I figured it had to be something like that. The stock was basically flat near the open and then all of a sudden its down over 3%.
Whenever I see massive fluctuations up and down in the stock price, I immediately suspect automated trading. It's a red flag.
I read it was 6.8 Million shares sold in 1 minute. Speculation was that someone fat fingered a trade. Only the person that did it knows. They could have meant to sell the shares fast to cause the price to drop. Their average selling price over that one minute is probably much higher than the price they would have paid to buy them back throughout the day. Seems like a risky way to increase your holdings though if that were the plan.
Doesn't explain why the profit taking today or why the stock was down over 6% at one point today. Even CNBC anchors were scratching their head over that one.
Individually, investors make decisions that make sense for them. In aggregate, the market looks completely irrational in comparison.
I read it was 6.8 Million shares sold in 1 minute. Speculation was that someone fat fingered a trade. Only the person that did it knows. They could have meant to sell the shares fast to cause the price to drop. Their average selling price over that one minute is probably much higher than the price they would have paid to buy them back throughout the day. Seems like a risky way to increase your holdings though if that were the plan.
It might be, but Apple never did that. They were in no way a monopoly. Any music purchasable from iTunes could be burnt to a CD and then ripped back, DRM-free. This remains true today. They don’t have an argument and have wasted a decade of Apple’s time and money pursuing illegality. Screw them all.
Regarding Sony... what about their MiniDisc format, so popular in Japan?
The MiniDisc was a medium, completely different. You could also us Sony discs in any other MiniDisc player on the market.
Personally I have never purchased a single song or video from iTunes. Since I use mulitiple OS's, if the media I'm using isn't supported across all of my platforms, I have no interest in owning it, especially if I'm forced to use a single piece of software to do so. The day that movies are no longer availabe on a physical medium I will choose a service that can play it's DRM crap from a web browser, until then, I'll rip my BluRays and upload them to my cloud storage to my hearts content. Music, I just use Spotify, buying music today is just a waste of money, unless of course it's vinyl.
THE D.O.J.'s case against Apple over e-books was ludicrous. This case, although I disagree with, may have more merit. The issue is did Apple take action to prevent music bought on its stores from moving to other services. If so, was that a violation of anti-trust laws.
I couldn't play windows games on my Mac, can't play Xbox games on my Wii, etc...
I couldn't play windows games on my Mac, can't play Xbox games on my Wii, etc...
That has nothing to do with DRM, Apple took an opened standard, that really should have been able to play on other systems and made it exclusive to their own platform. They also closed off direct access to their devices file tree, making it very difficult to add media to them without using their software to do so. During the time this lawsuit was filed their devices also only supported those codecs that were used in their iTunes store. It's gotten much better now with the addition of third party software like VLC. I really dislike lawsuits like this, but I feel that they kind of have a point, none of this was benificial to the customer, just Apple.
I think the issue is...customers purchased songs off the iTunes Store with DRM which was made so it only played on iPods and it also locked out other DRM solutions such as FairPlay so it could not play on iPods. I believe however that the updates didn't purposely break FairPlay if I remember correctly. There was something that just happened to break it. It was quite a while ago, but something sticks in my mind about Apple not purposely breaking FairPlay DRM.
I'm not saying I agree with this lawsuit, in fact I think its kinda stupid but I don't think ripping CDs and syncing them to an iPod was the issue.
I think Apple has fixed this issue already to be honest. No songs are DRM today and EVERYONE had the opportunity to fix their songs so they weren't DRM anymore and therefore, could play on anything they wanted to. This is what I don't get about the entire thing. The fix was provided.
After this we should sue Apple because OS X can only be installed on a Mac and it purposely makes OS X so it only works on a Mac. Hell...why not?
That has nothing to do with DRM, Apple took an opened standard, that really should have been able to play on other systems and made it exclusive to their own platform. They also closed off direct access to their devices file tree, making it very difficult to add media to them without using their software to do so. During the time this lawsuit was filed their devices also only supported those codecs that were used in their iTunes store. It's gotten much better now with the addition of third party software like VLC. I really dislike lawsuits like this, but I feel that they kind of have a point, none of this was benificial to the customer, just Apple.
That was part of the deal with getting the record companies on board and protecting the content per the government. First they say record companies need to take steps to protect their content....but when they do it, its considered anti trust. WTF? Well no the customer actually pays for what they use rather than being sued into financial ruin. That is a benefit. The fact that people were able to continue to do business in that industry was a benefit to the consumer. Apple ushered in an era of cheaper music and more alternatives to spending $15+ for each CD. Amazon and Google negotiated their own contracts. What was stopping real player from doing the same thing? Additionally, you aren't going to tell Apple, MSFT and others that they must support other people's platforms and violate the terms and conditions of a contract with the labels.
I think the issue is...customers purchased songs off the iTunes Store with DRM which was made so it only played on iPods and it also locked out other DRM solutions such as FairPlay so it could not play on iPods. I believe however that the updates didn't purposely break FairPlay if I remember correctly. There was something that just happened to break it. It was quite a while ago, but something sticks in my mind about Apple not purposely breaking FairPlay DRM.
I'm not saying I agree with this lawsuit, in fact I think its kinda stupid but I don't think ripping CDs and syncing them to an iPod was the issue.
I think Apple has fixed this issue already to be honest. No songs are DRM today and EVERYONE had the opportunity to fix their songs so they weren't DRM anymore and therefore, could play on anything they wanted to. This is what I don't get about the entire thing. The fix was provided.
After this we should sue Apple because OS X can only be installed on a Mac and it purposely makes OS X so it only works on a Mac. Hell...why not?
Since day one:-
Burn iTunes music to CD.
Rip CD.
Do whatever you want with the result.
Apple had no choice, they had to offer DRM protected music under terms imposed by the owners of the content.
Just to play devil’s advocate what if, back in the day, CDs had been released that could only be played on Sony CD players? You buy the CD, it’s yours but you MUST buy a Sony player in order to listen to it. Isn’t that what this lawsuit is really about? It’s not the DRM itself, it’s the fact that those tracks could only be played back on an Apple device because Apple would not license the Fairplay DRM. If the DRM had been some cross platform, universal format (like DVDs) that other manufacturers could license I don’t think this particular lawsuit would have happened.
Sony.
Remember rootkits?
They came to notice because of what happened when you put certain Sony CD's into computers.
These were then picked up and used nefariously by the bad guys.
That has nothing to do with DRM, Apple took an opened standard, that really should have been able to play on other systems and made it exclusive to their own platform. They also closed off direct access to their devices file tree, making it very difficult to add media to them without using their software to do so. During the time this lawsuit was filed their devices also only supported those codecs that were used in their iTunes store. It's gotten much better now with the addition of third party software like VLC. I really dislike lawsuits like this, but I feel that they kind of have a point, none of this was benificial to the customer, just Apple.
No.
Beneficial to the content providers who forced this on Apple.
The same content providers who are still forcing this on providers of video content.
I think I remember another reason was that Apple did not take lightly other competitors essentially hacking iTunes to allow other players to be used. Didn't Palm do that as well back in the day?
If an unapproved plug-in is used in iTunes and it ends up breaking it for some (any) reason, the user will automatically blame Apple for it, and I don't think Apple wanted to be in that position to maintain compatibility with competing products. It's why the iPod worked so well with iTunes. It was designed by Apple, for Apple, to only work WITH Apple. Case closed.
It wasn't iTunes that was hacked but the firmware in the Palm device (a cell phone I believe) fooled iTunes into thinking it was an iPod. Thus the owners of a Palm device could use iTunes to manage their muisc. I'm not sure if the Palm device was able to play purchsed DRM music from the iTunes Store. And if I recall last, the CEO of Palm at the time was Jon Rubinstein. The same Jonn Rubinstein that worked on the iPod for Apple.
It wasn't iTunes that was hacked but the firmware in the Palm device (a cell phone I believe) fooled iTunes into thinking it was an iPod. Thus the owners of a Palm device could use iTunes to manage their muisc. I'm not sure if the Palm device was able to play purchsed DRM music from the iTunes Store. And if I recall last, the CEO of Palm at the time was Jon Rubinstein. The same Jonn Rubinstein that worked on the iPod for Apple.
Palm spoofed the USB identifier so not only did they go against Apple but also the USB standards body.
That has nothing to do with DRM, Apple took an opened standard, that really should have been able to play on other systems and made it exclusive to their own platform. They also closed off direct access to their devices file tree, making it very difficult to add media to them without using their software to do so. During the time this lawsuit was filed their devices also only supported those codecs that were used in their iTunes store. It's gotten much better now with the addition of third party software like VLC. I really dislike lawsuits like this, but I feel that they kind of have a point, none of this was benificial to the customer, just Apple.
If Real (or anyone) wanted to sell downloaded digital music that played on an iPod all they had to do was to remove any DRM. It would then play fine on an iPod, and all MP3 players for that matter, without any special software for importing. But if they did that, the Record label wouldn't let them sell digital music online.
And speaking of being benificial to the customers, why don't you ask anyone that bought digital music with PlayforSure DRM how that worked out for them. Microsoft licensed their PlayForSure DRM to many MP3 players. Microsoft stopped supporting PlayForSure and those legally purchased music can no longer be transfered to a new PC or play on the original PC if it had its OS updated.
Meanwhile all the iTunes purchases with FairPlay will still play on an iPod, Touch, iPad, iPhone and any Mac authorized by the original purchaser. Not to mentionn on all MP3 devices, PC's and Macs if those music were burned to CD, to remove the DRM, and then re-imported. No Apple customers, that bought iTunes music with FairPlay, ever lost that music, even though Apple no longer sells music with FairPlayDRM.
As far as I can tell, Apple was looking after their customers when they made sure the Record labels agreed to allow a way for their FairPlay DRM to be removed from iTunes purchased music (by burning to CD)......... from day one of purchase. Why didn't Real do that? If they did, their music would also play on an iPod.
Around $5b at an earlier evaluation so probably over 45m shares. I expect he'll bail out when it's high eventually but he's probably waiting on the buybacks.
Apple still has to execute $22b in buybacks by December 2015 and they probably won't leave the bulk of it until later on.
Comments
I figured it had to be something like that. The stock was basically flat near the open and then all of a sudden its down over 3%.
Whenever I see massive fluctuations up and down in the stock price, I immediately suspect automated trading. It's a red flag.
I read it was 6.8 Million shares sold in 1 minute. Speculation was that someone fat fingered a trade. Only the person that did it knows. They could have meant to sell the shares fast to cause the price to drop. Their average selling price over that one minute is probably much higher than the price they would have paid to buy them back throughout the day. Seems like a risky way to increase your holdings though if that were the plan.
Doesn't explain why the profit taking today or why the stock was down over 6% at one point today. Even CNBC anchors were scratching their head over that one.
Individually, investors make decisions that make sense for them. In aggregate, the market looks completely irrational in comparison.
I read it was 6.8 Million shares sold in 1 minute. Speculation was that someone fat fingered a trade. Only the person that did it knows. They could have meant to sell the shares fast to cause the price to drop. Their average selling price over that one minute is probably much higher than the price they would have paid to buy them back throughout the day. Seems like a risky way to increase your holdings though if that were the plan.
How many shares does Icahn hold?
I couldn't play windows games on my Mac, can't play Xbox games on my Wii, etc...
For every seller there's a buyer. There's just more people selling period
That has nothing to do with DRM, Apple took an opened standard, that really should have been able to play on other systems and made it exclusive to their own platform. They also closed off direct access to their devices file tree, making it very difficult to add media to them without using their software to do so. During the time this lawsuit was filed their devices also only supported those codecs that were used in their iTunes store. It's gotten much better now with the addition of third party software like VLC. I really dislike lawsuits like this, but I feel that they kind of have a point, none of this was benificial to the customer, just Apple.
I think the issue is...customers purchased songs off the iTunes Store with DRM which was made so it only played on iPods and it also locked out other DRM solutions such as FairPlay so it could not play on iPods. I believe however that the updates didn't purposely break FairPlay if I remember correctly. There was something that just happened to break it. It was quite a while ago, but something sticks in my mind about Apple not purposely breaking FairPlay DRM.
I'm not saying I agree with this lawsuit, in fact I think its kinda stupid but I don't think ripping CDs and syncing them to an iPod was the issue.
I think Apple has fixed this issue already to be honest. No songs are DRM today and EVERYONE had the opportunity to fix their songs so they weren't DRM anymore and therefore, could play on anything they wanted to. This is what I don't get about the entire thing. The fix was provided.
After this we should sue Apple because OS X can only be installed on a Mac and it purposely makes OS X so it only works on a Mac. Hell...why not?
If you can't protect it it's not DRM...
That has nothing to do with DRM, Apple took an opened standard, that really should have been able to play on other systems and made it exclusive to their own platform. They also closed off direct access to their devices file tree, making it very difficult to add media to them without using their software to do so. During the time this lawsuit was filed their devices also only supported those codecs that were used in their iTunes store. It's gotten much better now with the addition of third party software like VLC. I really dislike lawsuits like this, but I feel that they kind of have a point, none of this was benificial to the customer, just Apple.
That was part of the deal with getting the record companies on board and protecting the content per the government. First they say record companies need to take steps to protect their content....but when they do it, its considered anti trust. WTF? Well no the customer actually pays for what they use rather than being sued into financial ruin. That is a benefit. The fact that people were able to continue to do business in that industry was a benefit to the consumer. Apple ushered in an era of cheaper music and more alternatives to spending $15+ for each CD. Amazon and Google negotiated their own contracts. What was stopping real player from doing the same thing? Additionally, you aren't going to tell Apple, MSFT and others that they must support other people's platforms and violate the terms and conditions of a contract with the labels.
I think the issue is...customers purchased songs off the iTunes Store with DRM which was made so it only played on iPods and it also locked out other DRM solutions such as FairPlay so it could not play on iPods. I believe however that the updates didn't purposely break FairPlay if I remember correctly. There was something that just happened to break it. It was quite a while ago, but something sticks in my mind about Apple not purposely breaking FairPlay DRM.
I'm not saying I agree with this lawsuit, in fact I think its kinda stupid but I don't think ripping CDs and syncing them to an iPod was the issue.
I think Apple has fixed this issue already to be honest. No songs are DRM today and EVERYONE had the opportunity to fix their songs so they weren't DRM anymore and therefore, could play on anything they wanted to. This is what I don't get about the entire thing. The fix was provided.
After this we should sue Apple because OS X can only be installed on a Mac and it purposely makes OS X so it only works on a Mac. Hell...why not?
Since day one:-
Burn iTunes music to CD.
Rip CD.
Do whatever you want with the result.
Apple had no choice, they had to offer DRM protected music under terms imposed by the owners of the content.
Just to play devil’s advocate what if, back in the day, CDs had been released that could only be played on Sony CD players? You buy the CD, it’s yours but you MUST buy a Sony player in order to listen to it. Isn’t that what this lawsuit is really about? It’s not the DRM itself, it’s the fact that those tracks could only be played back on an Apple device because Apple would not license the Fairplay DRM. If the DRM had been some cross platform, universal format (like DVDs) that other manufacturers could license I don’t think this particular lawsuit would have happened.
Sony.
Remember rootkits?
They came to notice because of what happened when you put certain Sony CD's into computers.
These were then picked up and used nefariously by the bad guys.
Now that is something worth a class action.
That has nothing to do with DRM, Apple took an opened standard, that really should have been able to play on other systems and made it exclusive to their own platform. They also closed off direct access to their devices file tree, making it very difficult to add media to them without using their software to do so. During the time this lawsuit was filed their devices also only supported those codecs that were used in their iTunes store. It's gotten much better now with the addition of third party software like VLC. I really dislike lawsuits like this, but I feel that they kind of have a point, none of this was benificial to the customer, just Apple.
No.
Beneficial to the content providers who forced this on Apple.
The same content providers who are still forcing this on providers of video content.
I couldn't play windows games on my Mac...
Steam lets you play some windows games on your Mac, you don't even have to rebuy them, they are linked to your account.
Steam lets you play some windows games on your Mac, you don't even have to rebuy them, they are linked to your account.
Technically you are playing Mac games at that point, not Windows games. The games have to be rewritten specifically for the Mac.
I think I remember another reason was that Apple did not take lightly other competitors essentially hacking iTunes to allow other players to be used. Didn't Palm do that as well back in the day?
If an unapproved plug-in is used in iTunes and it ends up breaking it for some (any) reason, the user will automatically blame Apple for it, and I don't think Apple wanted to be in that position to maintain compatibility with competing products. It's why the iPod worked so well with iTunes. It was designed by Apple, for Apple, to only work WITH Apple. Case closed.
It wasn't iTunes that was hacked but the firmware in the Palm device (a cell phone I believe) fooled iTunes into thinking it was an iPod. Thus the owners of a Palm device could use iTunes to manage their muisc. I'm not sure if the Palm device was able to play purchsed DRM music from the iTunes Store. And if I recall last, the CEO of Palm at the time was Jon Rubinstein. The same Jonn Rubinstein that worked on the iPod for Apple.
It wasn't iTunes that was hacked but the firmware in the Palm device (a cell phone I believe) fooled iTunes into thinking it was an iPod. Thus the owners of a Palm device could use iTunes to manage their muisc. I'm not sure if the Palm device was able to play purchsed DRM music from the iTunes Store. And if I recall last, the CEO of Palm at the time was Jon Rubinstein. The same Jonn Rubinstein that worked on the iPod for Apple.
Palm spoofed the USB identifier so not only did they go against Apple but also the USB standards body.
Government: Made by idiots, for idiots.
That has nothing to do with DRM, Apple took an opened standard, that really should have been able to play on other systems and made it exclusive to their own platform. They also closed off direct access to their devices file tree, making it very difficult to add media to them without using their software to do so. During the time this lawsuit was filed their devices also only supported those codecs that were used in their iTunes store. It's gotten much better now with the addition of third party software like VLC. I really dislike lawsuits like this, but I feel that they kind of have a point, none of this was benificial to the customer, just Apple.
If Real (or anyone) wanted to sell downloaded digital music that played on an iPod all they had to do was to remove any DRM. It would then play fine on an iPod, and all MP3 players for that matter, without any special software for importing. But if they did that, the Record label wouldn't let them sell digital music online.
And speaking of being benificial to the customers, why don't you ask anyone that bought digital music with PlayforSure DRM how that worked out for them. Microsoft licensed their PlayForSure DRM to many MP3 players. Microsoft stopped supporting PlayForSure and those legally purchased music can no longer be transfered to a new PC or play on the original PC if it had its OS updated.
Meanwhile all the iTunes purchases with FairPlay will still play on an iPod, Touch, iPad, iPhone and any Mac authorized by the original purchaser. Not to mentionn on all MP3 devices, PC's and Macs if those music were burned to CD, to remove the DRM, and then re-imported. No Apple customers, that bought iTunes music with FairPlay, ever lost that music, even though Apple no longer sells music with FairPlayDRM.
As far as I can tell, Apple was looking after their customers when they made sure the Record labels agreed to allow a way for their FairPlay DRM to be removed from iTunes purchased music (by burning to CD)......... from day one of purchase. Why didn't Real do that? If they did, their music would also play on an iPod.
Around $5b at an earlier evaluation so probably over 45m shares. I expect he'll bail out when it's high eventually but he's probably waiting on the buybacks.
Apple still has to execute $22b in buybacks by December 2015 and they probably won't leave the bulk of it until later on.