Well, when a couple of years ago I did an upgrade of the iPod of my son from iOS 4 to 5, some strange things happened.
I always make a backup of the iPad to my Macbook, before performing an upgrade. ITunes refused to make a backup of around 100 songs, which did not come from the iTunes Store. (I don't reminder where they came from, maybe my son knows) After doing the upgrade these 100 songs were effectively wiped from the iPod. Luckily I smelled danger when the backup failed. I was able to make a backup of the songs on a Linux machine, so nothing was lost
So the story in this article may contain a valid complaint
For this case to have got this far likely means that Apple has made pretty unconvincing arguments so far. That's shocking (and frustrating), given just the posts here in this one thread, about facts relating to the iPod.
You really have to wonder about the quality of Apple's legal team. Perhaps they should start reading the comments section of Apple fan sites, for starters. They might actually learn something.
What worries me is if this suit is successful someone else will sue Apple because they can't install whatever they want onto their iOS device without jailbreaking and voiding warranty.
For this case to have got this far likely means that Apple has made pretty unconvincing arguments so far. That's shocking (and frustrating), given just the posts here in this one thread, about facts relating to the iPod.
You really have to wonder about the quality of Apple's legal team. Perhaps they should start reading the comments section of Apple fan sites, for starters. They might actually learn something.
If Apple's legal team took there cues from Apple fan sites Apple would be bankrupted really quickly.
Maybe not bankrupted, but they wouldn't be operating in China, Russia, the Middle East, South Korea, or the EU; they would be using slower, less reliable chips from anyone other than Samsung; the product line would magically be both broader and more focussed; the prices would be doubled to stave off the riff-raff; and if you asked Siri anything critical of Apple or non-negative about Google/Android she'd answer "Shut up and go away".
When did Apple allow uploading your own CDs into iTunes? That might be an element of Apple's defense. It seems I've always been able to import CDs but I wouldn't doubt that that functionality was not initially present.
Uh, iTunes existed long before the iTunes Music Store.
Lawsuit for $1 billion dollars - if Apple found guilty - lawyers get $990 million - and each plaintiff gets $2 gift certificate at the iTunes Music store.
For this case to have got this far likely means that Apple has made pretty unconvincing arguments so far. That's shocking (and frustrating), given just the posts here in this one thread, about facts relating to the iPod.
You really have to wonder about the quality of Apple's legal team. Perhaps they should start reading the comments section of Apple fan sites, for starters. They might actually learn something.
Actually I suspect it has more to do with the potential payout for the lawyers in the case. I believe in many cases such as this the lawyers for the plaintiffs get $0 unless they win - meaning that they have only their time to lose and everything to gain by doing everything possible to ensure that the case does not get dropped or decided against them. In fact after the first year or two - they likely have so much time invested that they have to win some sort of judgment in their favor just to pay off all the hours they spent getting to that point.
Mhmm. Something like this was REALLY hidden for a decade. Yep. This wouldn’t have been immediately reported from here to Honduras, no way.
Sarcasm aside, how stupid can people be to claim something like this? It’s not even remotely true. Their entire lawsuit isn’t even remotely true. Never was. How has it existed for a decade? How are they allowed to have it continue? How are the lawyers not disbarred and the plaintiffs imprisoned for criminal stupidity?
From the WSJ article: Apple contends the moves were legitimate security measures. Apple security director Augustin Farrugia testified that Apple did not offer a more detailed explanation because, “We don’t need to give users too much information,” and “We don’t want to confuse users.”
Farrugia told the court that hackers with names like “DVD Jon” and “Requiem” made Apple “very paranoid” about protecting iTunes. Updates that deleted non-Apple music files were intended to protect consumers from those system break-ins. “The system was totally hacked,” he said.
Here's a question. How did Apple advertise their device. Did they say "play music from any source" or did they say "play music copied with the iTunes software from your CDs or music bought ready to sync from the iTunes store"
I suspect the later. Which means those buying an iPod had no reasonable expectation that anything else should have worked. Apple isn't required to let you keep your hacks on their stuff. So if they changed up their software and it kills that hack, you really can't cry at them.
These scumbag attorneys are pariah. They will be the only ones to make any real compensation if they win this case - lining their pockets with 10o's of millions. The insanity needs to be stopped in our legal system - it is horribly broken.
Apple contends the moves were legitimate security measures.
Isn’t it funny that in the 13 years the iPod has existed we have never, EVER heard about this happening?
Isn’t it funny that no other PMP has ever been able to play iTunes music? Isn’t it funny that while iTunes supported PMPs other than the iPod the iPod was NEVER supported by other brands’ software? Isn’t it funny that the entire lawsuit is based on complete lies that can be disproven using any version of iTunes and any CD?
Isn’t it funny that NOTHING APPLE HAS DONE IS IN ANY WAY ILLEGAL UNDER ANY LAW EVER WRITTEN?
And isn’t it funny that no one but Apple has been sued over doing the same thing that everyone else in the industry did?
At least in my experience an iPod FULL of no-DRM music tracks was never interfered with by Apple in any way. Heck I'd had an iPod for years before I ever bothered to use the digital store, preferring to use the system I was used to: going to a brick and mortar store and sorting through CD's and buying ones I wanted. Then with the iPod, I just ripped them into iTunes and went from there.
Now if other DRM systems from other sources weren't compatible with iPods that's their problem not Apple's: just like I couldn't run a SONY BetaMax tape in a VHS machine not being the VHS machine's manufacturer's problem. hey that brings up another issue: why couldn't I "just" play my audiotapes in my iPod? MONOPOLY!!!! Wow I bet all we cassette tape owners could get together and do the class action lawsuit thing....
It's not like it was open to begin with and then they started closing out competition once they became popular. I could see a problem with that, but that's not the reality of the situation.
Actually, that IS the reality of the situation...at least as far as the iPod being open to begin with. The iPod existed before the iTunes Music Store and the only way to put music on it was from other sources.
Now, this isn't going to be popular here, but please notice the big fat emphasis on the "if"...
IF a user had, for example, a Real Networks, non-DRM'd MP3 in their iTunes library and it sync'd and played on their iPod. And IF that MP3 file was a standard MP3 file but perhaps had a metadata tag or something that identfied it as sourcing from Real Networks, and IF Apple then issued an update to iTunes which looked for that tag and refused to load that otherwise fully compliant MP3 formated audio file onto the users iPod, then yes, Apple might have a legal problem on it's hands. But to prove that you'd almost have to look at the source code for iTunes and find the line of code that shows it was specifically targeting music from competing services (vs looking for corrupted and/or incompatible file formats, etc).
But, if the user had hacked their iPod and/or iTunes or if the MP3 had some sort of DRM or other non-standard MP3 format, then Apple could claim it was for safety/security reasons.
Isn’t it funny that in the 13 years the iPod has existed we have never, EVER heard about this happening?
Isn’t it funny that no other PMP has ever been able to play iTunes music? Isn’t it funny that while iTunes supported PMPs other than the iPod the iPod was NEVER supported by other brands’ software? Isn’t it funny that the entire lawsuit is based on complete lies that can be disproven using any version of iTunes and any CD?
Isn’t it funny that NOTHING APPLE HAS DONE IS IN ANY WAY ILLEGAL UNDER ANY LAW EVER WRITTEN?
And isn’t it funny that no one but Apple has been sued over doing the same thing that everyone else in the industry did?
I'm not sure if you're trying to be ironic, but this is riddled with errors.
1. Not having heard of something doesn't mean it never happened, and we're talking about a time when other digital services weren't all that successful. Which is the point. So no, it's not particularly funny or unsuprising.
2. There have been other devices able to play iTunes music. The Motorola ROKR, the RAZR v3i. Only under license from Apple, which is the point. Since DRM was removed, every PMP ever, but that's beyond the scope.
3. Other software has supported iPods. MusicMatch on Windows supported them for a while, and Winamp has been able to sync with them for a while. Probably more too. But apparently putting rival DRM-protected music on them was where Apple drew the line. Which is the point.
4. CDs are not the contentious issue, it's other downloaded music. There, that's the point, which you must surely have known.
5. Judges and juries decide whether actions are illegal, not capital letters.
6. Everyone else in the industry actively removed music from rival services from their locked-in devices? Any evidence of that?
You rant about "complete lies", yet your first post and this was full of garbled nonsense. Apple are admitting that their software did this, although they dispute the motive.
I suggest you read the story again before getting so het up.
Wait, I thought this never happened "No Way"
So Apple did do this?
Apple did include the DRM that was mandated by the record labels, and they did take measures to ensure the DRM system was not hacked (which is the whole point of DRM).
What they didn't do was make up and abuse the system in an effort to establish or maintain a monopoly.
Now if other DRM systems from other sources weren't compatible with iPods that's their problem not Apple's: just like I couldn't run a SONY BetaMax tape in a VHS machine not being the VHS machine's manufacturer's problem. hey that brings up another issue: why couldn't I "just" play my audiotapes in my iPod? MONOPOLY!!!! Wow I bet all we cassette tape owners could get together and do the class action lawsuit thing....
This analogy really doesn't fit. Let's rework it...
I have a Sony BetaMax machine and another company makes a tape meeting the BetaMax format specifications, but also add a special little button that prevents the tape being copied. It doesn't affect the BetaMax machine at all, but Sony decide to remote update the BetaMax machine (god knows how they do that in the 80s, but stick with it). Now my tapes are useless.
WTF Sony?
And let's be clear, the analogy doesn't really work because BetaMax was a proprietary standard owned by Sony, whereas Apple doesn't own MP3 or AAC at all. Sony could probably get away with saying they were protecting their proprietary format and investments. What excuse do Apple have? Protecting sales from their store is the accusation, which doesn't fly nearly so well.
The fact that they allowed CDs to be ripped doesn't work in their favour, it just highlights a vindictiveness specifically towards other digital download stores.
Actually, that IS the reality of the situation...at least as far as the iPod being open to begin with. The iPod existed before the iTunes Music Store and the only way to put music on it was from other sources.
Now, this isn't going to be popular here, but please notice the big fat emphasis on the "if"...
IF a user had, for example, a Real Networks, non-DRM'd MP3 in their iTunes library and it sync'd and played on their iPod. And IF that MP3 file was a standard MP3 file but perhaps had a metadata tag or something that identfied it as sourcing from Real Networks, and IF Apple then issued an update to iTunes which looked for that tag and refused to load that otherwise fully compliant MP3 formated audio file onto the users iPod, then yes, Apple might have a legal problem on it's hands. But to prove that you'd almost have to look at the source code for iTunes and find the line of code that shows it was specifically targeting music from competing services (vs looking for corrupted and/or incompatible file formats, etc).
But, if the user had hacked their iPod and/or iTunes or if the MP3 had some sort of DRM or other non-standard MP3 format, then Apple could claim it was for safety/security reasons.
Why would it be unpopular? It is pretty clear from available evidence that the latter possibility is what actually happened. The only thing that's unpopular is trolls and lawyers trying to convince an ignorant court system that the former and the latter are really the same thing.
This analogy really doesn't fit. Let's rework it...
I have a Sony BetaMax machine and another company makes a tape meeting the BetaMax format specifications, but also add a special little button that prevents the tape being copied. It doesn't affect the BetaMax machine at all, but Sony decide to remote update the BetaMax machine (god knows how they do that in the 80s, but stick with it). Now my tapes are useless.
WTF Sony?
And let's be clear, the analogy doesn't really work because BetaMax was a proprietary standard owned by Sony, whereas Apple doesn't own MP3 or AAC at all. Sony could probably get away with saying they were protecting their proprietary format and investments. What excuse do Apple have? Protecting sales from their store is the accusation, which doesn't fly nearly so well.
The fact that they allowed CDs to be ripped doesn't work in their favour, it just highlights a vindictiveness specifically towards other digital download stores.
Your analogy doesn't work either, because, unlike BetaMax, Apple was contractually required by the record labels to include DRM in the iPod. The other company exploited a flaw in Apples DRM to defeat the system. When Apple patched the flaw (as was no doubt required by contract), the exploit stopped working.
That's all that happened here. Apple wasn't trying to maintain a monopoly or bully another company. They were just trying to fulfill their contract.
And yes, Apple doesn't own MP3 or AAC, but they do own the DRM software that was implemented in the iPod. In that sense, the iPod was proprietary.
Comments
Well, when a couple of years ago I did an upgrade of the iPod of my son from iOS 4 to 5, some strange things happened.
I always make a backup of the iPad to my Macbook, before performing an upgrade. ITunes refused to make a backup of around 100 songs, which did not come from the iTunes Store. (I don't reminder where they came from, maybe my son knows) After doing the upgrade these 100 songs were effectively wiped from the iPod. Luckily I smelled danger when the backup failed. I was able to make a backup of the songs on a Linux machine, so nothing was lost
So the story in this article may contain a valid complaint
What worries me is if this suit is successful someone else will sue Apple because they can't install whatever they want onto their iOS device without jailbreaking and voiding warranty.
As though they can't tell the wheat from the chaff.
Can't you?
When did Apple allow uploading your own CDs into iTunes? That might be an element of Apple's defense. It seems I've always been able to import CDs but I wouldn't doubt that that functionality was not initially present.
Uh, iTunes existed long before the iTunes Music Store.
For this case to have got this far likely means that Apple has made pretty unconvincing arguments so far. That's shocking (and frustrating), given just the posts here in this one thread, about facts relating to the iPod.
You really have to wonder about the quality of Apple's legal team. Perhaps they should start reading the comments section of Apple fan sites, for starters. They might actually learn something.
Actually I suspect it has more to do with the potential payout for the lawyers in the case. I believe in many cases such as this the lawyers for the plaintiffs get $0 unless they win - meaning that they have only their time to lose and everything to gain by doing everything possible to ensure that the case does not get dropped or decided against them. In fact after the first year or two - they likely have so much time invested that they have to win some sort of judgment in their favor just to pay off all the hours they spent getting to that point.
From the WSJ article:
Apple contends the moves were legitimate security measures. Apple security director Augustin Farrugia testified that Apple did not offer a more detailed explanation because, “We don’t need to give users too much information,” and “We don’t want to confuse users.”
Farrugia told the court that hackers with names like “DVD Jon” and “Requiem” made Apple “very paranoid” about protecting iTunes. Updates that deleted non-Apple music files were intended to protect consumers from those system break-ins. “The system was totally hacked,” he said.
I suspect the later. Which means those buying an iPod had no reasonable expectation that anything else should have worked. Apple isn't required to let you keep your hacks on their stuff. So if they changed up their software and it kills that hack, you really can't cry at them.
Isn’t it funny that in the 13 years the iPod has existed we have never, EVER heard about this happening?
Isn’t it funny that no other PMP has ever been able to play iTunes music? Isn’t it funny that while iTunes supported PMPs other than the iPod the iPod was NEVER supported by other brands’ software? Isn’t it funny that the entire lawsuit is based on complete lies that can be disproven using any version of iTunes and any CD?
Isn’t it funny that NOTHING APPLE HAS DONE IS IN ANY WAY ILLEGAL UNDER ANY LAW EVER WRITTEN?
And isn’t it funny that no one but Apple has been sued over doing the same thing that everyone else in the industry did?
Isn’t it funny that NOTHING APPLE HAS DONE IS IN ANY WAY ILLEGAL UNDER ANY LAW EVER WRITTEN?
And isn’t it funny that no one but Apple has been sued over doing the same thing that everyone else in the industry did?
Wait, I thought this never happened "No Way"
So Apple did do this?
At least in my experience an iPod FULL of no-DRM music tracks was never interfered with by Apple in any way. Heck I'd had an iPod for years before I ever bothered to use the digital store, preferring to use the system I was used to: going to a brick and mortar store and sorting through CD's and buying ones I wanted. Then with the iPod, I just ripped them into iTunes and went from there.
Now if other DRM systems from other sources weren't compatible with iPods that's their problem not Apple's: just like I couldn't run a SONY BetaMax tape in a VHS machine not being the VHS machine's manufacturer's problem. hey that brings up another issue: why couldn't I "just" play my audiotapes in my iPod? MONOPOLY!!!! Wow I bet all we cassette tape owners could get together and do the class action lawsuit thing....
It's not like it was open to begin with and then they started closing out competition once they became popular. I could see a problem with that, but that's not the reality of the situation.
Actually, that IS the reality of the situation...at least as far as the iPod being open to begin with. The iPod existed before the iTunes Music Store and the only way to put music on it was from other sources.
Now, this isn't going to be popular here, but please notice the big fat emphasis on the "if"...
IF a user had, for example, a Real Networks, non-DRM'd MP3 in their iTunes library and it sync'd and played on their iPod. And IF that MP3 file was a standard MP3 file but perhaps had a metadata tag or something that identfied it as sourcing from Real Networks, and IF Apple then issued an update to iTunes which looked for that tag and refused to load that otherwise fully compliant MP3 formated audio file onto the users iPod, then yes, Apple might have a legal problem on it's hands. But to prove that you'd almost have to look at the source code for iTunes and find the line of code that shows it was specifically targeting music from competing services (vs looking for corrupted and/or incompatible file formats, etc).
But, if the user had hacked their iPod and/or iTunes or if the MP3 had some sort of DRM or other non-standard MP3 format, then Apple could claim it was for safety/security reasons.
Isn’t it funny that in the 13 years the iPod has existed we have never, EVER heard about this happening?
Isn’t it funny that no other PMP has ever been able to play iTunes music? Isn’t it funny that while iTunes supported PMPs other than the iPod the iPod was NEVER supported by other brands’ software? Isn’t it funny that the entire lawsuit is based on complete lies that can be disproven using any version of iTunes and any CD?
Isn’t it funny that NOTHING APPLE HAS DONE IS IN ANY WAY ILLEGAL UNDER ANY LAW EVER WRITTEN?
And isn’t it funny that no one but Apple has been sued over doing the same thing that everyone else in the industry did?
I'm not sure if you're trying to be ironic, but this is riddled with errors.
1. Not having heard of something doesn't mean it never happened, and we're talking about a time when other digital services weren't all that successful. Which is the point. So no, it's not particularly funny or unsuprising.
2. There have been other devices able to play iTunes music. The Motorola ROKR, the RAZR v3i. Only under license from Apple, which is the point. Since DRM was removed, every PMP ever, but that's beyond the scope.
3. Other software has supported iPods. MusicMatch on Windows supported them for a while, and Winamp has been able to sync with them for a while. Probably more too. But apparently putting rival DRM-protected music on them was where Apple drew the line. Which is the point.
4. CDs are not the contentious issue, it's other downloaded music. There, that's the point, which you must surely have known.
5. Judges and juries decide whether actions are illegal, not capital letters.
6. Everyone else in the industry actively removed music from rival services from their locked-in devices? Any evidence of that?
You rant about "complete lies", yet your first post and this was full of garbled nonsense. Apple are admitting that their software did this, although they dispute the motive.
I suggest you read the story again before getting so het up.
Apple did include the DRM that was mandated by the record labels, and they did take measures to ensure the DRM system was not hacked (which is the whole point of DRM).
What they didn't do was make up and abuse the system in an effort to establish or maintain a monopoly.
Now if other DRM systems from other sources weren't compatible with iPods that's their problem not Apple's: just like I couldn't run a SONY BetaMax tape in a VHS machine not being the VHS machine's manufacturer's problem. hey that brings up another issue: why couldn't I "just" play my audiotapes in my iPod? MONOPOLY!!!! Wow I bet all we cassette tape owners could get together and do the class action lawsuit thing....
This analogy really doesn't fit. Let's rework it...
I have a Sony BetaMax machine and another company makes a tape meeting the BetaMax format specifications, but also add a special little button that prevents the tape being copied. It doesn't affect the BetaMax machine at all, but Sony decide to remote update the BetaMax machine (god knows how they do that in the 80s, but stick with it). Now my tapes are useless.
WTF Sony?
And let's be clear, the analogy doesn't really work because BetaMax was a proprietary standard owned by Sony, whereas Apple doesn't own MP3 or AAC at all. Sony could probably get away with saying they were protecting their proprietary format and investments. What excuse do Apple have? Protecting sales from their store is the accusation, which doesn't fly nearly so well.
The fact that they allowed CDs to be ripped doesn't work in their favour, it just highlights a vindictiveness specifically towards other digital download stores.
Why would it be unpopular? It is pretty clear from available evidence that the latter possibility is what actually happened. The only thing that's unpopular is trolls and lawyers trying to convince an ignorant court system that the former and the latter are really the same thing.
Your analogy doesn't work either, because, unlike BetaMax, Apple was contractually required by the record labels to include DRM in the iPod. The other company exploited a flaw in Apples DRM to defeat the system. When Apple patched the flaw (as was no doubt required by contract), the exploit stopped working.
That's all that happened here. Apple wasn't trying to maintain a monopoly or bully another company. They were just trying to fulfill their contract.
And yes, Apple doesn't own MP3 or AAC, but they do own the DRM software that was implemented in the iPod. In that sense, the iPod was proprietary.