or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple's motion to dismiss denied in antitrust case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's motion to dismiss denied in antitrust case

post #1 of 51
Thread Starter 
A federal court last week denied Apple's motion to dismiss an antitrust suit brought by a disgruntled iTunes Music Store customer, AppleInsider has discovered.

In January, Thomas Slattery filed a class action suit against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the company is violating federal antitrust laws and California's unfair competition law by requiring that customers use an iPod in order to listen to music purchased from its industry-leading iTunes Music Store.

In the 9-page ruling dated Sept. 9th, United States District Judge James Ware did side with Apple in dismissing a few individual claims. Specifically, Ware threw out a claim arguing that Apple has been unjustly enriched from sales of iTunes and iPods. The Judge also dismissed two claims of attempted monopolization against the iPod maker, but granted Slattery and his attorneys a month to amend the two arguments.

However, the judge denied Apple's overall motion for a dismissal in the case and is allowing Slattery to proceed with seven of his ten original claims. These include allegations that Apple possesses monopoly power and has coerced customers into purchasing both iPods and iTunes files. Slattery also argues that Apple has violated state law under the Cartwright Act and California's unfair competition law.

Antitrust lawyers have said the key to such a lawsuit would be convincing a court that a single product brand like iTunes is a market in itself, separate from the rest of the online music market.

The court is requiring Slattery to file an amended complain on or before Oct. 11th. Apple will then have 15 days to respond.
post #2 of 51
That's all we need is another shoddy California court ruling.
post #3 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by crees!
That's all we need is another shoddy California court ruling.

This is just another looser trying to make a quick buck from the hard work of others, if he does not like having to listen to his iTunes music on an iPod then do not use it, do not purchase music from Apple, and sell your iPod.

Just my 2cents
post #4 of 51
I think the key, and thus the major weakness, with the case is how you define the market. If you divide the market into two parts - one, the business of selling music online, and second a market for music players - then, sure, Apple has a significant market share. From that perspective, it may seem that Apple, the "monopolist" in the on-line music distribution system, is acting anticompetitively by tying its iPod to the iTunes store (iPod only plays protected songs from Apple, and only Apple sells protected songs that work on the iPod). Also, it is excluding all other manufacturers from that music distribution system.

But this, it seems to me, is wrong. iTunes and the iPod are two parts of the same product, not two separate markets (for purposes of the portable digital music player market). You can buy a Creative Zen, get the same songs (for the most part) online, and have all the fun you can have with a Zen. Apple is not preventing the music publishers from selling to the other vendors, and is not forcing anyone to use iTunes.

There is nothing inherently anticompetitive with achieving market dominance by selling the best (or at least most popular) product. Just because Apple has the most success, doesn't mean it's violating the antitrust laws.

The judge probably didn't dismiss the case because he/she wanted to hear more evidence before issuing a final ruling. Most likely this will be dealt with by a summary judgment motion, after the facts have been more fully fleshed out.
post #5 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
requiring that customers use an iPod in order to listen to music purchased from its industry-leading iTunes Music Store.

Unfortunately, for this guy, this is not true.
post #6 of 51
This lawsuit (Score:-1, Troll)

oops...wrong site.

I can rip my own cd's and put them on my ipod....never really need iTMS...

I can buy music on iTMS, burn it to cd, never need an ipod...

these frivilous lawsuits are raising the cost of health care for everyone..

oops....A.D.D....
post #7 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Unfortunately, for this guy, this is not true.

How so? Are you going to argue that people can carry their PowerMacs and listen to them on-the-go?

'Cause he's talking about portable MP3 players. Not CDs. Or computers. Or whatever. Portable MP3 players. You tell me one portable MP3 player that's not an iPod, and that can play music purchased from iTMS legally, and I'll tell you that I agree.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #8 of 51
"I bought music from *insert WMA client here* and I can't play it on my iPod."

Dismissed.
Daniel Tull
Reply
Daniel Tull
Reply
post #9 of 51
apple doesn't stop mp3 makers from having the capabilities to play their protected music do they? Can't they make their players iTMS compatible if they wanted to?
post #10 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by danielctull
"I bought music from *insert WMA client here* and I can't play it on my iPod."

Dismissed.

Seriously!

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
How so? Are you going to argue that people can carry their PowerMacs and listen to them on-the-go?

'Cause he's talking about portable MP3 players. Not CDs. Or computers. Or whatever. Portable MP3 players. You tell me one portable MP3 player that's not an iPod, and that can play music purchased from iTMS legally, and I'll tell you that I agree.

The ROKR is a portable MP3 player. It isn't an iPod and it isn't sold by Apple, it is sold by Motorola.
post #11 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
...You tell me one portable MP3 player that's not an iPod, and that can play music purchased from iTMS legally, and I'll tell you that I agree.

There's plenty. My YEPP plays 'em. I just have to follow the terms of the agreement and burn them to a CD, rerip them as an MP3, and it works. I could've sworn this horse was beat dead long time ago.
post #12 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by lssmit02
...iPod only plays protected songs from Apple...

I was always able to rip my CDs and play them on my 1st gen iPod. Have things changed where the latest iPods don't do this? Didn't think so.
post #13 of 51
duplicate
post #14 of 51
[whine] I'm going to sue Microsoft because I can't play my X-Box games on a Playstation! [/whine]

post #15 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
How so? Are you going to argue that people can carry their PowerMacs and listen to them on-the-go?

'Cause he's talking about portable MP3 players. Not CDs. Or computers. Or whatever. Portable MP3 players. You tell me one portable MP3 player that's not an iPod, and that can play music purchased from iTMS legally, and I'll tell you that I agree.

Apple allows you to legally burn any song you buy from iTMS onto a CD. Any of a slew of utilities can convert these songs to mp3, which can be transferred to any player you want. It's not illegal to rip songs you own to mp3. Where do you think most people get music to fill their non-Apple-branded mp3 players from (leaving aside p2p)? CDs. If ripping is illegal, then every mp3 player maker should be shut down for encouraging an illegal activity.
post #16 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
apple doesn't stop mp3 makers from having the capabilities to play their protected music do they? Can't they make their players iTMS compatible if they wanted to?

No, non-Apple players can't play apple protected music.

I actually think that it's in Apple's best interests to lose this case. Not to settle, but to lose the case.

2 reasons
1) I want my iPod to work with any music store - if one store doesn't have what I want go to another. iTMS will always have a better service for my iPod of course (note that my country doesn't have iTMS!). I also think iTMS should sell to any music player.

Why make buying Apple an all or nothing proposition? Let them buy whatever Apple stuff they want and gradually increase their Apple gear. (I know that iTunes on Windows is already part of this!).

2) This ruling would lock Microsoft into offering Office for Mac. For now, Word on Mac is my preference, I'd hate to be forced to use Word on Windows as my only option.

Greg
post #17 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
There's plenty. My YEPP plays 'em. I just have to follow the terms of the agreement and burn them to a CD, rerip them as an MP3, and it works. I could've sworn this horse was beat dead long time ago.

Why would I want to *buy* my music as AAC, burn it to a CD, then *re-rip* that to MP3 and *then* upload that to my other non-iPod player?

Why not just go and buy a normal CD and rip that using, oh I don't know, one out of a gazillion rippers out there?

The point of having iTMS, or using it rather, is that you don't have to go through all that trouble. You just buy the music, plug-in your mp3 player and all of it is updated for you.

So no, this horse was not beat dead long ago. You're not only confusing horses, you quite possibly missed the entire race.

But I digress, and anyone pointing to ROKR as a non-Apple mp3 player, should know that non-Apple means non-related to Apple in any way, shape or form. ROKR is just an iPod with a phone slapped to it.

But as I said, I digress.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #18 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
ROKR is just an iPod with a phone slapped to it.

Hardly. ROKR is a second-rate phone with a crippled music player that has an iTunes skin.

iPods actually have a decent user interface, a click wheel, and quality components. They are designed for playing music -- it's not merely a afterthought, as on the ROKR.
"I have a dream, that one day, my posts will be judged by their content, not their spelling."
Reply
"I have a dream, that one day, my posts will be judged by their content, not their spelling."
Reply
post #19 of 51
This is silly. A monopoly has certain characteristics that make it a monopoly.

-Single Seller: A single entity is the sole producer/provider of a good/service. Apple is not this. That they provide the most popular services does not imply a lack of viable alternatives.

-No Close Substitutes: There is no product/service that fills a similar void, which is absolutely not the case. There are scads of other portable digital audio players and scads of other retailers of digital music, copy protected and not.

-Price Maker: One entity controls the supply of a good/service for an entire industry or market and is able to significantly alter the price by controling the supply/access to material. Apple does not do this. They are not the sole supplier of either digital music players or online music downloads. They are not even the sole supplier of online music downloads for their player.

-Blocked Entry: The monopolist has no competitors and has some method to block competition. This is also not the case. Apple is guilty of nothing but offering the most popular product in both the digital music player market and the digital music download market. They are not preventing other players from entering either market, and many have, nor are the preventing other music stores from entering the market, and many have. Apple has not engaged in any anti-competetive practices. They simply offer products that consistently attract a greater number of consumers. This is a successful business practice.

This lawsuit is a sham and a load of bollocks. He is suing because his player lacks a feature he desires and his digital music files lack a feature he desires, that being the ability to play any audio format on his iPod and transfer his iTunes to any player, respectively. Unfortunately, the fact that a product does not provide all the features you WISH it did, does not constitute grounds for a lawsuit.

I just don't understand what form of legal voodoo allows cases like this to be heard. This suit is asinine on so many levels, how does it slip past a competent judge and into validity?
post #20 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Why would I want to *buy* my music as AAC, burn it to a CD, then *re-rip* that to MP3 and *then* upload that to my other non-iPod player?

Why not just go and buy a normal CD and rip that using, oh I don't know, one out of a gazillion rippers out there?

Because you can't buy individual songs on "normal" CDs. You buy the whole album or you don't buy it at all.

BTW, if you're being intentionally dense and/or lazy, there are applications out there that can short-circuit the process, ripping directly from AAC to mp3.
post #21 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Kolchak
[B]Because you can't buy individual songs on "normal" CDs. You buy the whole album or you don't buy it at all.

And the process of performing 5 steps, burning tens of CDs, and wasting time burning & ripping songs doesn't seem like a good trade-off to you? An album is usually meant to be listened entirely, because a lot of musicians create a flow of songs that overlap, and while doing so, create the theme of the album. Because there are musicians that make 9 songs so they can package their 1 hit into an "album" does not mean that it's ok to go through hell with buying AAC, burning into CDs, re-ripping that to MP3 and then uploading that to your iPod, and all of this so you can listen to them on an iPod, which is just an MP3 player after all.

Hey, I understand Apple must protect its iPod sales, and that in doing so, it's choosing to limit the options available, but that doesn't make this guys complaint unreasonable.

Quote:
BTW, if you're being intentionally dense and/or lazy, there are applications out there that can short-circuit the process, ripping directly from AAC to mp3.

I never realized that you can *rip* music from an AAC, which is just an already ripped digital file. I thought that process was called encoding, or re-encoding, but people never cease to amaze me these days.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #22 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by speakster
This lawsuit (Score:-1, Troll)

oops...wrong site.

I can rip my own cd's and put them on my ipod....never really need iTMS...

I can buy music on iTMS, burn it to cd, never need an ipod...

these frivilous lawsuits are raising the cost of health care for everyone..

oops....A.D.D....

The case as reported may be simplified when reported. I believe reading the complaint carefully would reveal that only the ipod portable device in it's class can play music from itunes. People claiming that you can rip to mp3 are being moronic. The issue is playing the music in it's native form. Why would i take a 128 bit music (barely at listenable quality) and further degrade it by ripping to mp3 so that i can use a unit different than the ipod. How does that make sense?. Apple could never make that argument in court becuase they would have to acknowledge that it was ok to defeat their DRM scheme. Imagine how foolish that would be. Please, for all those people who always bring up ripping to mp3.. stop boring the rest of us.
post #23 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
There's plenty. My YEPP plays 'em. I just have to follow the terms of the agreement and burn them to a CD, rerip them as an MP3, and it works. I could've sworn this horse was beat dead long time ago.

Yeah by people like me who yawn at people like you who insist that it is totally reasonable to have to burn your music to a cd, rip to mp3 just to play in another portable player. I think apple should settle this once and for all. They should acknowledge in a court that it was ok to defeat their DRM. Wow, i thought this stupid mp3 argument myself was a dead horse but i see you revived it. Let it rest in peace.
post #24 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by danielctull
"I bought music from *insert WMA client here* and I can't play it on my iPod."

Dismissed.

I can't run native versions of Windows XP(like i would ever want to) on my mac, either, but I shouldn't be able to sue anyone for it.
post #25 of 51
This guy should sue the company that makes his mp3 player for not playing iTMS music.

This incompatibility works both ways, other companies should approach apple about making their player play acc files or whatever it's called.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #26 of 51
I do hope this misguided individual, or whichever competitor to Apple is behind this (Real, probably) gets landed with a huge legal bill and fined for wasting the court's time.

It's irritating when companies that fail to come up with compelling products (Real and Creative to name a couple) have to rely on frivolous lawsuits of the market leader in order to bolster the bottom line.
post #27 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaine_Michael
I can't run native versions of Windows XP(like i would ever want to) on my mac, either, but I shouldn't be able to sue anyone for it.

That was my point with the "Dismissed" comment.

The best point raised here though is that XBox games aren't able to be played on PlayStations. Okay so many games are made for multiple platforms, but Microsoft bought Bungie and Rare to name but two so there games will never be on a PlayStation. Of course Sony does the same with different makers.

But also there are alternatives. And they're all at that crucial 79p (99c) price point, so why choose to buy from iTunes if you know it's not going to work on your player. It'd be like buying the Xbox edition of Tony Hawks to play on your PS2.

Again: dismissed.
Daniel Tull
Reply
Daniel Tull
Reply
post #28 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Why would I want to *buy* my music as AAC, burn it to a CD, then *re-rip* that to MP3 and *then* upload that to my other non-iPod player?

Don't know, goto another Online Music Service!

Quote:

Why not just go and buy a normal CD and rip that using, oh I don't know, one out of a gazillion rippers out there?

You really have to ask something this stupid? Go do it.

Quote:

The point of having iTMS, or using it rather, is that you don't have to go through all that trouble. You just buy the music, plug-in your mp3 player and all of it is updated for you.

CORRECTION, not MP3-player but iPod. Read the EULA, or do what you said above.

Quote:

So no, this horse was not beat dead long ago. You're not only confusing horses, you quite possibly missed the entire race.

It sounds like you missed the Human race...

Quote:

But I digress, and anyone pointing to ROKR as a non-Apple mp3 player, should know that non-Apple means non-related to Apple in any way, shape or form. ROKR is just an iPod with a phone slapped to it.

But as I said, I digress.

My, my. Podantic are we not?
Non-Apple = Non-Apple
'If these words were people, I would embrace their genocide.' - Maddox
Reply
'If these words were people, I would embrace their genocide.' - Maddox
Reply
post #29 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by ZoranS
[B]Don't know, goto another Online Music Service!

This is your solution? Go to another music service? It's obvious you've never had any work experience, because if you had any, you wouldn't treat your customers like shit.


Quote:
You really have to ask something this stupid? Go do it.

It's called a rhetorical question. They're not meant to be answered smartass.


Quote:
CORRECTION, not MP3-player but iPod. Read the EULA, or do what you said above.

uh, we have a winner here! Not an MP3 player, yet Steve says "we dominate the MP3 player market!" - oh, wait, what?


Quote:
It sounds like you missed the Human race...

mods, deal with this garbage please.


Quote:
My, my. Podantic are we not?
Non-Apple = Non-Apple

So you say, ROKR is non-Apple right. So then Moto defeated FairPlay too, since it has nothing to do with Apple, no?

It don't add up, Zorro.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #30 of 51
db
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #31 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
This is your solution? Go to another music service? It's obvious you've never had any work experience, because if you had any, you wouldn't treat your customers like shit.

To be fair, they're not exactly Apple's customers if they haven't bought an iPod. People for a while have been trying to work out just how much Apple makes on a downloaded track and the net result is the belief that the iPod makes them the money and the iTMS is only a little over break-even. They are in the MP3 hardware market, the iTMS just compliments it.
Daniel Tull
Reply
Daniel Tull
Reply
post #32 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
And the process of performing 5 steps, burning tens of CDs, and wasting time burning & ripping songs doesn't seem like a good trade-off to you? An album is usually meant to be listened entirely, because a lot of musicians create a flow of songs that overlap, and while doing so, create the theme of the album. Because there are musicians that make 9 songs so they can package their 1 hit into an "album" does not mean that it's ok to go through hell with buying AAC, burning into CDs, re-ripping that to MP3 and then uploading that to your iPod, and all of this so you can listen to them on an iPod, which is just an MP3 player after all.

Who cares? I don't give a rat's butt what the artist intended. If I don't like the other songs, I'm not paying for them. If you think I'm going to drop $16 for an entire CD just to get one song, you're dumber than I thought. Are you saying that I should buy the biggest capacity iPod I can get just so I can carry every complete album for every song that I have?

Quote:
I never realized that you can *rip* music from an AAC, which is just an already ripped digital file. I thought that process was called encoding, or re-encoding, but people never cease to amaze me these days.

Aha. I see now. Instead of admitting something is possible and easy enough that any fourth-grader could do it, you sink to criticizing the semantics. Talk about your basic troll loser.
post #33 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
This is your solution? Go to another music service? It's obvious you've never had any work experience, because if you had any, you wouldn't treat your customers like shit.

So Apple is treating all of its customers like crap? That must be why there's one lawsuit like this and roughly 400 million tracks downloaded so far from the iTunes Music Store.

I wish more companies would treat us like this kind of crap.
post #34 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
How so? Are you going to argue that people can carry their PowerMacs and listen to them on-the-go?

'Cause he's talking about portable MP3 players. Not CDs. Or computers. Or whatever. Portable MP3 players. You tell me one portable MP3 player that's not an iPod, and that can play music purchased from iTMS legally, and I'll tell you that I agree.

Where does it say that you have to be able to play your music on-the-go? iTunes music store simply sells music with FairPlay DRM. There's no promise of portability. I'm not required to use the store at all, but I can still use iTunes and put any music I want on my iPod. Or I can buy from the store, play my music on my Mac/PC and make all the "portable" CDs I want without ever having an iPod. I'm not forced or even coerced to do anything. I always have the ability and RESPONSIBILITY to make my own decision based on my needs.

Should Linux users sue because there's no iTunes for Linux? Absolutely not! Can I sue Microsoft because MS Access database software doesn't work on a Mac, and therefore I have to buy a Windows PC to use it? NO! I'm expected to use one of several other alternatives regardless of whether they are equal, better or worse. The fact remains that the choices are available. These lawsuits are about laziness and getting something for nothing. No one has been wronged here. Apple isn't required to make music buying or listening or burning or ripping or transporting easier for anyone. They've made something that is functional AND elegant. No one else seems to be able to match it. That is not Apple's fault and they should not be punished for it, nor should they be forced to give anyone money or make their products accommodate any particular user's desires. If consumers don't want what Apple is selling, they don't have to buy. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head. Do your research and don't purchase a product if it doesn't meet your needs.

I hate the sue-happy attitude in this country. People here in the US seem to think that anyone who is successful owes something, simply because they succeeded, to those who aren't successful. Get off your lazy butts and earn your own f-ing money instead of trying to steal it from others using the over-zealous, bleeding-heart, liberal court system. This kind of frivolous lawsuit should never make it to a courtroom to waste tax-payer money. I'm embarrassed that someone can win money because coffee is hot. Of course coffee is hot! How did her injuries become the coffee brewer's responsibility rather than her own when what really caused her injuries was her own carelessness handling the coffee? She was a 79-year-old woman, for god's sake, trying to hold a cup of coffee between her knees in a car, which was probably moving at some point during this fiasco. I feel sorry for her, but it was her own fault. The location, the circumstances, and her abilities were inappropriate for the activity. How did making such bad choices become the restaurant's fault? Now I'm digressing...

It's called "Life" folks. No one has to hand you anything for free or to your specifications just because it's what you want.
post #35 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Why would I want to *buy* my music as AAC, burn it to a CD, then *re-rip* that to MP3 and *then* upload that to my other non-iPod player?

Why not just go and buy a normal CD and rip that using, oh I don't know, one out of a gazillion rippers out there?

The point of having iTMS, or using it rather, is that you don't have to go through all that trouble. You just buy the music, plug-in your mp3 player and all of it is updated for you.

So no, this horse was not beat dead long ago. You're not only confusing horses, you quite possibly missed the entire race.

Could you be any lazier? If this is how you feel, then don't buy from iTMS. Buy CDs, rip them, and put them on your iPod or anywhere else you want them! Use of iTunes, iTMS, and iPod are all mutually exclusive. You'll need iTunes to put music on your iPod (or any of several other utilities), but beyond that none of the other options are required. iTunes is free, so how can you complain? It's not difficult at all to remain legal in your music and iPod use.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
But I digress, and anyone pointing to ROKR as a non-Apple mp3 player, should know that non-Apple means non-related to Apple in any way, shape or form. ROKR is just an iPod with a phone slapped to it.

But as I said, I digress.

No, ROKR is not an iPod with a phone slapped on it. It's an old Motorola phone design with a shuffle crammed into it and a hybrid of iPod/iTunes software to drive the display. Given the most uninteresting physical design of the phone, I suspect Apple's involvement was limited to the Mobile iTunes software development to drive the display and assisting Motorola designers to ensure they included all the necessary iPod-like hardware components.
post #36 of 51
I'm truly embarrassed for some of you. I can't believe some of you guys are so stupid. Apple gave you something really good and you attack them for not doing it your way. Until iTMS, you couldn't get songs individually without paying outrageous CD-Single prices. Now you can get them individually, but not exactly the way you want it, so you bitch and moan. If this is of such all-consuming importance to you guys, go open your own freakin' online stores. See if you can get the Record Labels to go along with everything the way you want it. Oh, wait, even if you do that, it won't matter, because you haven't created the best jukebox software, the best digital music player, and the best online music store experience. You guys better get busy, you've got a lot of work ahead of you. Oh, wait again. Why not just sue Apple and force them to do things your way, even if it could potentially hurt their bottom-line, for which they are responsible to their shareholders?

You have choices. You have a whole freakin' lot of 'em. It's no one's responsibility to please you. People shouldn't be allowed to sue just because the exact option they want is not available.
post #37 of 51
deleted
post #38 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by macbear01
I'm truly embarrassed for some of you. I can't believe some of you guys are so stupid. Apple gave you something really good and you attack them for not doing it your way. Until iTMS, you couldn't get songs individually without paying outrageous CD-Single prices. Now you can get them individually, but not exactly the way you want it, so you bitch and moan. If this is of such all-consuming importance to you guys, go open your own freakin' online stores. See if you can get the Record Labels to go along with everything the way you want it. Oh, wait, even if you do that, it won't matter, because you haven't created the best jukebox software, the best digital music player, and the best online music store experience. You guys better get busy, you've got a lot of work ahead of you. Oh, wait again. Why not just sue Apple and force them to do things your way, even if it could potentially hurt their bottom-line, for which they are responsible to their shareholders?

You have choices. You have a whole freakin' lot of 'em. It's no one's responsibility to please you. People shouldn't be allowed to sue just because the exact option they want is not available.


The best post I've heard all day.

The case is just another unhappy fool looking to squeeze a few more dollars into his wallet. If you don't like the iTMS go somewhere else. Simple as that. It's not up to Apple to make this guy happy and obey his every whim, they're simply providing a service that he can either choose to use, or not.

Jimzip
"There's no time like the present, and the only present you'll never get, is time." - Me
Reply
"There's no time like the present, and the only present you'll never get, is time." - Me
Reply
post #39 of 51
I had something childish to say here earlier, I removed it as I was getting a lil too carried away. So Gene Clean, I guess this 31 yr old business owner tips his hat off to you. I don't do work experience!

One of the things you have to face up to is YOU are NOT part of iTunes target market at the moment. You have the potential to be part of it, after you get an iPod. There are other entities that are there to service you with your current equipment.

Since the Best Online Music Store in the Universe is not suited to you at the moment, I have good news. You can visit the Best Page in the Universe to help you unwind.

http://maddox.xmission.com/
'If these words were people, I would embrace their genocide.' - Maddox
Reply
'If these words were people, I would embrace their genocide.' - Maddox
Reply
post #40 of 51
Quote:
Originally posted by ZoranS
[B]I had something childish to say here earlier

No kiddin'? It wouldn't be the first time.

Quote:
I removed it as I was getting a lil too carried away.

Ooh, I got scared!


Quote:
So Gene Clean, I guess this 31 yr old business owner tips his hat off to you. I don't do work experience!

You sound like a 31 hour business owner to me.

Quote:
One of the things you have to face up to is YOU are NOT part of iTunes target market at the moment.

How do you know? What is iTunes' market? Little bimbos with pink iPod minis on their hands?


Quote:
You have the potential to be part of it, after you get an iPod.

Again, how do you know I don't have an iPod? Using your 31 hour business ownership experience?

I have 2 iPods as a matter of fact, and I am very much a target of iTMS. Because I choose not to buy inferior quality audio-tracks, doesn't mean I'm not targeted. Heck, I keep getting Apple mail telling me how cool iTunes 5 is. Now why would they do that if I'm not their target market?

Quote:
There are other entities that are there to service you with your current equipment.

(Yet) again: what is my equipment? You have no idea what I own, yet you keep telling me that there are other services. WTF?

Quote:
Since the Best Online Music Store in the Universe is not suited to you at the moment, I have good news.

Ooh, didn't know you were a journalist!

Quote:
You can visit the Best Page in the Universe to help you unwind.

No, thanks. I'll leave that to you.

- and to whomever called me lazy or whatever because I think Apple should allow people to playback music in non-iPod MP3 players: I wait for the day when that happens. We'll talk then. Until then: go nuts.

That's it from me.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple's motion to dismiss denied in antitrust case