Can someone, preferably the judge overseeing this case, tell me how Gillette for decades produced handles that couldn't be used with other companies' blades and blades that couldn't be used with other companies' handles and how this differs from what Apple is being accused of here? Hey, I've got these blades I purchased for my Gillette shaving handle. The handle broke and so I want to replace it with a handle from another brand. But Gillette won't let me use my blades with another company's handle. I'm suing!
"In July 2004, RealNetworks introduced their Harmony technology. The Harmony technology is built into RealPlayer and allows users of the RealPlayer Music Store to play their songs on the iPod. Before the introduction of Harmony this was not possible, because the RealPlayer Music Store uses a different DRM scheme, called Helix DRM, that was incompatible with that used by Apple." (I just love this point - instead of the Harmony hack, all Real actually had to do was remove their own DRM.)
I'm hoping the judge is going ahead with this case just so there can be a clear decision that will put an end to this nonsense once and for all.
To be fair. Real could not remove their DRM. The record labels won't let them. In order to sell digital music online, they were require to create and manitain some form of DRM. Just like what Apple did with FairPlay and Microsoft did with PlaysForSure. (Which MS licensed out to others.) I remember there were also suits pertaining to the fact that Apple would not license out FairPlay to other players. So some thought that you had to own an iPod to buy music from the iTunes Store and other MP3 players were locked out. But it was point out that all you needed was iTunes to access the iTunes Store. The iPod is locked to iTunes not the iTunes Store. Once your purchases were in iTunes, it could be transferred to other players by burning a disc.
I don't know whether this (burning to disc to remove DRM by the purchaser) was a special deal Apple worked out with the record labels or it was something they were able to do because of that's how they wrote FairPlay. (Whether the record labels liked it or not.) I do know that when MS was going to stop supporting PlaysForSure, the music everyone purchased was going to be forever stuck on the computer it was in when MS shuts down their online PlaysForSure approval server becasue there would no longer be a way to authorize a new computer to play the music. It also meant you couldn't update the OS of that computer. There was no way to remove the DRM from music with PlaysForSure. At least MS didn't provide a way.
That's not true. You can find handles that will hold Gillette blades.
Was that always true? Apple is being sued for the way it did business eight years ago. Gillette may be doing things different today. Has it always allowed other blades to be used with its handles? If so, why would it have sold the handles so cheaply for so long? What was the business model a decade ago if not a lock-in by giving away the handles cheaply that support only Gillette blades.
Was that always true? Apple is being sued for the way it did business eight years ago. Gillette may be doing things different today. Has it always allowed other blades to be used with its handles? If so, why would it have sold the handles so cheaply for so long? What was the business model a decade ago if not a lock-in by giving away the handles cheaply that support only Gillette blades.
I doubt they're too concerned about what handle is holding the Gillette blade you bought. Why would they be?
In Apple's case they were interested in selling expensive and profitable handles (iPods), but still didn't want the relatively cheap blades fitting someone else's handle did they, assuming I understand it correctly? As a businessman myself I certainly appreciate the reasons why so I personally don't have an issue with it.
Like you, right? You've been calling for Cook's head since he's been CEO. Don't dare bitch about other trying to "find fault", while you've been a supporter and enabler of every smear campaign and frivolous attacks against Apple.
That person's obsession with TC is the fact that the man is gay.
Can someone, preferably the judge overseeing this case, tell me how Gillette for decades produced handles that couldn't be used with other companies' blades and blades that couldn't be used with other companies' handles and how this differs from what Apple is being accused of here? Hey, I've got these blades I purchased for my Gillette shaving handle. The handle broke and so I want to replace it with a handle from another brand. But Gillette won't let me use my blades with another company's handle. I'm suing!
iPods and iTunes do not belong on that list. Even though the iPod is tied to iTunes, iTunes is free. Apple only makes money with iTunes if you purchased music from the iTunes Store. But this is not required, in order to get music into the iPod. And iTunes do not require an iPod to use. You can use iTunes to organize and play music (and now movies and videos) on a computer. Which is what it was orginally written for when Apple bought out SoundJam and turned it into iTunes.
Was that always true? Apple is being sued for the way it did business eight years ago. Gillette may be doing things different today. Has it always allowed other blades to be used with its handles? If so, why would it have sold the handles so cheaply for so long? What was the business model a decade ago if not a lock-in by giving away the handles cheaply that support only Gillette blades.
I came upon these handles about 5 years ago when looking for a old school shave kit that included a brush, a mug, and a safety razor. There are handles to hold blades from different manufacturers. I don't see why Gillette would have an issue with this if people are still buying their expensive blades.
When can we expect the eBook antitrust suit against Amazon for making
non-transferable eBooks?
I'm not sure that it would fall into the purview of antitrust but yes it could be seen as anti consumer (although Amazon would likely battle that by saying that they created apps for using iPads, computers etc so who cares what the format is).
Hard to see how this suit could have merit, since you can move music in and out of iTunes...
Haven't I always been able to rip cd's into iTunes, and burn cd's from iTunes purchases?
keep in mind that this isn't really about iTunes and its files. It's about the iPods. These folks were filing a class action suit over the 'offense' that they couldn't use realplayer files on the iPod. And when they could figure out a way, Apple did an update and killed it. Apple may not have been doing it on purpose just to kill RealPlayer but rather because they were using an insecurity in the system (think sort of like jailbreakers work) and when Apple fixed that the other was the side effect. But these folks were pissed. And for the last ten years they have been trying to find a magic trick to get Apple. Some smoking gun statement like Steve's so called confession that Apple was the ringleader of the ebooks collusion
Even if Apple thought DRM was a good idea (which all evidence points no), to me the most ridiculous argument in all this is that you could use an iPod and iTunes without ever buying a single song from iTunes Music Store or even ever creating an iTunes Music Store account. iTunes had CD ripping capabilities, as well the ability to import MP3, AAC, and ALAC formats.
Exactly. So what stopped Real users from converting the Real format to MP3? The iTunes app would have then found those files and they would have worked. Unless Real stopped users from doing that, which is not Apple's problem.
And in any case, it's not that Apple locked in owners with DRM. It's that they locked out Real users. Right?
I thought Harmony was the opposite and that it tried to remove the DRM in order to be played on other devices? I might be wrong on that it's been soooooooooo long since RealPlayer has been used by anyone although we have about two customers who use it a lot (also had many problems with it surprisingly).
Anyway, Apple created the iTunes store, Apple created the iPod, Apple pays the media companies license fees to use their content, so Apple is the only one who is allowed to dictate what can and can't be used on their devices. It's common sense which I know is lacking with these people so we can fix the problem real cheaply with a $2 bullet. Cheaper than the $350 million they're after.
So what stopped Real users from converting the Real format to MP3?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe
The DRM on RealPlayer files
Exactly. So it's not Apple's fault or responsibility - Real was the culprit. They should be suing Real, not Apple. If Real files were convertible to MP3, they could have been used in iTunes and on all Apple music players.
Was that always true? Apple is being sued for the way it did business eight years ago. Gillette may be doing things different today. Has it always allowed other blades to be used with its handles? If so, why would it have sold the handles so cheaply for so long? What was the business model a decade ago if not a lock-in by giving away the handles cheaply that support only Gillette blades.
Apple didnt want to allow another proprietary format. I see no problem with that at all. However they alliwed open standards like mp3 to be used with iPod. Why should they be under any obligation to realplayer
Exactly. So it's not Apple's fault or responsibility - Real was the culprit. They should be suing Real, not Apple. If Real files were convertible to MP3, they could have been used in iTunes and on all Apple music players.
Exactly. At no time did Apple adverse nor guarantee compatibility with Real’s DRM. Apple in fact explicitly said that their updates could break this. It remiss me of what Palm did with their Pre - they tried to convince iTunes that it was an iPhone so that the device could sync with the Pre. They tried to fight it and the USB org shot them down (Palm hacked the USB ID to make their devices appear as iPhones).
Apple at no time advertised their devices as compatible with Real’s services. Any consumers were deceived by Real. Apple isn’t under any obligation to license their serves to third parties as Nintendo is obligated to make their games available on third parties hardware. It’s silly.
I don't think I'm the expert you're referring to, but believe they are claiming songs purchased from the iTunes store could not be played on other devices. I think you could put whatever music you had into iTunes and then an iPod, but if you switched to another player, your purchased music wouldn't work. And they want $350 million for this.
Simple way to end this case would be to ask them to provide someone who this actually happened to. Get them to provide someone who actually bought a different device after owning an iPod. Probably easier to find Jimmy Hoffa.
Then Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are equally guilty of using DRM on content to lock you into buying their hardware. Of course a videogame might be published on all platforms, but then again, you don't have to by your music from iTunes either. DRM on content to specific vendor hardware does not equal antitrust violations.
The ultimate end game of this suit is what? Money grab from lawyers? Get Apple to settle? Or to force Apple to license FairPlay?
Comments
That's not true. You can find handles that will hold Gillette blades.
"In July 2004, RealNetworks introduced their Harmony technology. The Harmony technology is built into RealPlayer and allows users of the RealPlayer Music Store to play their songs on the iPod. Before the introduction of Harmony this was not possible, because the RealPlayer Music Store uses a different DRM scheme, called Helix DRM, that was incompatible with that used by Apple." (I just love this point - instead of the Harmony hack, all Real actually had to do was remove their own DRM.)
I'm hoping the judge is going ahead with this case just so there can be a clear decision that will put an end to this nonsense once and for all.
To be fair. Real could not remove their DRM. The record labels won't let them. In order to sell digital music online, they were require to create and manitain some form of DRM. Just like what Apple did with FairPlay and Microsoft did with PlaysForSure. (Which MS licensed out to others.) I remember there were also suits pertaining to the fact that Apple would not license out FairPlay to other players. So some thought that you had to own an iPod to buy music from the iTunes Store and other MP3 players were locked out. But it was point out that all you needed was iTunes to access the iTunes Store. The iPod is locked to iTunes not the iTunes Store. Once your purchases were in iTunes, it could be transferred to other players by burning a disc.
I don't know whether this (burning to disc to remove DRM by the purchaser) was a special deal Apple worked out with the record labels or it was something they were able to do because of that's how they wrote FairPlay. (Whether the record labels liked it or not.) I do know that when MS was going to stop supporting PlaysForSure, the music everyone purchased was going to be forever stuck on the computer it was in when MS shuts down their online PlaysForSure approval server becasue there would no longer be a way to authorize a new computer to play the music. It also meant you couldn't update the OS of that computer. There was no way to remove the DRM from music with PlaysForSure. At least MS didn't provide a way.
Was that always true? Apple is being sued for the way it did business eight years ago. Gillette may be doing things different today. Has it always allowed other blades to be used with its handles? If so, why would it have sold the handles so cheaply for so long? What was the business model a decade ago if not a lock-in by giving away the handles cheaply that support only Gillette blades.
I doubt they're too concerned about what handle is holding the Gillette blade you bought. Why would they be?
In Apple's case they were interested in selling expensive and profitable handles (iPods), but still didn't want the relatively cheap blades fitting someone else's handle did they, assuming I understand it correctly? As a businessman myself I certainly appreciate the reasons why so I personally don't have an issue with it.
Like you, right? You've been calling for Cook's head since he's been CEO. Don't dare bitch about other trying to "find fault", while you've been a supporter and enabler of every smear campaign and frivolous attacks against Apple.
That person's obsession with TC is the fact that the man is gay.
Can someone, preferably the judge overseeing this case, tell me how Gillette for decades produced handles that couldn't be used with other companies' blades and blades that couldn't be used with other companies' handles and how this differs from what Apple is being accused of here? Hey, I've got these blades I purchased for my Gillette shaving handle. The handle broke and so I want to replace it with a handle from another brand. But Gillette won't let me use my blades with another company's handle. I'm suing!
Interesting primer:
http://tbmdb.blogspot.com/2009/09/razor-and-blade-business-model.html
iPods and iTunes do not belong on that list. Even though the iPod is tied to iTunes, iTunes is free. Apple only makes money with iTunes if you purchased music from the iTunes Store. But this is not required, in order to get music into the iPod. And iTunes do not require an iPod to use. You can use iTunes to organize and play music (and now movies and videos) on a computer. Which is what it was orginally written for when Apple bought out SoundJam and turned it into iTunes.
I came upon these handles about 5 years ago when looking for a old school shave kit that included a brush, a mug, and a safety razor. There are handles to hold blades from different manufacturers. I don't see why Gillette would have an issue with this if people are still buying their expensive blades.
I'm not sure that it would fall into the purview of antitrust but yes it could be seen as anti consumer (although Amazon would likely battle that by saying that they created apps for using iPads, computers etc so who cares what the format is).
keep in mind that this isn't really about iTunes and its files. It's about the iPods. These folks were filing a class action suit over the 'offense' that they couldn't use realplayer files on the iPod. And when they could figure out a way, Apple did an update and killed it. Apple may not have been doing it on purpose just to kill RealPlayer but rather because they were using an insecurity in the system (think sort of like jailbreakers work) and when Apple fixed that the other was the side effect. But these folks were pissed. And for the last ten years they have been trying to find a magic trick to get Apple. Some smoking gun statement like Steve's so called confession that Apple was the ringleader of the ebooks collusion
keep in mind that this isn't really about iTunes and its files. It's about the iPods
"...a long-running case involving the use of digital rights management for content sold through the iTunes Store"...
Okay, so at least partly about content...
Would a better comparison have been, "Apple made it impossible for me to play my LP's on their player...etc."?
Just thank god it wasn't filed in East Texas. At least in Cali the defendant stands a chance.
Even if Apple thought DRM was a good idea (which all evidence points no), to me the most ridiculous argument in all this is that you could use an iPod and iTunes without ever buying a single song from iTunes Music Store or even ever creating an iTunes Music Store account. iTunes had CD ripping capabilities, as well the ability to import MP3, AAC, and ALAC formats.
Exactly. So what stopped Real users from converting the Real format to MP3? The iTunes app would have then found those files and they would have worked. Unless Real stopped users from doing that, which is not Apple's problem.
And in any case, it's not that Apple locked in owners with DRM. It's that they locked out Real users. Right?
I thought Harmony was the opposite and that it tried to remove the DRM in order to be played on other devices? I might be wrong on that it's been soooooooooo long since RealPlayer has been used by anyone although we have about two customers who use it a lot (also had many problems with it surprisingly).
Anyway, Apple created the iTunes store, Apple created the iPod, Apple pays the media companies license fees to use their content, so Apple is the only one who is allowed to dictate what can and can't be used on their devices. It's common sense which I know is lacking with these people so we can fix the problem real cheaply with a $2 bullet. Cheaper than the $350 million they're after.
Exactly. So what stopped Real users from converting the Real format to MP3?
The DRM on RealPlayer files
So what stopped Real users from converting the Real format to MP3?
The DRM on RealPlayer files
Exactly. So it's not Apple's fault or responsibility - Real was the culprit. They should be suing Real, not Apple. If Real files were convertible to MP3, they could have been used in iTunes and on all Apple music players.
People are pathetic. I have nothing else to say about this lawsuit.
Another way of putting it:
Money exists.
Exactly. So it's not Apple's fault or responsibility - Real was the culprit. They should be suing Real, not Apple. If Real files were convertible to MP3, they could have been used in iTunes and on all Apple music players.
Exactly. At no time did Apple adverse nor guarantee compatibility with Real’s DRM. Apple in fact explicitly said that their updates could break this. It remiss me of what Palm did with their Pre - they tried to convince iTunes that it was an iPhone so that the device could sync with the Pre. They tried to fight it and the USB org shot them down (Palm hacked the USB ID to make their devices appear as iPhones).
Apple at no time advertised their devices as compatible with Real’s services. Any consumers were deceived by Real. Apple isn’t under any obligation to license their serves to third parties as Nintendo is obligated to make their games available on third parties hardware. It’s silly.
Then Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are equally guilty of using DRM on content to lock you into buying their hardware. Of course a videogame might be published on all platforms, but then again, you don't have to by your music from iTunes either. DRM on content to specific vendor hardware does not equal antitrust violations.
The ultimate end game of this suit is what? Money grab from lawyers? Get Apple to settle? Or to force Apple to license FairPlay?