Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1.    #1  
    Hi all,

    This may end up being big news for Pre owners as well as soon to be owners of the TouchPad.......

    Frankly this is a long time in coming!

    (I should disclose that we... (my G/F,, has an Ipod nano 4 which I gave her for her birthday, as she is a huge lover of music, (all kinds)...however, I do feel that Apple has come close to the line and crossed it a few times in how it runs Itunes....frankly if you go back when Apple was screaming about MS being the 800 # gorilla, now the tables have turned)...

    We both love her Ipod, but do I think Itunes could be run more openly and fairer, yes I do....Now I know this may make a few fans upset, but this is how i see it!
    <moderator edit>

    Take care,

    Jay

    Judge Orders Jobs to Answer iTunes QuestionsBy REUTERS, March 22, 2011, (Reporting by Paul Thomasch in New York and Sakthi Prasad in Bangalore; Editing by David Holmes and Derek Caney)

    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/...gewanted=print

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - Apple Inc. Chief Executive Steve Jobs, who is out on medical leave, has been ordered by a federal judge to answer questions from plaintiffs' lawyers in an antitrust lawsuit related to his company's iTunes business.

    Judge Howard Lloyd of U.S. District Court for Northern California ruled that lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the suit may question Jobs for a total of two hours. He issued the ruling on Monday.

    In the class-action lawsuit, a group of consumers say Apple created a music-downloading monopoly with its iPod player and iTunes store. At issue is a piece of software called Fairplay that allowed only music bought on iTunes to be played on the iPod, according to the complaint.

    One competitor, RealNetworks Inc, responded in 2004 by introducing a new technology that would allow customers to play music downloaded from its site on their iPods. Apple quickly announced a software upgrade to iTunes that once more blocked music from RealNetworks, the complaint charges.

    "The court finds that Jobs has unique, non-repetitive, first hand knowledge about Apple's software updates in October 2004 that rendered the RealNetworks's digital music files once again inoperable with iPods," Judge Lloyd wrote in his ruling.

    The ruling comes amid intense questions about Jobs' health and whereabouts. Earlier this month an energetic but thin Jobs resurfaced to unveil Apple's new iPad. His appearance helped reassure investors and fans worried about what his absence means for the company.

    Judge Lloyd said the deposition of Jobs would be limited to questions about the back-and-forth with RealNetworks in 2004. Apple had sought to prevent the deposition altogether.

    The case is in re Apple iPod iTunes antitrust litigation, Case No. 05-00037, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

    Apple is involved in a host of other lawsuits, both as a plaintiff and defendant, ranging from disputes over patents to anti-trust allegations. On Monday, Apple sued Amazon.com Inc in a bid to stop the online retailer from improperly using its APP STORE trademark, according to a court filing.
    Last edited by HelloNNNewman; 03/22/2011 at 11:54 AM. Reason: Fixed title (there is no HTML coding in titles)
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  2. #2  
    jay, get her a rhapsody subscription and a sansa player. You will save enough $ to get a touchpad by the time it ships. Just sayin.

    and thanks for an interesting article.
  3. #3  
    I worked for realnetworks during that time. Jobs went out of his way to screw things up. Real had offered to partner with apple, and he responded by sending a private email to the Wall Street Journal to embarrass our executives.

    Nasty way to say "no"...
  4. #4  
    I would've told em no as well.
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I worked for realnetworks during that time. Jobs went out of his way to screw things up. Real had offered to partner with apple, and he responded by sending a private email to the Wall Street Journal to embarrass our executives.

    Nasty way to say "no"...
    Hi all,

    Job's was not exactly nice about the Pre, or the PP. This is far from the only lawsuit they are facing over Itunes...I understand they are also being sued over how the app fees and song $ is divided . They are also being sued for forcing the price of apps and songs to certain price levels....another lawsuit to prevent the need for apple approval to sell on Itunes....

    I am sure there are others out there as well.

    I still find it interesting that Job's behavior of late, is exactly what he was so critical of from Bill gates and MS. For years there have been rumors that Gates suffered from Asperger Syndrome, which is an extremely high functioning form of Autism....which includes total focusing and fixation on one issue, lack of social abilities, trouble reading others body language and changes in tone of voice moderation during a conversation, (which would normal impart emotion to a conversation), inability to see other's point of view, must have last word, including "trying to fix the other person's wagon"...etc....

    ("trying to fix the other person's wagon"), is exactly what Job's did by contacting the WSJ)....as I said this lawsuit was a long time in the making!

    I have no idea if he has it, although I was told this by my sister who has 2 masters in special ed....but if Gates' has it, I also wouldn't be surprised that Job's has it as well ....

    Take care,

    jay
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  6. #6  
    I am of two minds on this.

    On one hand, I support capitalism:

    If I invent something unique (while an mp3 player in general was not unique, iTunes and how it delivered music seamlessly to a personal device was) - do all the leg work, secure deals with partners (production companies, code the software - and spend billions coding, re-coding, and responding to the market, I would be ****ed that some company could come along and take advantage of MY software.

    It's not like iTunes has become the defacto music software for all MP3 players. With Windows, you literally didn't have a choice when you bought a PC: ALL PCs, from all manufacturers, needed Windows.

    On the other hand, giving another company the opportunity to use iTunes as their delivery system can only make iTunes a better product, and advances the industry.

    Not to mention once someone was using iTunes the software (albeit for another product) doesn't that increase the likelihood that they will transition to using the iTunes Store?

    Apple should allow this; require a license fee, and then, use it as an opportunity to sell those iTunes-using-non-Apple-fans on iTunes Store.
  7. #7  
    Well, capitalism can't function without healthy competition, and locking down the iPod to only one source of music is bad for consumers who want other sources of music, such as RealNetworks. I would go so far as saying even requiring a license fee is bad. Almost every single mp3 player, smartphone, or any audio device functions on any computer with a USB port, without needing a proprietary program. Despite that, you would have to pay licensing fees to load content to an iPod? Doesn't fly with me.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardfan View Post
    I would've told em no as well.
    Why? Apple could make another killing by allowing subscription music from other companies to play on the iPod. Another reason, this would slow sales of other devices even further. You know one reason why people who don't want iPods don't want them? No subscription music and yes, there are people who use those services. It's a good way to try music without pirating. Although I think now Rhapsody has an app that will allow you to carry subscription music. But that still leaves anyone with a Classic version(any type) out.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by rsanchez1 View Post
    Well, capitalism can't function without healthy competition, and locking down the iPod to only one source of music is bad for consumers who want other sources of music, such as RealNetworks. I would go so far as saying even requiring a license fee is bad. Almost every single mp3 player, smartphone, or any audio device functions on any computer with a USB port, without needing a proprietary program. Despite that, you would have to pay licensing fees to load content to an iPod? Doesn't fly with me.
    What I'd really like is the drag and drop function added and iTunes reliability reduced. iPod and Zune are the only players that get away with proprietary software "enforcement" and it's gone on for far too long. Even if Zune gets dropped, I've read WP7 phones(seems to be the replacement) are just as locked down. You plug other devices in and they "just work" on their own, even if you don't have sync software of any type.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  10.    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by finngirl View Post
    I am of two minds on this.

    On one hand, I support capitalism:

    If I invent something unique (while an mp3 player in general was not unique, iTunes and how it delivered music seamlessly to a personal device was) - do all the leg work, secure deals with partners (production companies, code the software - and spend billions coding, re-coding, and responding to the market, I would be ****ed that some company could come along and take advantage of MY software.

    It's not like iTunes has become the defacto music software for all MP3 players. With Windows, you literally didn't have a choice when you bought a PC: ALL PCs, from all manufacturers, needed Windows.

    On the other hand, giving another company the opportunity to use iTunes as their delivery system can only make iTunes a better product, and advances the industry.

    Not to mention once someone was using iTunes the software (albeit for another product) doesn't that increase the likelihood that they will transition to using the iTunes Store?

    Apple should allow this; require a license fee, and then, use it as an opportunity to sell those iTunes-using-non-Apple-fans on iTunes Store.
    Hi all,

    Apple is real pain to work with...as many of you know I am disabled. I listen to books from the library of Congress' National Library system....The books are NOW recorded digitally, (we just started a digital system about 1 & 1/2 years ago), the system is completely proprietary, since by an act of congress ALL books published in the USA (& many other countries), are recorded in the format.....

    The authors and published DON'T MAKE ROYALTIES ON THESE RECORDINGS...it works much like a library book...the 2 differences is that the author & publisher get paid for the book when the Library buys it...in this case they don't get that fee either...(there are approx 1.1 users of the Nation Library for the Blind & Handicapped)....

    The deal is that the Library FORBIDS non member's from using the system....the books will ONLY play on machines distributed by the Library of Congress or approved by the Library of Congress.

    We all get ONE desktop book player....there are special players that are the size of a deck of cards...there are about 5 companies that make the worldwide, (most countries have adopted the format we are currently using and also used the old non digital format, (a cassette player for MONO recording at 1/2 speed, it in effect had 4 sides, since only one track per side was used..)...

    These new portable machines as I said are a deck of cards, they cost about $350 each....

    I got approval form the Library of Congress to get a system created that would securely allow members of this program to use a app for an IPOD to let the books be played on an IPOD. (This b/c an IPOD is so much cheaper and easier to use. The typical digital player for this format has 22 keys)! This app would require a digital token to work, (the token would be available to members only, (which is how the library Of Congress works security with the 5 after market manufacturers).

    I contacted Apple over 2 years ago....I faxed them 2 x a month for a 1 1/2 years a NEVER got an answer...I finally started calling them...

    They suggested that I look for a programmer, which I did and then they stoned walled me again for 3 months and then I gave up...they are a madding and arrogant firm to deal with!

    All I wanted was their approval, it would have cost them nothing, I got a programmer to kick in his services for free...how hard would it have been for SOMEONE at a firm as big as Apple to pay attention for just a few minutes....If the Library Of Congress which is steep in centuries worth of bureaucracy could say yes...then what the heck is Apple's problem...Frankly a "NO" would have been better than being ignored!

    The programmer I found said you don't know the half of it, Apple practically asks for ownership of your first born child, a pint of blood and a DNA sample!

    Take care,

    Jay
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  11.    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by The Phone Diva View Post
    Why? Apple could make another killing by allowing subscription music from other companies to play on the iPod. Another reason, this would slow sales of other devices even further. You know one reason why people who don't want iPods don't want them? No subscription music and yes, there are people who use those services. It's a good way to try music without pirating. Although I think now Rhapsody has an app that will allow you to carry subscription music. But that still leaves anyone with a Classic version(any type) out.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Phone Diva View Post
    What I'd really like is the drag and drop function added and iTunes reliability reduced. iPod and Zune are the only players that get away with proprietary software "enforcement" and it's gone on for far too long. Even if Zune gets dropped, I've read WP7 phones(seems to be the replacement) are just as locked down. You plug other devices in and they "just work" on their own, even if you don't have sync software of any type.
    Quote Originally Posted by rsanchez1 View Post
    Well, capitalism can't function without healthy competition, and locking down the iPod to only one source of music is bad for consumers who want other sources of music, such as RealNetworks. I would go so far as saying even requiring a license fee is bad. Almost every single mp3 player, smartphone, or any audio device functions on any computer with a USB port, without needing a proprietary program. Despite that, you would have to pay licensing fees to load content to an iPod? Doesn't fly with me.
    THANK YOU!!!!!

    You both hit the nail on the head, it is short sighted to their bottom line let alone a pain for the rest of us....

    take care,

    Jay
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by rsanchez1 View Post
    Well, capitalism can't function without healthy competition, and locking down the iPod to only one source of music is bad for consumers who want other sources of music, such as RealNetworks. I would go so far as saying even requiring a license fee is bad. Almost every single mp3 player, smartphone, or any audio device functions on any computer with a USB port, without needing a proprietary program. Despite that, you would have to pay licensing fees to load content to an iPod? Doesn't fly with me.
    It's not locked down to one source as long as the music is DRM-free. I've bought quite a few albums from Amazon and imported them into iTunes to sync to my iDevice.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    I worked for realnetworks during that time. Jobs went out of his way to screw things up. Real had offered to partner with apple, and he responded by sending a private email to the Wall Street Journal to embarrass our executives.

    Nasty way to say "no"...
    Seems RealNetworks was just as shady, to hear this guy tell it as posted on Appleinsider.com...

    Quote:
    RealNetwork admitted to investors in 2005 that the Harmony technology had put the company at risk to a lawsuit from Apple.
    I guess it's time to bring out that law suit.

    RealNetworks is an extremely shady organization. Interviewing for them back when Real was hot had me end up interviewing with the VP of Technologies who had come over from Avid asking me insider information about QuickTime after I left Apple.

    They are scum.

    I don't think he liked my turning the interview around on him after he let slip that once we [NeXT] took over, Avid's billion dollar offer for QuickTime was squashed, with Steve's first action as iCEO. I asked him what he learned with such a failure in business, seeing as he was Real's VP of business technologies and acquisitions.
    Seems to me any company is going to do whatever they can to make as much money as they can and keep an competitive advantage. Apple is no better or worse than any other huge corporation. That's why they all have a team of lawyers on staff.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardfan View Post
    I would've told em no as well.
    It's one thing to say "no" and another to send the private email to the WSJ, which he acknowledged doing.

    And all Real did was figure out how to put music from their store into a format that the iPod would recognize and play. Basically it meant you could buy DRM protected music from them and play it on your iPod, and you cold use RealPlayer to manage your iPod for non-iTunes music. Given how bad the iTunes UI is even now... many users want to use something else.

    He refused to license any of Apple's technology to anyone, and fought 3rd party innovation just like he fights against efforts to jail break the iPhone. Does anyone remember when you found a program that would strip the DRM off your iTunes purchases? Do you remember when an iTunes update figured out you ad done that and put the DRM back? Anyone ever accidentally plug your iPod in to a PC belonging to someone else and have iTunes ERASE your iPod for you? I've experienced all of those, as have many friends... and yet they can do no wrong.

    Sorry for the rant. On the positive side, Jobs got the music industry to allow on-line sales, he got them to allow per-song sales instead of just albums, he got them to standardize on song pricing, and he got them to move away from DRM to embrace AAC and MP3 that aren't protected.

    So everything they did that was bad couldn't have been done unless he had created the arena within which to do those things. On balance, I would rather be in the age of digital music than for Steve to have been a nice guy. Just sayin.
  15. #15  
    iPod erasing is probably due to anti-sharing crap from the RIAA that Apple agreed to. Remember, it's now illegal somehow to share and trade music when back in the day it was done all the time.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    Seems RealNetworks was just as shady, to hear this guy tell it as posted on Appleinsider.com...



    Seems to me any company is going to do whatever they can to make as much money as they can and keep an competitive advantage. Apple is no better or worse than any other huge corporation. That's why they all have a team of lawyers on staff.
    I can see a strong argument that Apple abused a monopoly (music store) to gain other markets (mp3 players). It is legal to have a monopoly, it is illegal to use a monopoly to expand into other areas.

    And when Apple updated iTunes to block mp3 usb connections, they harmed even their existing iPhone/iPad users (made them install software, reboot, possibly lose data), and hurt their customers who were using other mp3 players (I bought a Mac, I bought music on iTunes, now I can't listen to that music). Maybe these aren't examples of great harm, but there are probably worse ones out there. And for anti-trust problems, you don't have to prove harm, I think, you just have to prove that there is a monopoly, and that it is being exploited to expand into another area.

    Nothing wrong with competing, nothing wrong with monopolies, there IS something illegal about using a monopoly to avoid competition in other areas.
    KA1
    Visor Deluxe->Visor Prism/Digital Link->Treo 650->Treo 700p->Pre->GSM Unlocked Pre 2 (wifi only)->FrankenPre + Touchpad 32 ->+ Touchpad 4G ATT + ATT Pre3 + 64 White Touchpad... bliss.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by ka1 View Post
    I can see a strong argument that Apple abused a monopoly (music store) to gain other markets (mp3 players). It is legal to have a monopoly, it is illegal to use a monopoly to expand into other areas.
    Are either really a monopoly?
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by ka1 View Post
    I can see a strong argument that Apple abused a monopoly (music store) to gain other markets (mp3 players). It is legal to have a monopoly, it is illegal to use a monopoly to expand into other areas.

    And when Apple updated iTunes to block mp3 usb connections, they harmed even their existing iPhone/iPad users (made them install software, reboot, possibly lose data), and hurt their customers who were using other mp3 players (I bought a Mac, I bought music on iTunes, now I can't listen to that music). Maybe these aren't examples of great harm, but there are probably worse ones out there. And for anti-trust problems, you don't have to prove harm, I think, you just have to prove that there is a monopoly, and that it is being exploited to expand into another area.

    Nothing wrong with competing, nothing wrong with monopolies, there IS something illegal about using a monopoly to avoid competition in other areas.
    I don't see any abuse. They don't force you to ONLY buy music from iTunes to listen to music on an iPod.

    They did not force users to download that version of iTunes. You don't have to install every version of iTunes that they release. The only requirement is if you happen to buy an device and it requires a minimum version of iTunes. Even then a user is not going to lose data installing a new version of iTunes.

    If you buy music on iTunes, you can burn it to a CD and then download those songs to your computer to play on another MP3 player.

    Now that there is no DRM, there should be no issue playing music on iTunes on another MP3 player. Hardly a monopoly situation.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Given how bad the iTunes UI is even now... many users want to use something else.

    Many? How many people do you know who *don't* have an ipod?

    I will be the first to admit that I find the UI clusmy at times.

    I also recognize that Apple made concessions in the first place (and early on in the iPod's history) with music production companies that allowed them to grow as large as they did -- at a time when music companies were TERRIFIED of all their value flying away digitally.

    Apple promised them they'd do everything they could to not allow purchasers distribute audio illegally.

    All that said: how can you say that "many users want something else" when they can get something else - yet the vast majority don't use something else? More of that "magic marketing" reasoning?
  20. #20  
    There isn't much to this article. it only says Jobs has to sit for the deposition. It is a rejection of the his claim that taking a depo would be "undue hardship". Considering Apple offered no proof and he just gave a keynote and was walking around fine that was hardly ever going to work. And the scope of the depo is just discussions between Apple and Real Networks. The motion was likely written to delay, cost the prosecution money. That's the legal world. The article does not make any claims about the merits of this case.

Posting Permissions