Former iTunes engineer says Apple wanted to block '100% of non-iTunes clients'

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 49
    evilutionevilution Posts: 1,399member

    Back in the early days, Apple wanted to keep it all legal with regards to the DRM to keep the record companies happy. Once they had conquered the market, they could dictate to the record companies what was going to happen and other non-iTunes clients are a fractional minority.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    I don't follow. Why would Apple be forced to support Google's version of Java so that Android apps could run on iOS?



    It was sarcasm.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 49
    Curious pfshier has no Apple devices and uses no Apple devices but spends his free time reading Apple Insider and making comments about how bad MacMail is or whether Apple has cloud services. Is this guy/gal for real?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 49
    The problem was Apple did not properly or adequately inform its customers the limitations of iPod and music wrapped with FairPlay. Were there any Apple sales pitch missives to address these monopolistic limitations?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 49

    Such little actual harm has come to the plaintiffs in the suit. This is a money grab for the sake of grabbing money. If they will I hope the judge awards them the cost of two iPods.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 49
    trydtryd Posts: 143member

    I don't see the problem. Real used a security hole in iOs to enable the iPod to play music from Real's store. Apple closed the hole, and as a result music from Real's store stopped working. There was a security hole in iOs, it would have been irresponsible of Apple not to close that hole.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 49
    The problem was Apple did not properly or adequately inform its customers the limitations of iPod and music wrapped with FairPlay. Were there any Apple sales pitch missives to address these monopolistic limitations?

    Apple was quite clear as to what audio codecs and DRM'd content was supported on their devices.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 48 of 49
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacVicta View Post



    Snitches get stitches.

    You know that this kind of comment might be misread as a threat?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 49
    croprcropr Posts: 1,149member

    I think most posts are completely missing the point.  Apple has tied a product (iPod) with a service (iTunes Store), like a lot of competitors do.  And there is no dicussion about that point.  So no issue, unless the iPod could be perceived as a monopoly.  Because in that case the service could become a monopoly and end user would be hurt by paying a premium for the content on that service.  But as long as the iPod is not a monopoly, Apple is free to make a bundled approach, if Apple assumes that the bundling is the way forward

     

    History has shown that  iPod and iPhone don't have a monopoly, and most proabably never wil have, so the case should be dismissed. 

     

    In fact I have an iPhone, but I never buy content from the iTunes store, because there is no iTunes player available on Android, and I don't want to go through the hassle of converting, burning or ripping for every other device I own.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.