iTunes 8.2.1 now available for download

1356711

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 218
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    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?



    MS breaks third party software all the time. They just do it sneaky.
  • Reply 42 of 218
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ncee View Post


    You lucky dog. The local AT&T store here DOES NOT offer roll-over minutes with the iPhone



    Skip



    How does it work with AT&T in England? Is there any advantage to go with AT&T rather than having gone with O2 for us as our daughter calls us here in the US, and we call her. It gets expensive. Would be have been on AT&T's network, so no roaming international charges?



    This gets more confusing by the minute. None of these companies can answer these questions with the same answers each time they are asked.
  • Reply 43 of 218
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MissionGrey View Post


    If he pays 220 a month he is exaggerating or lying.

    My bill is $172 and I have two iPhones' and one normal phone.

    That includes unlimited texting, which is my biggest complaint. I have downloaded over 5 gigs of data on my phone, but im still charged 30 bucks for sending a few MGb of texts.



    Your bill is a lot lower than mine, for the same equipment:



    My family plan is the Unity 2100 minutes for $100.

    My data plan is $30

    2nd iphone is $10/line + $20 for data plan

    Third phone is $10/line

    Unlimited text is $30

    Taxes are $40



    Total for me is $240
  • Reply 44 of 218
    cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    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.



    The lawsuit would fail. The only possible grounds for a lawsuit would be from the other direction. Apple forcing people who buy ipods to use itunes to load music onto them, thus using their strong mp3 player market share to minimize the use of non itunes media players.



    Apple is by no means required to allow the Pre to sync with itunes.
  • Reply 45 of 218
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    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?



    What is your definition of monopoly regarding iTunes?
  • Reply 46 of 218
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by joe in miami View Post


    Your bill is a lot lower than mine, for the same equipment:



    My family plan is the Unity 2100 minutes for $100.

    My data plan is $30

    2nd iphone is $10/line + $20 for data plan

    Third phone is $10/line

    Unlimited text is $30

    Taxes are $40



    Total for me is $240



    You can't include the taxes in that because they vary.
  • Reply 47 of 218
    hattighattig Posts: 860member
    I imagine that this happened earlier than Palm hoped it would - there is no doubting that Palm aren't working on their own Sync application for the Pre, just that with their limited resources and poor management they hadn't got around to it by the time the Pre itself was ready. Oh, and don't hope for anything for the Mac.



    On the other hand, I think that Apple should be providing a platform for sync, instead of using their internet media might (almost a monopoly) to crush competitors. It's Microsoft in the 90s all over again, and it's bad for consumers, it leads to protectionism instead of innovation, and so on.
  • Reply 48 of 218
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    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.



    For that to happen there would need to be evidence of Apple purposely trying to limit the Palm and since Palm is masking as an iPod as it is and the files and DB are freely accessible, it doesn?t seem promising for a case to take hold.



    As I stated before, I think it?s in Apple?s best interest on a couple fronts to allow these devices to connect to iTunes for media sync. Having another app tie to the iTunes DB, or worse tying just into the files, bypassing the iTunes DB altogether, could pull people away from from the iTunes umbrella altogether.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by phasornc View Post


    6 Compatible with iTunes v8.2. Compatibility with future versions not guaranteed. Within wireless coverage area only.



    Apple even stated that new updates could affect these devices.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


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



    C&G created SoundJam, Apple bought Soundjam and created iTunes.There has been too many years and too much growth to iTunes to not give Apple any credit. With your logic Apple didn?t create Mac OS X or iPhone OS X since they bought the OS from NeXT.
  • Reply 49 of 218
    cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    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?



    iTunes has a monopoly on the media player software market?
  • Reply 50 of 218
    libertyforalllibertyforall Posts: 1,418member
    Well, Apple sure used to advertise on their own website Rio/Nomad, etc. compatibility, and it looks like it still exists! See:



    http://www.rioaudio.com/itunes/

    and

    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2172



    Hrmm...
  • Reply 51 of 218
    hattighattig Posts: 860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    How does it work with AT&T in England? Is there any advantage to go with AT&T rather than having gone with O2 for us as our daughter calls us here in the US, and we call her. It gets expensive. Would be have been on AT&T's network, so no roaming international charges?



    This gets more confusing by the minute. None of these companies can answer these questions with the same answers each time they are asked.



    "What is AT&T?" <- English Person



    The person you replied to is from New England, which certainly isn't England, Europe. No idea why you would be getting international charges calling NYC to New England.
  • Reply 52 of 218
    boogabooga Posts: 1,082member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    Yea, I guess that's what Pre gets for advertising "$1200 cheaper than a iPhone 2 year contract with AT&T"



    My friend has two iPhones, he pays $220 a month. Jesus!



    I only pay $10-$20 a month for AT&T voice with their pay as you go.



    Got $19 a month broadband.



    Yikes, things are expensive in your country!



    Here in the United States it costs less than $150 for two iPhones.
  • Reply 53 of 218
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    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?



    Except that MS has a clear support and development platform for Windows. There is no clear platform for adding devices to tie into iTunes. Remember, it was pretending to be an iPod to gain access.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post


    Well, Apple sure used to advertise on their own website Rio/Nomad, etc. compatibility, and it looks like it still exists! See:



    http://www.rioaudio.com/itunes/

    and

    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2172



    Hrmm...



    That support page has been brought up before. Despite the modified date from last year it?s an old article that lists old devices. It appears that Apple no longer supports other devices in iTunes.
  • Reply 54 of 218
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    What is your definition of monopoly regarding iTunes?



    iTunes is not a monopoly, but breaking support for Palm Pre is a clear case of monopoly. I am not a fan of Pre but this is a bad practice from the Apple.
  • Reply 55 of 218
    sdfishersdfisher Posts: 59member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post


    Absolutely correct and that is what they should have done in the first place. Advertising a feature that relies on a competitor's IP without even talking to them was a sick idea. Let's wait for the first class action cases suing Palm for not delivering an advertised feature...



    The problem is just... Palm has never been good at writing Mac software. Palm Desktop anyone?





    If Palm is less stupid than a sack full of hammers, they're already sitting on a (probably lame) sync program already. They'll ship it this week and everyone will praise their responsiveness.



    If Palm is less stupid than a sack full of hammers, this was their plan all along.



    So we'll probably see PreSync some time in October.
  • Reply 56 of 218
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    I imagine that this happened earlier than Palm hoped it would - there is no doubting that Palm aren't working on their own Sync application for the Pre, just that with their limited resources and poor management they hadn't got around to it by the time the Pre itself was ready. Oh, and don't hope for anything for the Mac.



    On the other hand, I think that Apple should be providing a platform for sync, instead of using their internet media might (almost a monopoly) to crush competitors. It's Microsoft in the 90s all over again, and it's bad for consumers, it leads to protectionism instead of innovation, and so on.



    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.
  • Reply 57 of 218
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    What is your definition of monopoly regarding iTunes?



    [QUOTE=solipsism;1449176]Except that MS has a clear support and development platform for Windows. There is no clear platform for adding devices to tie into iTunes. Remember, it was pretending to be an iPod to gain access.





    Well I really don't know how it was gaining access, however targeting any third party hardware particularly is a bad practice from the Apple.
  • Reply 58 of 218
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by holywarrior007 View Post


    iTunes is not a monopoly, but breaking support for Palm Pre is a clear case of monopoly. I am not a fan of Pre but this is a bad practice from the Apple.



    That makes no sense at all.



    If it isn't a monopoly, then breaking support for something that isn't a monopoly doesn't have anything to do with monopoly.
  • Reply 59 of 218
    sdfishersdfisher Posts: 59member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


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



    And to be really technical, SoundJam was created by Bill Kincaid and Jeff Robbin via a company called SoundStep. It was *published* by C&G, but it was never C&G's product.



    (I don't know if Apple bought SoundStep or just SoundJam, though.)
  • Reply 60 of 218
    bigmc6000bigmc6000 Posts: 767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    That makes no sense at all.



    If it isn't a monopoly, then breaking support for something that isn't a monopoly doesn't have anything to do with monopoly.



    Correct - you pass go and collect $200
Sign In or Register to comment.