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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
Apple was quite clear as to what audio codecs and DRM'd content was supported on their devices.
Snitches get stitches.
You know that this kind of comment might be misread as a threat?
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.