[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

Its more constructive than your posts

Your posts centre around defending the indefensible.

No, it really wasn't. It added precisely nothing relevant to the discussion.

My post drew a perfectly reasonable comparison that was entirely relevant.

I'm not sure what planet you'd have to be on to think the former was more constructive than the latter.

But this is what is fundamentally wrong with so many of these discussions - you and a few others often seem to have little interest in actually discussing anything, but instead start trotting out nonsense like the above.

You might not agree with my point, but its a perfectly valid one, and certainly isn't "defending the indefensible".

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Not quite as simple as that, what you may thinik is ok on the face of it may still be anti-competetive. The same analogy could be applied to MS, so what if they only wanted to bundle IE with windows it was their software they should do what they like with it.

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.

Not quite as simple as that either.

My point isn't that the general practice is anti competitive or not. Its that there are other similar examples that are comparable, but people criticising Apple don't seem as bothered by.

Why should Apple have allowed content from Real Networks play on their platform any more than Netflix should allow their content to play on Amazon Prime?

[Stiggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

That isn't what the issue is about though - its about the ability to play content provided by one platform (Real Networks) on another (iTunes / iPod).

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?

It is what the issue is about.

The point here is Google, netflix etc etc do NOT stop anyone playing their content on a certain device. This is what apple were doing. Can you imagine if Google decided to not allow apple users to play Google play movies or music on idevices? There would be an uproar and rightly so.

It's of course an exclusive deal, but i'm not sure what the relevance here is as this is pretty much the norm these days. Itunes does the same.

For the record, i think its pretty daft to bring this up years later however.

[Stuart_h]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Not quite as simple as that either.

My point isn't that the general practice is anti competitive or not. Its that there are other similar examples that are comparable, but people criticising Apple don't seem as bothered by.

Why should Apple have allowed content from Real Networks play on their platform any more than Netflix should allow their content to play on Amazon Prime?

Im not sure its quite as black and white as people are suggesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30328309

The article suggests that where non-itunes music was found on iPods then a message was sent advising users to do a full reset (and therefore lose this music when a re-sync was done). At least thats how I have read the article.......

That starts to sound a little naughtier than the "netflix scenario".

[Stiggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Not quite as simple as that either.

My point isn't that the general practice is anti competitive or not. Its that there are other similar examples that are comparable, but people criticising Apple don't seem as bothered by.

Why should Apple have allowed content from Real Networks play on their platform any more than Netflix should allow their content to play on Amazon Prime?

Ugh. Same old CP. Once again you think people are picking on apple blah blah... It absolutely has nothing to do with that. If this was MS, Sky, Samsung, whoever, the same would be said. You need to stop trotting out that same old soundbite. It's very boring now.

Would you also stop using Netflix and Amazon prime as examples here. It's not even remotely the same. They including Google, do not stop anyone playing their content on certain devices as apple were doing. If they did this, then i fully support a thrashing for them. However, i don't think many companies are stupid enough to do that.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart_h

Im not sure its quite as black and white as people are suggesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30328309

The article suggests that where non-itunes music was found on iPods then a message was sent advising users to do a full reset (and therefore lose this music when a re-sync was done). At least thats how I have read the article.......

That starts to sound a little naughtier than the "netflix scenario".

It definitely is, especially if people had paid for that music. A big part of that would come down to whether people were adding non iTunes stuff in good faith, or if they knew it shouldn't really work.

But how would Netflix feel if people found a way of playing Netflix content on another platform?

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

Ugh. Same old CP. Once again you think people are picking on apple blah blah... It absolutely has nothing to do with that. If this was MS, Sky, Samsung, whoever, the same would be said. You need to stop trotting out that same old soundbite. It's very boring now.

Would you also stop using Netflix and Amazon prime as examples here. It's not even remotely the same. They including Google, do not stop anyone playing their content on certain devices as apple were doing. If they did this, then i fully support a thrashing for them. However, i don't think many companies are stupid enough to do that.

What ssoundbite is that exactly? Could you quote it back? Because I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything about "people picking on Apple" - I've just drawn comparisons.

God forbid those comparisons could be discussed in a sensible way without petty insults flying around - that would never do.

Netflix and Amazon might not be exactly the same, but its similar to a degree. Games might be another one - if someone buys Super Mario or Mario Kart, it isn't going to work on a Playstation or X-Box.

I think its a fine line between "anti competitive" and "proprietary".

[Stiggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

What ssoundbite is that exactly? Could you quote it back? Because I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything about "people picking on Apple" - I've just drawn comparisons.

God forbid those comparisons could be discussed in a sensible way without petty insults flying around - that would never do.

Netflix and Amazon might not be exactly the same, but its similar to a degree. Games might be another one - if someone buys Super Mario or Mario Kart, it isn't going to work on a Playstation or X-Box.

I think its a fine line between "anti competitive" and "proprietary".

The soundbite where you keep blabbing on about apple being unfairly picked on.

Those aren't comparisons. They are meaningless arguments that have absolutely no basis. Games are 2 different platforms running completely different hardware. So its not the same at all. We didn't see Sony when they invented the walkman making it so it would only play their tapes did we?

I suppose we should now discuss why iOS doesn't work on Android phones or vice versa. Oh, how about why OSX doesn't work on a Windows PC but Windows works on an iMac..... Equally as daft though isn't it?

[swordman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Not quite as simple as that either.

My point isn't that the general practice is anti competitive or not. Its that there are other similar examples that are comparable, but people criticising Apple don't seem as bothered by.

Why should Apple have allowed content from Real Networks play on their platform any more than Netflix should allow their content to play on Amazon Prime?

That is not an even remotely sensible or coherent analogy.

It is about the restrictions placed upon a platform to remove competition, your Netflix example is completely different and irrelevant. It seems your are totally confused about this issue and are simply defending something you don't understand.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

The soundbite where you keep blabbing on about apple being unfairly picked on.

Those aren't comparisons. They are meaningless arguments that have absolutely no basis. Games are 2 different platforms running completely different hardware. So its not the same at all. We didn't see Sony when they invented the walkman making it so it would only play their tapes did we?

I suppose we should now discuss why iOS doesn't work on Android phones or vice versa. Oh, how about why OSX doesn't work on a Windows PC but Windows works on an iMac..... Equally as daft though isn't it?

Except I haven't "blabbed on" about "Apple being unfairly picked on". You blabbing on about that doesn't make it so. They are your words, not mine.

We didn't see that, no - although given Sony's historical liking of proprietary solutions who knows what they would have done if it had been possible.

Games are two different platforms running on different hardware. But presumably Nintendo could make Mario games work on non Nintendo hardware if they chose to. Its almost as though they don't so that people buy their hardware over someone else's.

[Stuart_h]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

It definitely is, especially if people had paid for that music. A big part of that would come down to whether people were adding non iTunes stuff in good faith, or if they knew it shouldn't really work.

But how would Netflix feel if people found a way of playing Netflix content on another platform?

Trying to keep the conversation back sensible surely a better analogy might be buying a Sony DVD player and then later on Sony deciding that it would stop you playing anything but Sony films. Was the iPod sold as an iTunes player or a music player ?

If it was sold as only allowing you to play iTunes music then fair enough. If it was sold as a music player and then locked down to just iTunes (in what looks to be a slightly underhand way) then that seems wrong.

[Zack06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

It definitely is, especially if people had paid for that music. A big part of that would come down to whether people were adding non iTunes stuff in good faith, or if they knew it shouldn't really work.

But how would Netflix feel if people found a way of playing Netflix content on another platform?

How can this even be considered a valid point? It's the consumer's device, not Apple's. They shouldn't be stopped from buying music from other sources to put on their device. (As Stuart posted just before me, the iPod was marketed as a music player, not a player for "iTunes sourced music only").

In the present day, Apple doesn't prevent people from putting non-iTunes music onto their devices, but they do make it very awkward to do so without 3rd party software involved.

Even Apple's current iTunes setup, should, in my view be questioned by the EU and US competition authorities. It seems in my view, yet another deliberate attempt by Apple to distort the market in their favour.

[Stiggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Except I haven't "blabbed on" about "Apple being unfairly picked on". You blabbing on about that doesn't make it so. They are your words, not mine.

Except you do on any debate about apple.

Quote:

We didn't see that, no - although given Sony's historical liking of proprietary solutions who knows what they would have done if it had been possible.

It was possible. They could have used a different recording and playback technique. They didn't.

Quote:

Games are two different platforms running on different hardware. But presumably Nintendo could make Mario games work on non Nintendo hardware if they chose to. Its almost as though they don't so that people buy their hardware over someone else's.

Through an emulator yes. But, the games industry has never had games work on another platform. Ever.

Music is not the same. Apple decided to take music and have it only work on their devices. Then delete music that a user had put on from elsewhere. That's not on and even you cant deny that.

[Gormagon]

I've only had a very quick scan through this, I'm not really all that bothered to be honest.

From what I gathered, 3rd party content was wiped when users updated their devices using the official update method, which included conditions.

[Zack06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gormagon

I've only had a very quick scan through this, I'm not really all that bothered to be honest.

From what I gathered, 3rd party content was wiped when users updated their devices using the official update method, which included conditions.

Conditions which are potentially illegal. Selectively deleting content from a device should not form part of a reasonable update process unless it's for the benefit of the system.

Just because a company states something in terms and conditions, it does not make it acceptable business practice.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stiggles

Except you do on any debate about apple.

It was possible. They could have used a different recording and playback technique. They didn't.

Through an emulator yes. But, the games industry has never had games work on another platform. Ever.

Music is not the same. Apple decided to take music and have it only work on their devices. Then delete music that a user had put on from elsewhere. That's not on and even you cant deny that.

Saying anything you happen to disagree with doesn't make it "babbling on".

What other options could they have considered in the 70s?

So what if it's always been like that with games? It doesn't change the fact if you buy Nintendo games you need Nintendo hardware.

Apple didn't take music and restrict it to the iPod per se. If they had, meaning that anyone who wanted to listen to digital music could only do so on Apple hardware, you'd have a much more compelling argument.

People were free to choose an iPod with that restriction. Or, if they didn't, they could choose an alternative.

It's not really about defending anyone, it's just an observation that it's not a million miles from other situations.

If you want to get on your high horse and wang on about babbling on, go for your life.

I'm also wondering what any of this even has to do with mobile phones anyway.

[calico_pie]

Some other notes on the subject:

"Apple said the only DRM they will support on their devices is FairPlay but Real did NOT want to license FairPlay. So Real, instead of stripping their DRM to allow the songs to be loaded onto an iPod, instead chose to illegally reverse engineer Apple's DRM in order to create a workaround in order to install their own DRMd files.

So Real is calling Apple's actions illegal when in fact it is Real's actions that were illegal in the first place.

So say Apple allowed Real to carry on the way they were going. What happens when people employing this method gets a file that trashes their iPod? Who do they go to? Apple isn't going to support the iPod under warranty because they used an unsupported method of getting songs from another company onto their iPods. Real I can pretty much guarantee would simply state the problem is with the iPod and so the consumer is screwed because of actions they took at the behest of Real.

Apple might look like the bad boy but Apple already had a decent system in place that made it easy for the consumer to get music onto their iPods reliably."

"People apparently have short memories and an aversion to doing their research. This is about RealPlayer songs that tricked their way into iPods by pretending to be using the FairPlay DRM scheme. Those songs were removed from iPods and blocked from being synced, not deleted from iTunes libraries. For some reason the twitchy blogger journalist have spun this into Apple secretly deleting any music purchased from a competitor's store which is categorically false. Without a hack like Real's Harmony wrapper, non-FairPlay DRMed songs never made it into iTunes to begin with and subsequently would have never been found on an iPod.

It was never a secret how FairPlay DRM worked. Songs purchased through the iTunes music store could only be played on an Apple device that was authorized by the purchasing Apple ID. This is how all DRM worked, not just Apple's. How is this suddenly in violation of Antitrust law?"

So we can reduce it to Apple being the bad guys.

If we conveniently ignore all the stuff about the FairPlay DRM, and how music was getting onto iPods by effectively hacking the Fairplay DRM.

[Zack06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Apple didn't take music and restrict it to the iPod per se. If they had, meaning that anyone who wanted to listen to digital music could only do so on Apple hardware, you'd have a much more compelling argument.

People were free to choose an iPod with that restriction. Or, if they didn't, they could choose an alternative.

That would be an all too convenient solution to this issue, IF consumers were even aware that Apple were doing this to the files on their devices.

A read of articles about the case indicate that the iPod would just show up "an error message" when it detected non-iTunes music, so unfortunately you can't use that as a valid argument here.

It's quite clear that consumers had no idea this was happening to their own files, purely through deception on Apple's part, and that is the salient point.

[Zack06]

Apple's decision to use only Fairplay DRM in this case is irrelevant. If they really were concerned about Real and their decisions, they should have attempted to justify their actions publicly rather than resorting to back alley tactics which deleted user files without their knowledge.

[calico_pie]

It was public.

The whole issue of DRM was a condition imposed by the industry, and Apple always pushed to get DRM taken out of the equation which it subsequently was.

The point is that it wasn't as simple as Apple being Bad Cop - like it or not DRM was a factor imposed by the industry and the music in question here is music that had bypassed that DRM.

And the music was only removed from iPods, not iTunes.

Could they have done things differently in hindsight? Sure.

Were they doing it just for the hell of it? Given the situation with DRM and arguably legitimate concerns about preventing people's iPods being hacked, I'd say not.

[Zack06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

It was public.

The whole issue of DRM was a condition imposed by the industry, and Apple always pushed to get DRM taken out of the equation which it subsequently was.

The point is that it wasn't as simple as Apple being Bad Cop - like it or not DRM was a factor imposed by the industry and the music in question here is music that had bypassed that DRM.

And the music was only removed from iPods, not iTunes.

Could they have done things differently in hindsight? Sure.

Were they doing it just for the hell of it? Given the situation with DRM and arguably legitimate concerns about preventing people's iPods being hacked, I'd say not.

Sorry but the average consumer should not be expected to trawl through the technology press to find out what Apple may or may not be planning to do with their personal files.

And even then, Apple gave no information whatsoever about what they were actually doing with consumer files on these devices.

It is completely irrelevant whether they removed it from iPod or iTunes. The fact is, Apple did not inform them, and handled personal data without consent. An error message telling you to restore does not constitute validation, the consumer was not informed of the consequences, and that is the issue here.

Bringing in all these side-arguments to deflect the main issue can't disguise that Apple deleted consumer data without any consent on their part. The consumer had no idea it was happening until it had happened. Regardless of DRM, Apple's motives or whatever, the fact is, Apple took control of consumer data and deleted it, and failed to inform the consumer of what they were doing to files which Apple potentially could have had nothing to do with.

There's no denying that such actions are horrible business practice.

[alanwarwic]

I'm not sure how many new that even back then, unless you had truly bought into the Apple system, staying away from locked in technology was the wise thing to do.
One thing is for certain, Apple are quite consistent. They can easily survive the small fines for selling their feature device systems for premium money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack06

....And even then, Apple gave no information whatsoever...

I think possible that everyone knows what Apple wants ,so is media portrayal of Apple 'goods news' devices as not what they are really are the problem here ?
Many of us knew even back then that the things were simply not worth the hassle. And those who bought in, sort of know the price they pay.

If only the media had said back back then 'its crap because of x.y,z' would we be where we are now, post event ?

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack06

Sorry but the average consumer should not be expected to trawl through the technology press to find out what Apple may or may not be planning to do with their personal files.

And even then, Apple gave no information whatsoever about what they were actually doing with consumer files on these devices.

It is completely irrelevant whether they removed it from iPod or iTunes. The fact is, Apple did not inform them, and handled personal data without consent. An error message telling you to restore does not constitute validation, the consumer was not informed of the consequences, and that is the issue here.

Bringing in all these side-arguments to deflect the main issue can't disguise that Apple deleted consumer data without any consent on their part. The consumer had no idea it was happening until it had happened. Regardless of DRM, Apple's motives or whatever, the fact is, Apple took control of consumer data and deleted it, and failed to inform the consumer of what they were doing to files which Apple potentially could have had nothing to do with.

There's no denying that such actions are horrible business practice.

You're moving the goalposts.

You originally said it wasn't information in the public domain. It was. If you meant to say that even though it was public information, not everyone would have necessarily known, then you should have said that.

But I think at the time the whole issue of DRM was fairly widely known about.

The bottom line here is that the issues around the music industry / DRM / FairPlay certainly make this case more ambiguous than if those issues had not been present.

[calico_pie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

I'm not sure how many new that even back then, unless you had truly bought into the Apple system, staying away from locked in technology was the wise thing to do.
One thing is for certain, Apple are quite consistent. They can easily survive the small fines for selling their feature device systems for premium money.

I think possible that everyone knows what Apple wants ,so is media portrayal of Apple 'goods news' devices as not what they are really are the problem here ?
Many of us knew even back then that the things were simply not worth the hassle. And those who bought in, sort of know the price they pay.

If only the media had said back back then 'its crap because of x.y,z' would we be where we are now, post event ?

I think the ease of use of the iPod / design of the iPod / convenience of iTunes combination would still have trumped the ability to buy music at a comparable price from Real instead of from iTunes.

There often seems to be an assumption that people wouldn't do something *if only they knew better*, when in fact most people probably did just genuinely like the iPod / iTunes combination.

[Zack06]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

You're moving the goalposts.

You originally said it wasn't information in the public domain. It was. If you meant to say that even though it was public information, not everyone would have necessarily known, then you should have said that.

But I think at the time the whole issue of DRM was fairly widely known about.

The bottom line here is that the issues around the music industry / DRM / FairPlay certainly make this case more ambiguous than if those issues had not been present.

I think that's what you're trying to do.

You're essentially saying that because Apple was in dispute with certain DRM policies, it gave them a free pass to delete consumer data without their consent, using deceptive software processes.

This case is not ambiguous at all, unless you are of the view that companies should be entitled to delete data that does not belong to them and without user knowledge.

This whole situation was effectively the same as Microsoft Windows throwing up a "system error" calling for a restore of the system, only for the user to find out later it actually also deleted any text documents that weren't created in Microsoft Word on purpose.

Apple was well aware that outright claiming that they would not allow "unsupported DRM" files on to their devices would harm sales, so they resorted to these underhanded tactics to achieve their goal.

If it was as public as you say, answer me why Apple then decided to conceal what they were doing from the consumer?