|
||||||||
Apple in court over anticompetitive behaviour again |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
Apple in court over anticompetitive behaviour again
Apple are in court over anticompetitive behaviour again. This is something of a historical case and Apple will only face a paltry $350m if it loses the trial.
Proceedings will hinge around the fact early iPods only allowed owners to play MP3s and other tracks bought from the Apples store or ripped from their own CD collection. Once again Steve Jobs gives some damming evidence from beyond the grave. In 2003, Jobs was concerned about MusicMatch, a rival music service. “We need to make sure that when Music Match launches their download music store they cannot use iPod,” he wrote. “Is this going to be an issue?” Many more emails are expected to be unveiled during the trial. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12...give_evidence/ |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,916
|
With the amount of time that apple lawyers spend in court, I bet they have their own office in their local courthouse.
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
The latest from court looks at Apple blocking Real Player. Makes for interesting reading. Once again Steve Jobs comes across as a tyrant trying to keep his empire free from competition. Quote:
Early iPod fanbois and gurls are suing the fruity firm for unfairly blocking competition in digital music by forcing users to buy solely from iTunes. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12..._case_day_one/
In opening statements, the iPod users’ legal beak Bonny Sweeney introduced emails between top Apple execs, including Jobs, that discussed a challenge in online music from Real Networks, as Re/code, Bloomberg and others reported. “There was a concern by Apple that this would eat into their market share,” she asserted. Eventually, Cupertino introduced a software update to the iPod that stopped RealPlayer music from being downloaded. The argument is that this was unfairly anticompetitive because once a person owned an iPod, they were pretty much locked into the Apple “ecosystem”, even if they wanted to buy a competing device later. In the emails, the Applers discuss how the firm’s 70 per cent market share in 2004 was slipping. Jobs suggested that the company should release a press statement accusing Real Networks of “hacking” the iPod. “How’s this?” Jobs wrote. “‘We are stunned that Real is adopting the tactics and ethics of a hacker and breaking into the iPod.'” “I like likening them to hackers,” Apple marketing chief Philip Schiller responded. Apple’s attorney William Isaacson said that the company had every right to improve iTunes to protect iPods from security threats and any other damage Real Networks software might cause. “It posed a danger to the consumer experience and to the quality of the product,” he claimed. |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 25,199
|
It should come as no surprise, he ruled his imperium with a steel fist. He was no Christ figure as the visuals of that film about him tried to suggest, quite the opposite
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
It should come as no surprise, he ruled his imperium with a steel fist. He was no Christ figure as the visuals of that film about him tried to suggest, quite the opposite
![]() |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Can someone explain to me the difference between Apple not wanting Real Networks stuff to work on the iPod and, for example, Nintendo games not working on a Playstation?
Is it because Nintendo are tyrants too? |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
Quote:
Can someone explain to me the difference between Apple not wanting Real Networks stuff to work on the iPod and, for example, Nintendo games not working on a Playstation?
Is it because Nintendo are tyrants too? ![]() Its not the same and you know its not the same! A good example is how many platforms Netflix is on. |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 2,937
|
Quote:
A good example is how many platforms Netflix is on.
Netflix is a subscription service, therefore it's in Netflix's commercial interests to be on as many platforms as possible. Can I watch content purchased on Google Play Movies via Netflix? Can I watch content purchased on Amazon Instant Video via Netflix? |
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Homerton, London, E9
Posts: 1,742
|
Is Calico messaging us from a secure unit?
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Quote:
Still wearing Apple Blinkers I see Calico
![]() Its not the same and you know its not the same! A good example is how many platforms Netflix is on. Company A prevents Company B's products from working on Company A's products. Sounds pretty much the same to me. Netflix is on many platforms, but you are mixing your metaphors. Netflix is a service that wants to be available to as many people as possible, and so is on a variety of platforms. That is in no way comparable to the iPod / iTunes example. For your analogy to work better, the thing that would be equivalent to Netflix would be the music itself, which would seek to be on as many platforms as possible, examples of which would be iTunes or iTunes' competitors. As someone else has already said, you can't watch Amazon Prime content on Netflix or vice versa. Tyrants! |
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Quote:
Is Calico messaging us from a secure unit?
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Posts: 9,292
|
It's funny. The authorities seem to think something isn't right, yet the resident apple fans don't as always.
I wonder who knows better.... |
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Posts: 9,292
|
Quote:
No it's not, and you know it!
Netflix is a subscription service, therefore it's in Netflix's commercial interests to be on as many platforms as possible. Can I watch content purchased on Google Play Movies via Netflix? Can I watch content purchased on Amazon Instant Video via Netflix? Amazon, Netflix or google play do not restrict what device its played on. This is what apple were doing. |
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 25,199
|
Quote:
Tell us more. How well did you know him?
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,916
|
Quote:
Tell us more. How well did you know him?
You dont have to know a person well, to know what they were like, especially those in the public light. |
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 204
|
I've not read a lot on this so could be wrong. But isn't the arguement that you could play real player material then apple issued a software update to stop it
This is what they are trying to say made it anti competitive so in the computer example someone gave earlier. Sony allows Nintendo games then reverses that once people are playing them Like I say could be total off the mark just how I read it |
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,342
|
I wonder if some posters have some alert system to warn them out certain threads, they seem to come out together
![]() Where were all these defenders when MS faced the same charges time after time, seems it was perfectly fine then oddly. |
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,474
|
There are two different situations being discussed here.
If it was a case of Apple not letting other music providers onto the iPOD then, IMHO thats a fair decision. I actually agree with kidspud and calico. If people were buying the item on good faith in the knowledge that they could add music from other sources, and the Apple blocked this function then that is shakier ground. Not sure which one we are talking about here though |
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
Quote:
Anything constructive to add, or is that you spent?
![]() Your posts centre around defending the indefensible. |
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
Quote:
No it's not, and you know it!
Netflix is a subscription service, therefore it's in Netflix's commercial interests to be on as many platforms as possible. Can I watch content purchased on Google Play Movies via Netflix? Can I watch content purchased on Amazon Instant Video via Netflix? Streaming and downloading are different. |
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,636
|
Quote:
There are two different situations being discussed here.
If it was a case of Apple not letting other music providers onto the iPOD then, IMHO thats a fair decision. I actually agree with kidspud and calico. If people were buying the item on good faith in the knowledge that they could add music from other sources, and the Apple blocked this function then that is shakier ground. Not sure which one we are talking about here though To my recollection at the time, a lot of the other players based their download stores around DRM protected files that required a license to be installed on a device for them to play. I had a Windows Mobile phone and a music player from Creative and that "license" system never worked very well. Half the time the device would lose the license and you'd have to reinstall stuff. What we have now, with the ability to buy music from multiple sources like Amazon, Google, etc and use it across multiple devices is a vast improvement. |
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Quote:
Completely different.
Amazon, Netflix or google play do not restrict what device its played on. This is what apple were doing. In that respect it is the same - you can't stream the new series of Ripper Street on Netflix because its restricted to Netflix, and you can't stream the new series of House of Cards on Amazon Prime because its restricted to Netflix. At least with music it doesn't tend to be exclusive to one platform or the other, although that might become a trend - the new Take That album is only on Google's streaming service, but not Spotify - at least for the first few weeks. Is that anti competitive, or just an exclusivity deal? |
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
Quote:
Why isn't it the same?
Company A prevents Company B's products from working on Company A's products. Sounds pretty much the same to me. Netflix is on many platforms, but you are mixing your metaphors. Netflix is a service that wants to be available to as many people as possible, and so is on a variety of platforms. That is in no way comparable to the iPod / iTunes example. For your analogy to work better, the thing that would be equivalent to Netflix would be the music itself, which would seek to be on as many platforms as possible, examples of which would be iTunes or iTunes' competitors. As someone else has already said, you can't watch Amazon Prime content on Netflix or vice versa. Tyrants!
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Glad you agree.
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,342
|
Quote:
There are two different situations being discussed here.
If it was a case of Apple not letting other music providers onto the iPOD then, IMHO thats a fair decision. I actually agree with kidspud and calico. If people were buying the item on good faith in the knowledge that they could add music from other sources, and the Apple blocked this function then that is shakier ground. Not sure which one we are talking about here though The problem is that these practices in the long run simply harm competition and ultimately consumers by cornering the market with no competition. This is why there are laws against it. Of course such practices are never seen as anti competitive by some who are quite happy to be taken for a ride or ripped off. I have even heard that the scandalous ebook saga was not apples fault. |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:22.




