. Apple is not under any obligation to allow other manufacturers to sync to their software. This isn't general purpose software in regards to syncing with hardware. Palm is free to write their own software to allow them to use facilities to gather the purchases made so as to sync them to the Pre. This is fairly simple stuff.

The question here is whether Palm was right in telling their customers that the Pre synced with iTunes in the first place, when they knew that they were doing something that wasn't proper, and might be taken away. They just assumed that Apple wouldn't have the chutzpa to tighten up their procedures.

They were wrong.

I know that sometimes what we want to happen seems to be what should be allowed to happen, but it's not always that way. This is one of those times.
post #131 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

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....

It's tough to say what would happen with MS. They have no problem cutting their partners off when it suits them as they did with "Plays For Sure". If Palm tried to sync with the Zune marketplace, MS might be so happy that this gives it validation, and a few possible customers, that they may pay Palm to continue doing it.

Market leaders and market laggers act differently.

It's true that MS uses its monopoly profits to prop up its other businesses. The Zune is one of those businesses. I remember at about the end of the first year of the Zune, Ballmer was asked in an interview, when they were going to bring the Zune international. He said, in a comment that he may not have realized told more than he meant it to that; "if we did that, we would only lose more money." Very revealing.

So yes, they might welcome the Pre.

Apple is not a monopoly, and makes money on all its hardware endeavors. The iTunes store just make a small percentage. It's there to sell Apple hardware. Why should they give a competitor an advantage?

And if you or others are going to start insisting that Apple has a monopoly, you are really going to have to support that.
post #132 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgbfoundry View Post

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.

That's laughable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by holywarrior007 View Post

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?

Not the same comparison. Palm can easily write their own software that will run on Macs, just as Apple has written their own software that runs in Windows. Apple couldn't object to Palm writing their own "preTunes" for OSX.
post #133 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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


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 devicesespecially, 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 dont 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.
post #134 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

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.

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.
post #135 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

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.

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."?
post #136 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

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.

And most players and phones will play AAC directly.
post #137 of 219
look below
In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Reply
In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Reply
post #138 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timon View Post

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

Joe in Miami, I live in Miami.
In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Reply
In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Reply
post #139 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by crahen View Post

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.



Spam gets better all the time.

I must admit, I first read that link as "Whiteyville" and thought it was some kind of joke.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #140 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post



Spam gets better all the time.

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

There is a new study out that shows that one in six people respond to spam!

One in six!!!

Unbelievable!
post #141 of 219
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.


post #142 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

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.



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.
post #143 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.

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.
post #144 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

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.

That is interesting. It might be hard to prove and a lawsuit may make Apple look petty, which could be reasons why Palm did it… if they did use such knowledge. While I wouldn’t mind seeing Apple sue someone prominent, I surely don’t want another Apple era of “litigation over innovation”. If I see that happening again I’ll sell my stocks quicker than the Blackberry Storm got returned to Verizon.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #145 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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."?

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.
post #146 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdfisher View Post

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.

They even don't to - they can use WinAMP, for example. For many people, simple drag & drop will do all they need, and much as I know Pre is not preventing that.

So people can still use iTunes to purchase music and sync/copy it to Pre with alternative methods. What is Apple really achieving here, except pissing off some people with a move that feels very monopolistic?

Lets face it - while Apple is still (market) underdog in computer share, they are absolutely dominant force in MP3 players segment - not unlikely Microsoft in OS market. From that point of view, isn't Apple's obvious desire to prevent other players working with iTunes comparable as if MS would try to prevent, say, other web browsers working with Windows..?
post #147 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

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.

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.
post #148 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

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.

iTunes music sale profit is small Compared to iPods and iPhones revenues. iTunes and App store are away to make Apple products more appealing. Furthermore, people will keep buying from iTunes since all other online sources offerings are not as big.

Your MS Windows example is not a good one since MS does not sell hardware and MS main profit is from selling Windows. A better example would be MS limiting IE to Windows only, which MS already doing. This is not an issue now since we have Safari and Firefox but it was years back. Palm should develop their own software to import and iTunes music instead of whining and blaming Apple for their own laziness.
post #149 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.

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.
post #150 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

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

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.
post #151 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

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.

Every company that sells a product would have a monopoly if you narrow the target market down enough.

The last I checked, music on a CD is also "digital". Maybe you meant "digital music sold online". But you can buy CD's from Amazon. So it must be "downloaded digital music sold online". But until "downloaded digital music sold online" becomes the only way or the way the vast majority of people purchase music. Apple will never be considered a monopoly because it has 80% of that narrowly defined music market. The vast majority of the music in music players are still from CD purchases. And then pirated.

HP is the number 1 distributer of PC in the US (and maybe the World. Depending on who's doing the survey.) with about 27%of the US market. Do they hold any monopoly status? Apple is number 1 with only about 20% of all music sales in the US. And that's based on albums sold. Not on dollars. Apple most likely makes the least amount of profit, from selling music, of all the top 5 music retailers.

The iPod do not hold any monopoly status when you count all the cell phones that are also MP3 music players. And they also can play "downloaded digital music sold online".

iTunes does not have a monopoly in the music manager software. Windows Media Player is practically in every PC sold with any version of MS Windows.

Apple iPhone has about 2/3 of the internet mobile browsing market share. Does that mean that the less than 2% market share (of all cell phones) that the iPhone has is closing in on being a monopoly?
post #152 of 219
The thing that surprises me is that Palm didn't see this coming, and these former Apple employees at Palm had to know that there were approved ways of syncing with a Mac.

Apple provides a full sync framework to allow all applications to get access to contacts, calendar, and other data. I find it incredulous with all this hard work put into a sync protocol by Apple, that Palm couldn't see fit to design a simple, thin client for syncronising data.

As for music? Well... Apple owns iTunes. You want to use it? Thats your right, but its a licence. Don't like that it won't sync with a pre? Deal with it. Apple doesn't have to provide a free music management application for you to sync with any device you want. Pre's hack is just that. A hack.
post #153 of 219
Good for Apple! It looks like former Apple douche bags have a little vendetta towards their former employees. I used to have a Palm IIIvx. Now I use it as my coffee coaster
post #154 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamIIGS View Post

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.

Wow. See, I tried my hardest word my question to avoid a response like this.

Instead of adding any kind of helpful information, you took it upon yourself to insult me. On top of that, you took it upon yourself to speak on everyone's behalf, and insult me even further.

You really are the counter-productive type of poster that these forums need less of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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.

Thank you for the post. It was informative and helped answer my question very much.

If only more people were like you, and less were like AdamIIGS.
post #155 of 219
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 Palm 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.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #156 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

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.

^ This
post #157 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by brosamond View Post

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.

You should be the one giving the links then. Because that number is worthless.

It doesn't matter how high the download percentage is. It's the overall position in the music selling business that matters. That's all.

You guys can't make up your own categories and expect them to be taken seriously.

So, yes, Apple has about an 80% share of legally sold music downloads in the US, so what?

Most music is not bought through downloads yet. If it ever is, and Apple still has an 80% share in the States, then they will have a monopoly here.

But it isn't, and so they don't.
post #158 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erunno View Post

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.

You're wrong. That statement is obviously true.

Do you know what's going on?

Do you understand that it's the content companies that have demanded DRM?

You do know that, right?

You do know that every DVD is DRM protected. You know that every HD-DVD disk was DRM protected. You do know that every Blu-Ray disk is DRM protected. You do know that some record companies have proposed making new CD's DRM protected. You do know that all Tv shows online are DRM protected, as are all movies and music videos. You remember Sony's rootkit for CD's of course.

You do know this of course.

I suppose all of this is Apple's fault?


As for the coupling, so what? This has nothing to do with the selling of music. There are various ways of getting that music on to another device. Other companies don't have to lie about their device being one made by Apple to do so, and Apple doesn't have to allow it.
post #159 of 219
I'm not so sure Palm didn't bait Apple into doing this. Rubenstein worked with Jobs for close to 20 years and you gotta think that he would know exactly how Apple would respond. This has just seemed like a trap for a possible iTunes anti-trust case from the beginning. I would expect a suit by the end of the summer.

We can debate whether such a case would have any merit until we're blue in the face, but it won't be tried in the court of Apple fans. The only opinions that would count are that of U.S. Federal District court, Appellate Court, and the Supreme Court.
post #160 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

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.

And how did Apple create iTunes- again?
C&G created the music manager/player SoundJam - the root of iTunes. You can't re-write history and claim otherwise.
Apple buys it and changes the name of it- and that's creating it? Puh-leeze.
I should know- I owned and used a copy SoundJam - way back when, in the days of OS9. It's basic features haven't changed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iTunes 8.2.1 now available for download