|
||||||||
Apple in court over anticompetitive behaviour again |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Quote:
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? Can you say why Apple should have built in support for everyone else's DRM, or made their DRM solution available to everyone else? Any more than, say, Nintendo make Mario games available to anyone else? The issue isn't really with the music at all - its with the DRM. Real reverse engineered Apple's DRM, and Apple plugged that hole. The argument that others tampering with their DRM might cause issues with the iPod / iTunes functionality seems perfectly valid to me. Had Real's music been DRM free it wouldn't have caused this issue. Given that: 1. It was the record companies who pushed for DRM to be used 2. It was Apple who pushed for DRM to be dropped 3. Non DRM files caused no problem on the iPod Then its difficult to buy any argument that Apple set out to use DRM specifically to prevent other music from playing on the iPod. It seems far more likely that they used DRM to get the record companies onside, and they didn't licence their DRM solution, or support other DRM solutions, as doing so would have been impractical and / or caused issues with functionality. The logical fallacy here is to assume that just because there was a negative side effect of something, means that that negative side effect was the only objective. People are free to agree or disagree with all of the above - but there can be no dispute that all of the above means the case is at the very least more ambiguous and less clear cut than if DRM was not at the centre of it. |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 27,438
|
Quote:
The logical fallacy here is to assume that just because there was a negative side effect of something, means that that negative side effect was the only objective.
People are free to agree or disagree with all of the above - but there can be no dispute that all of the above means the case is at the very least more ambiguous and less clear cut than if DRM was not at the centre of it. As I said before, it does not matter why Apple did this. They still did it, and in a way that was potentially illegal and very concerning for owners of their products. To be honest, I don't care about their DRM disputes, and when the case is being analysed, I doubt that will be the main crux of the situation, the fact is, Apple deleted data that did not belong to them in any way and did it without ever informing the user. If they weren't on-board with Real's files, then they should have made it very clear from the outset that they were going to block such files. And again you still haven't answered these questions: - Why, if Apple made this as public as you say, did they then choose to completely hide what they were doing from consumers? - Why you seem to think it was OK for them to delete data which they did not own in any capacity and not inform the user at any stage? - Why you think consumers should have put up with suffering loss to personal data as a result of Apple's initiation of a bilateral dispute with Real. Real reverse engineering Apple's DRM, does not then give Apple a free pass to delete user data without their knowledge, regardless of the source. It's comical that you are suggesting otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
Apple were found guilty over anti competitive behaviour last year. Its not hard to believe that they have done this before. It took courts some years to catch up with Microsoft and they doing the same with Apple now.
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
The whole issue of DRM is not only relevant, its the entire crux of the issue!
You might not care about it, but I'd be pretty sure it will play an important part in the trial. Apple did not delete data - they only removed it from the iPod - the owner still had that music in their library. In answer to your questions: - I have already said that I have already said that they could have handled it better, for example with better error messages. - if the music had only gotten on there by unsupported DRM, or by backwards engineering of their DRM, that could potentially have led to functionality issues, and the user had agreed to terms and conditions of use to that effect, then yes, I think that's justifiable. - I would not describe removal of a track from an iPod, whilst that track remained in the user's library on the user's computer, as "a loss of personal data". Talking of unanswered questions: Can you say why Apple should have built in support for everyone else's DRM, or made their DRM solution available to everyone else? |
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Good quote has emerged today though:
"I am concerned that I don't have a plaintiff. That's a problem," Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said at the end of the trial's third day of testimony in Oakland, California. Oops. |
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
Quote:
Good quote has emerged today though:
"I am concerned that I don't have a plaintiff. That's a problem," Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said at the end of the trial's third day of testimony in Oakland, California. Oops. Bet your hoping they ignore the other 8 Million people eh Calico ![]() Of course they may have to do a retrial if they cant sort it out. Will keep the lawyer happy I guess! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30343686 |
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,342
|
Apple was fighting hard to remove DRM for the consumer much the same way it rode to the rescue of the publishing industry. DRM is totally to blame here not apple, I wonder if we can somehow blame Amazon too
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 27,438
|
Quote:
The whole issue of DRM is not only relevant, its the entire crux of the issue!
You might not care about it, but I'd be pretty sure it will play an important part in the trial. Apple did not delete data - they only removed it from the iPod - the owner still had that music in their library. In answer to your questions: - I have already said that I have already said that they could have handled it better, for example with better error messages. Quote:
- if the music had only gotten on there by unsupported DRM, or by backwards engineering of their DRM, that could potentially have led to functionality issues, and the user had agreed to terms and conditions of use to that effect, then yes, I think that's justifiable.
I'd be interested to see if the terms and conditions permitted Apple to remove consumer data which they did not own. In any case, the user should have been informed that they were breaching the terms and conditions as is reasonably expected. Quote:
- I would not describe removal of a track from an iPod, whilst that track remained in the user's library on the user's computer, as "a loss of personal data". Well if it is not personal data, then what is it? An iPod is a portable device, so in situations where a user is unable to access their user library, your response is not going to be of any worth to those who suffered loss as a result of Apple's actions. Talking of unanswered questions: Can you say why Apple should have built in support for everyone else's DRM, or made their DRM solution available to everyone else? As for your other deflective question, I would like you to direct me to the post where I suggested Apple should go around supporting every DRM solution. All I have argued is that Apple should not have hidden deletion of user data, and questioned why they would even want to hide it, if it really was just a DRM dispute as you suggest. Apple has done dodgy back alley deals with content suppliers before (i.e. the eBook case), so I would not be surprised if they were insisting on one DRM solution to appease the content suppliers and maintain iPod sales, to the detriment of the consumer. I wonder how many people would have chosen to purchase an iPod, had they known that Apple would covertly delete any data that was not validated by Apple DRM processes. I imagine that is the very reason why Apple deliberately kept the consumer in the dark. |
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Ah. Are you saying your issue isn't with Apple removing the music, its that they didn't properly inform people why they had done so?
It wasn't a deflective question - why on earth should Apple have been responsible for building in support for other company's DRM to their hardware? |
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Quote:
Apple was fighting hard to remove DRM for the consumer much the same way it rode to the rescue of the publishing industry. DRM is totally to blame here not apple, I wonder if we can somehow blame Amazon too
![]() That'll be a no then. |
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
Quote:
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.
.... You have to do it the Apple way, convenience being an infantile offering that quickly becomes a bad dream compared to the PC 'copy/paste(drag and drop)' standard. I still have my Sony mp3 player(Atrac). . That originally used pain in the arse SonicStage software, again to make the consumer comply to big business wishes. |
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
It is a load of marketing rubbish though. As an observer, we all know that 'the king has no clothes'.
You have to do it the Apple way, convenience being an infantile offering that quickly becomes a bad dream compared to the PC 'copy/paste(drag and drop)' standard. I still have my Sony mp3 player(Atrac). . That originally used pain in the arse SonicStage software, again to make the consumer comply to big business wishes. |
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Quote:
It is a load of marketing rubbish though. As an observer, we all know that 'the king has no clothes'.
You have to do it the Apple way, convenience being an infantile offering that quickly becomes a bad dream compared to the PC 'copy/paste(drag and drop)' standard. I still have my Sony mp3 player(Atrac). . That originally used pain in the arse SonicStage software, again to make the consumer comply to big business wishes. Are Apple good at marketing? Absolutely. Does this mean their products aren't good? No. Whilst some might prefer drag and drop, I've never had any issue with how it works with iTunes. In order to sync my iPod / iPhone with my iTunes library I have to follow these steps: 1. Connect iPod / iPhone to computer. 2. There is no step 2. It literally couldn't have fewer steps or be more straightforward and convenient. That I, and presumably tens of millions of others, have found that has nothing to do with being taken in with "marketing rubbish", or "complying with big business wishes". It actually just is very straightforward and convenient. All it has to do with is your inability to appreciate that not everyone shares your preferences. |
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
Quote:
Ah. Are you saying your issue isn't with Apple removing the music, its that they didn't properly inform people why they had done so?...?
I said years ago that Apple gets around things by 'not being a computer' and having IOS being more an Xbox style system. Whilst other devices we get told this is crap because of x, crap because of Y, we only get told why an iDevice is any good. The dropsy breaky bendy iPhone 6 Plus sort of epitomises how crapness get ignored. And I'd even say iUsers are expected to be of higher standard than the Apple device they buy, something a bit laughable when you consider the 'easy to use' marketing hype/myth. The 'oh they knew' argument about buyers knowing the limitations of the iPods cannot hold when Apple and, more so the media fail to set balance by mentioning the crappy part of what you buy as fact/a part of the deal. Pretty much every Apple device is OK, but consumers simply never got/get told they are limited devices, yet quite useful in some ways. However I'm unsure if it is anti-competitive to be a bit useless in many ways. Do they really have to tell the impressionable user that? |
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
The media are also complicit in misinforming the would be iUser.
I said years ago that Apple gets around things by 'not being a computer' and having IOS being more an Xbox style system. Whilst other devices we get told this is crap because of x, crap because of Y, we only get told why an iDevice is any good. The dropsy breaky bendy iPhone 6 Plus sort of epitomises how crapness get ignored. And I'd even say iUsers are expected to be of higher standard than the Apple device they buy, something a bit laughable when you consider the 'easy to use' marketing hype/myth. The 'oh they knew' argument about buyers knowing the limitations of the iPods cannot hold when Apple and, more so the media fail to set balance by mentioning the crappy part of what you buy as fact/a part of the deal. Pretty much every Apple device is OK, but consumers simply never got/get told they are limited devices, yet quite useful in some ways. However I'm unsure if it is anti-competitive to be a bit useless in many ways. Do they really have to tell the impressionable user that?
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Quote:
The media are also complicit in misinforming the would be iUser.
I said years ago that Apple gets around things by 'not being a computer' and having IOS being more an Xbox style system. Whilst other devices we get told this is crap because of x, crap because of Y, we only get told why an iDevice is any good. The dropsy breaky bendy iPhone 6 Plus sort of epitomises how crapness get ignored. And I'd even say iUsers are expected to be of higher standard than the Apple device they buy, something a bit laughable when you consider the 'easy to use' marketing hype/myth. The 'oh they knew' argument about buyers knowing the limitations of the iPods cannot hold when Apple and, more so the media fail to set balance by mentioning the crappy part of what you buy as fact/a part of the deal. Pretty much every Apple device is OK, but consumers simply never got/get told they are limited devices, yet quite useful in some ways. However I'm unsure if it is anti-competitive to be a bit useless in many ways. Do they really have to tell the impressionable user that? Although I think your definition of "useless" is pretty wide of the mark. You haven't really explained what os so bad about: 1. Connect iPod / iPhone to computer. 2. There is no step 2. Not even mentioning that you can drag and drop tracks into playlists anyway. You might prefer one method over the other, but that certainly doesn't make those other methods useless or infantile. You use a lot of words, but up until now you haven't really explained what these apparently significant benefits are. Its all a bit negative campaigning really. |
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
Quote:
...They still did it, and in a way that was potentially illegal and very concerning for owners of their products.
....Apple deleted data that did not belong to them in any way and did it without ever informing the user. ... Surely their IOS upgrade has always needed, at the very least, a very large warning about them being 'suspect useless' for some and a 'no going back' event. It must be worse having something crippled/removed than having never had/used any conventional feature. |
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Its certainly interesting.
Especially if you ignore all the context, replace it with some conspiracy nonsense, and mix in a frankly bizarre notion about how useless iOS is. |
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Crystal Palace TX
Posts: 19,702
|
The early iPods featured a 'disk mode' where you could put anything you like on it - basically use it as an external hard drive. I don't think any data was ever removed by Apple from an iPod used as such.
The trouble was the inbuilt music player couldn't play media directly from stuff stored in 'disk' section of the storage. The music part of the iPod however was strictly controlled by Apple with iTunes and the prevailing DRM they used at the time called FairPlay I believe. This could only be loaded via iTunes and Apple had full control of the content. If you couldn't get it to play in iTunes it would simply not be playable on the iPod. There were a few widely available hacks around at the time. Which would get around the DRM from tracks so that they could be freely shared. Apparently Apple was obliged to update FairPlay periodically due to commitments with the record labels. Some of these updates caused certain hacked tracks to become unplayable. And in some cases music which originated from a different store would also become unplayable. Anyway thankfully they eventually removed DRM from music purchased from iTunes several years ago and all the hassles that when with it. By that stage Apple/iTunes were in a far better bargaining position with the record labels. |
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: This forum
Posts: 3,389
|
Quote:
The trouble was the inbuilt music player couldn't play media directly from stuff stored in 'disk' section of the storage. The music part of the iPod however was strictly controlled by Apple with iTunes and the prevailing DRM they used at the time called FairPlay I believe. This could only be loaded via iTunes and Apple had full control of the content. If you couldn't get it to play in iTunes it would simply not be playable on the iPod.
Those with small collections (ie, 2 to 3 GB) worked fine by copying files, but anything larger it was a headache. |
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
Quote:
...Apparently Apple was obliged to update FairPlay periodically due to commitments with the record labels.....
I'd say that DRM was essential to keeping things proprietary. It was certainly market competition to the dominant that meant it DRM was removed. If no one else did had removed DRM , we can be quite certain Apple would not have followed. |
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Sure, if you want to completely rewrite the history.
I thought it was widely known that it was the record industry, not Apple, who wanted DRM. That it was Apple who pushed more than most for its removal, and it was largely down to the success of the iPod / iTunes that gave Apple the clout with the record industry to eventually get it removed. But you are saying none of that is the case, and it was actually Apple who pushed for DRM, and when they eventually removed it they only did so reluctantly because of pressure to do so from their competitors? |
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
|
Apple DRM = Device Restriction Methodology.
Keeping the customers in a walled garden is what it is all about. iMessage works along similarly strange lines crapping on users a little when they leave or are messaging non iDevices. They mention security bit it is security of continued sales that actually matter. They certainly did they care about security with the iCloud. Security there would have hindered apps and users in becoming reliant on it. Facebook, an online service so an irritant competitor to Apple's proprietary vision calls it correct here. Customers are expected to align to Apple, it is certainly not for Apple to align with the customer needs. http://m.theinquirer.net/inquirer/ne...s-views-on-ads There's a sarcastic comment from Google in there too. |
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,342
|
Seems there is indeed significant twisting off history here. Not surprising though
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Unusual to see us on the same page!
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:22.





