Slashdot Mirror
iTunes Disables MusicMatch
spooza writes "If you own an iPod and use it with MusicMatch on a Windows machine and then install iTunes, strange things happen: after the installation, MusicMatch is unable to communicate or even find the iPod anymore. Of course this might be a coincidence or bad programming on the Apple side, but since MusicMatch also introduced a pay-per-download service it seems not too farfetched to suspect that Apple simply took the opportunity to knock out an opponent. The funny thing is, Apple and MusicMatch cooperated before, because Apple wanted to have software that was able to work with iPod and thus not lose potential customers that want to buy an iPod but have only Windows." MusicMatch recommends deleting, then downloading and reinstalling, the MusicMatch software to reenable it.
Comment at -1 in 10... 9 ... 8...
Apple doesn't start going the way of Microsoft...
Oh, you mean by locking customers into expensive, proprietary software? No. They're already worse than that. They lock customers into expensive, proprietary software AND hardware.
So Apple co-operated with MusicMatch, up and until it had its own software, and then used it to knock out its former partner.
Reminds me of a certain big software company somewhere in the North West of the USA.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Gator/Claria has been pretty upfront that their software can be used to track information on the client computer.
I don't even use Gator and yet I know this.
I work for Apple and am therefore posting anonymously. While this was done on purpose, it was buy a sole developer, and not a decision by Apple. That developer has since been let go.
Bullshit! If that was the case, iTunes would have immediately been 'fixed' to stop that behaviour, and/or a patch released.
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
This is classic Apple (as I type this from my 15" TiBook) and lets face it. Apple is used to controlling the environment it is in (why the hell freezing over joke was less of a joke than outsiders realize) and this only smacks of something any Apple user has known since they became an Apple user. That Apple takes care of the hard part and doesn't leave much control to the end user as a result. ie; It just works...
FYI: I like that as much as I like the exact opposite with Linux, which I run on multilple machines so the above was not a dig.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
It's because their hate for MS completely biases them - to them, anyone who takes marketshare from Microsoft is a hero. I imagine that there will be lots of people defending Apple here, but could you imagine the reaction here if Microsoft pulled the same stunt?
If you have an iPod and had the choice of MusicMatch or iTunes what would you choose?
MusicMatch:
1) WMA-Crippled Music Downloads
2) Pay more for more features
3) Shit-poor interface
iTunes
1) AAC-crippled Music Downloads that play on the iPod
2) Full features (ripping, smart playlists, etc) for free
3) Great interface
Sorry, no competition here. Move along.
What is your alternative in the computer industry?
Apple is looking good mostly by comparison with it's peers.
they seem to be like any other large software coporation out there, in it for the benjamins, and nothing else.
I presume you mean "like any other large software and hardware corporation".
Just in case you weren't aware, the primary responsibility of every public for-profit company (Apple is one) is to make a profit for the shareholders. So, yes, "the benjamins". That is not a bad thing - without the profit motive very few cool new things would be produced.
Regardless of Apple's profit motive (which as I pointed out every other company has as well) it produces some of the coolest, fastest and best engineered gear out there. Apple also had the wisdom to adopt a Unix-like OS, along with many other well-chosen hardware and software standards.
All of this is more than enough reason for any self-respecting geek to salivate heavily! :-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
This doesn't strike me as frontpage material, folks. It's kind of a no-brainer.
You are now installing Windows XP. If you have previously installed any third-party Internet browsers or email programs, they may not function properly after the upgrade. Microsoft does not support the use of third-party Internet browsers and email programs. If you want to use those functions, you must use Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, or use an operating system not published by Microsoft.
<I Understand and Agree>"
It's kind of funny to see how Slashdotters race to the defense of Apple when they start acting like a monopoly, but when MS does it, the sky is falling. (Probable defense by Apple zealots: "Apple isn't anywhere near as bad as Microsoft." Problem with that defense: That doesn't justify defending Apple, that justifies criticizing them more selectively.)
Its great, Apple does bad business practices and people look away, a company like Microsoft does something simular and people start whining about how their evil and mean.
Apple should not have done this, and I hope affects them in a bad way, either loss of revenue, or loss of customers.
TruePunk | Games
If you're a sysadmin nerd, it's sort of a given that if you have two sources accessing the same filesystem at the same time, you're going to clobber your data. (That is, unless special protection is used.)
Maybe Apple just wanted to prevent people from screwing up their iPods.
A good traveller has no fixed plans and is not intent on arriving.
Are they really competition? I guess they sort of are... but then again, Apple WAS bundling MusicMatch with the iPod all along until they released iTunes.
I guess the way I see it - they deliberately disabled what they considered an older version of the iPod software (MusicMatch) in favor of the newer version (iTunes).
"Why would you want to use Musicmatch when you have iTunes"
"Musicmatch is a piece of crap, iTunes is much better"
"There's nothing wrong with this, Musicmatch was a temporary solution until iTunes came out"
The thing is, you ought to have the choice of using whatever program you want. Internet Explorer doesn't diddle the network settings of Mozilla or Netscape when it installs so that they will no longer be able to communicate with the www.
It's kind of funny to see how Slashdotters race to the defense of Apple when they start acting like a monopoly, but when MS does it, the sky is falling. (Probable defense by Apple zealots: "Apple isn't anywhere near as bad as Microsoft." Problem with that defense: That doesn't justify defending Apple, that justifies criticizing them more selectively.)
"Acting" like a monopoly? Who cares if companies act like monopolies? More so, who cares if companies ARE monopolies? Only thing we care about is when companies that ARE monopolies begin to abuse their status. The iPod is popular, but it is by FAR not a monopoly.
And your argument would only make sense if Microsoft actually posts something like the warning you described above. Instead, they secretly fuck with the compatibility of programs, use price discounts to lock out competitors, etc, ALL BEHIND YOUR BACK.
I'm still waiting to click the "I Understand and Agree" statement from Microsoft. Where is it?
That is the dumbest thing I ever heard. The copyright holders of the songs decide what you can and can't do, which, honestly is they way it shoudl be. I'm sorry you're upset that you can't copy music for free anymore without fear of legal troubles, but guess what, it's ALWAYS BEEN ILLEGAL. Now we have a way to get it LEGALLY and at CHEAPER prices at that, and the DRM even allows itself to be LEGALLY cirrcumvented in this age of DMCA....AND YOU STILL FIND A WAY TO COMPLAIN.
I'm sorry for the flamebait, but that's absolutely pathetic.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Before you over-react and call me a fanboy or a zealot, I have two home computers running Linux, and my worktstation at work runs Linux. I have never owned an Apple computer. And I did start off calling this tactic anti-competetive. I just tried to clarify how it's not anti-competetive by way of monopoly abuse (selectively criticizing).
When I first read this, I was thinking "big fat deal. Everyone knows Apple does proprietary stuff." Then I read some of the comments about how people would be attempting to storm the gates of Redmond if Microsoft pulled something like this, and realized that my attitude is hypocritical.
And I still don't care.
Apparently, my principles don't come into play when the software works seamlessly and efficiently and the UI is so pretty.
This would bother me, but OSX is shiny and it's distracting me....
-Carolyn
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
So, basically Apple is saying "If you buy our product it will only work with our other (free) product."
That's like being pissed when someone says "If you buy our Linux database, it will only work with the (free) Linux OS." "WTF? What happned to choice? Since when is Linux a Monopoly? I WANNA RUN AIX & SOLARIS!" "Sorry, Linux only."Let's take that one step further: Apple has their bad points, but overall they have been consistently higher-quality than Microsoft, and they rarely absuse their position. Microsoft forces crap apon people, buys out competition and replacies their market share with their own crappy product.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Does this mean that everything rotten thing a company does is permissible UP TO the point they achieve market dominance (as long as they provide a helpful EULA)?
If this is the case, I never again want to hear complaints about the terrible things Microsoft has done before they were actually convicted of monopolistic practices, nor the terrible things they have done in markets where they don't have monopoly status.
Apple does this shit again and again, its despicable business practice, and I'm sick of people glossing over it. Maybe it's not "monoplistic", but its still a crap way of advancing your products over competitors.
Let's say Apple makes a word processor called AppleWorks. Let's say it has a proprietary file format that changes frequently to prevent anybody from ever cloning it well. Who cares? Even if all Mac owners use AppleWorks (and they most emphatically do not), that's 5% or so if you're optimistic.
Let's say Microsoft makes a word processor called Word...
Do you understand now? You can choose not to use or be influenced by Apple. This is also why the laws of acceptable business practices are literally different depending on whether you are a monopoly.
...you have a company a with ~5% OS marketshare writing software for another OS...
and trying to remove "another OS"'s user's choice in music applications by disabling software already installed and configured on that user's system.
The only software Apple should be replacing on a Microsoft (or any other OS) install is previously installed Apple software.
Apple is perhaps more evil than Microsoft; they just don't have the market share yet.
Lots of people have complained that if you have an iPod for Windows, and you have a Mac, when you plug the iPod into the Mac, the Mac wants to reformat it. And when you have an iPod for Mac and you plug it into your Windows machine, MusicMatch doesn't work with it without reformatting.
This is because the iPod looks like a disk drive. On the Mac, it's formatted as an HFS volume. On Windows, it was formatted as a Windows volume.
Now, with iTunes for Windows, you can share your iPod between Windows and Mac. This is because iTunes for Windows knows how to deal with HFS volumes. But unfortunately, MusicMatch for Windows does not know how to do this.
So you lose something, and you get something. Depending on what you want, you may prefer one solution or the other. If you prefer MusicMatch, stick with it. If you prefer iTunes, stick with it.
The point is that this was not just an arbitrary attempt to shut MusicMatch out of the business. It was done for a good reason. If MusicMatch wants to maintain iPod compatiblity after you install iTunes, this is doable, because HFS+ is a documented standard, and the source code to read and write HFS+ filesystems is available from Apple - it's part of Darwin, which is open source.
So yes, Apple did make an incompatible change. And it sucks for people who really like MusicMatch. But there was a good reason for making the change, and I personally think the end result is a significant improvement. YMMV.
Maybe it's not "monoplistic", but its still a crap way of advancing your products over competitors.
...
If you look at it in the exact same way that the court looked at Microsoft, then you'll find it is monopolistic:
Number of Apple computers shipped without Mac OS X: 0
Percentage of Apple computers running an operating system not developed by Apple: (slightly larger than 0)
Competitors' software broken by Apple software when installed to use with Apple hardware:
Remember that in the last anti-trust case against Microsoft Apple was ruled to not even be a competitor in the OS space because they didn't run on x86 (Microsoft wanted Apple to be considered a competitor, of course, whether or not they actually see them this way). This is how Microsoft suddenly had a 95+% market share when before the trial the numbers tended to be in the 80-85% range, because the market was limited to a very specific area (primarily x86-based desktop PCs). Not to mention the portions of the case regarding forced bundling of Windows, requiring OEMs to buy a copy for every PC they shipped, meaning that OEMs wouldn't sell PCs without Windows (notably, though, the fact that many OEMs offered Linux before the case even went to court was omitted).
There are 2 different types of monopoly at hand here, and the only reason people overlook (or even deny) Apple's monopoly is because it's in a relatively small market. When Apple extends their practices into larger markets, there are a lot more people to take notice, and this is just that. (I'd also add that when Microsoft made Office look the same on the Mac as it did on Windows, Mac users cried foul, and even Apple cried a bit, but most of the applications Apple releases for Windows look like they are Mac OS apps, rather than Windows apps).
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Love to tell you this...
.dll (closed binary) that Windows uses; there is no native implementation, no open or free implementation of WMA to be had.)
I have an iPod, love the thing.
I have MMJB, and its iPod plugin. I've seen better software in a 1st semester Visual Basic course. MMJB is so horrid, I cannot imagine anyone ever wanting to use it to begin with (whether to play/orgaze MP3's on your computer, or just for syncing with the iPod. I originally used MM to sync with my iPod. It was a miserable experience to say the least. It froze more often than it worked.
So, I got XPlay. XPlay was wonderful; but to no suprise, it didn't play well with MM. Espescially if you mac-formatted your iPod and used it that way. But even if it was Fat32 formatted, it was still a bad experience BECAUSE of MM if I tried to use both. Either wanted to sync the iPod to its internal database of MP3's and playlists, which to no suprise, aren't always the same. And neither were capable of noticing that 99% of the songs were the exact same. Nooo. They had to transfer each an every MP3, even if it already existed on the ipod, if you switched between MMJB and XPlay (or ephpod, etc).
So, along comes iTunes, which frankly blows all the other iPod/Windows softawre out of the water. Syncing is faster than any other suite I've used, and overall more painless.
I don't care that I can't use 'competing' music stores with iTunes, because iTunes was meant for use with the iPod. I get far more freedom with the purchased music than I do with any of the competitors, and it costs less too. I've tried the competition before-- and hated all of them. I actually like the iTunes Music Store.
I don't care what Microsoft's marketing division says: WMA is not the standard format. There is only one company that makes a WMA encoder, and one company that makes a decoder, and it's Microsoft. The format and method of compression used are not published. It's closed in every possible way. There is no "free" or even "open" WMA encoders or decoders. (You can play WMA on Linux -- but it is using the same WMA
AAC, on the other hand, is an open format. Don't mistake this with a 'Free' format, as the Cult of Stallman is so happy to point out. But it is Open -- in the same way OpenGL is. AAC is well documented, and there are many encoders and decoders available from many different companies, as well as many different implementations of AAC by itself. There are patent fees-- but this doesn't change the fact that the codec is published. The unprotected AAC files generated by iTunes (when ripping from CD's) is of the exact same format. I'm sure the protected ones use the same audio encoding as the AAC standard, but has added DRM. It still uses AAC encoding.
For an example of how protected AAC differs from 'normal' AAC: There is even a project to make a DRM extension of Ogg Vorbis. It still uses the Vorbis encoding format, but it's got DRM. There is just no story about Apple's AAC being 'closed'.
Disabling the other methods of updating the iPod was in my opinion a good idea, as it instantly removed the problems involved with using multiple sync problems. Making these little annoyances go away seems to be "The Apple Way," and it's not lost on me.
iTunes is meant for users who have the iPod. If you don't have an iPod, then you're not Apple's target audience for iTunes, although they certainly won't stop you from trying things 'The Apple Way', which in my opinion, is considerably better in the case of iTunes than any other way to play music on Windows. Maybe it'll convince some customers to get an iPod. Apple is interested in supporting its OWN hardware, not other companies hardware. MusicMatch failed so miserably in its iPod support that I don't blame Apple for cutting them off. That's an instant 90% reduction in tech support to Windows iPod owners. A 'no-brainer' from a business perspective.
Besides, the
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
I totally disagree. Copyright is not a natural right; it is a limited privilege extended to works for the purpose of promoting intellectual progress. The copyright holder has limited rights concerning the redistribution of works, but they do not and cannot "decide what you can and can't do." Beyond preventing you from redistributing the work in a manner that impedes intellectual progress, they should have no further legal powers. I believe the DMCA gives copyright holders powers that are not authorized by the Constitution and go completely against the goal of copyright law.
This is a sentiment I have never understood..."Apple is cool, so people only use Apple computers to be cool"...It almost defies logic...If Apple were "cool" why wouldn't they have more market share, or at least mindshare?...As a long time Apple user, I can say, anecdotally, that I have never once had a conversation with another Apple user regarding how much cooler our computers are than others.
/. spewing fictitious nonsense about a platform they know nothing about -- and I'm not talking about Apple either...
People who choose to use Macs have always dealt with 'less' options...I don't see how being on the fringe is cool...If anything we have generally felt marginalized -- sure we have steeled our resolve with a belief that we get more done, or that we work more efficiently, but that really just helps to fortify our own conclusions...does that make us 'different'...I could care less...does being 'different' make us 'cool'? Again I could care less.
It always seems like it is the people who do not use Apple computers who have an obsession with being 'cool' or not. I myself, just continue to do my work on my Macs as I have done for many years now.
BTW, do you really think Apple users think they are 'cooler' than Linux user think themselves. If you cannot acknowledge that there are vastly more Linux poseurs out there than Apple poseurs, you are fooling yourself. I can support this simply by the fact that Mac users, as lame as you want to see them, by the lowest common denominator, at least run productivity/creativity apps most of the time. Most Linux wanabees just spend their time installing the latest release, do no coding, no produuctivity/creative app work, and then post AC drivel on
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
But this discussion is about software on Windows PCs. How does it leverage their monopoly of MacOS based PCs to gain extra market share in the portable MP3 player and/or online music retail markets?
Apple is using iTunes to disable access to the iPod from other programs as well as to install QuickTime on the PCs. Essentially they're trying to leverage the popularity of the iPod (which I believe is one of the best-selling portable MP3 players available) to force these other products (iTunes, QuickTime, ITunes Music Service) on end-users. A savvy user can easily get around much of the behavior of iTunes and QuickTime in taking over media functionality on Windows machines, and Microsoft was forced to make this slightly easier for users (adding in the 'Set Program Access and Defaults' item in the 'Add/Remove Programs' Control Panel entry), but the only way for the average user to really stop this behavior is to uninstall the Apple software and reinstall the pre-existing software.
Breaking other people's software and bundling software together is exactly the behavior Microsoft was accused of in the antitrust trial. In the case of iTunes, the biggest offense comes to users of Apple's hardware (the iPod), which means they're leveraging a user's choice in hardware to force a software choice on them (assuming they've made the decision to try iTunes, they don't get the choice to use the software side-by-side with other software to access their hardware).
Apple has no monopoly positions in the Windows based PC market.
Apple doesn't need a monopoly position in the Windows-based PC market. They are attempting to create a monopoly in software for synchronizing the iPod on Windows by breaking software that previously worked, and then further trying to extend that monopoly into other areas by taking over the functions of all other media players on the system.
Remember that at the time the antitrust trial was brought against Microsoft they didn't have anything resembling a monopoly in either Internet browsers or media players, either, but were accused of using an OS monopoly (over a very limited market) to push out competition in these areas. During the trial they gained a majority market share in the browser space and a fair amount of market share in media players and other 'middleware' applications, but this wasn't the case when the trial started (before Windows 98 was released).
As far as leveraging a monopoly on MacOS based PCs, it was simply that monopoly that allowed them to market the iPod and iTunes to the point where the platform had enough strength to leverage it's way into the Windows-based PC space. Apple is now simply leveraging the popularity of the iPod to push iTunes into the Windows space, though iTunes also gained some reputation of it's own on the MacOS that made some Windows users curious as to what the big deal was (and frankly, the only thing I see as a big deal in it is solid seperation of the interface and playback functionality, because the thing won't miss a beat playing a song even if it's redrawing at a piss-poor rate and half-frozen).
-PainKilleR-[CE]
iTMS uses the FairPlay DRM. I have a lot of songs and I can't think of a single instance when FairPlay got in my way or kept me from doing anything. I can burn the songs to as many CDs as I like, play the music on up to three computers (at a time), and transfer it to as many iPods as I like. How exactly is that restricting me?
/chances are good/ you will want to use iTunes for syncing with your iPod anyways should you continue to use iTunes (not guaranteed, but likely).
This is like saying: "I never wanted to go out at night anyways, so how is this curfew a restriction." I have no desire at all to read comic books - yet if somebody decided that I could never read comic books I would still be angry.
The fact of the matter is that there are restrictions ("up to three computers") and the only way that ITMS can enforce them is by making sure that the software controls how you can access the data on your own computer. What I am saying is that that relationship between ourselves and our computers (the one where they place restrictions on us, however innouxious those restrictions may be) is one that we should never accept in the first place.
Just like I demand freedom of speech as a principle, not as something on which I will accept restrictions as long as I don't notice them, I demand control over my own computer and the data in it as a principle.
The rest of iTunes has no DRM incorporated. What this entire story is about is not any form of DRM, but Apple replacing MusicMatch's functionality with their own.
I wasn't replying to that, I was replying to the person who linked to an article about (among other things DRM) and tried to use that as a reason to make Macs better than PCs. The simple truth is that as of ITMS Macs have embraced the idea that users should be subjects to their computers just as much as Microsoft has with WMP and Palladium.
(Of course, I wasn't moderated down as being offtopic but rather overrated, as any comment critical of Apple invariably is if it reaches a score greater than three. At least this time the similiarly inevitable +5 modded flame quoted my entire post...)
Besides, if you own an iPod and you've download iTunes,
This is the argument I am uninterested it. As far as I am concerned, this just sounds like the typical antics of closed software programs, and is one of the reasons I only use free software. But, I want to comment that you are falling for the same fallacy here as you are with DRM.
It is not OK to break into somebody's house and replace a belonging with something else even if everybody you do it will like what you leave better than what you took (I don't want to argue whether this is a case of that, but in the quoted text above you are saying "this would be ok even if it was.") Our freedoms, our integrity, and our self determination are principles of humanity - it is not OK to step on them even when it isn't inconvenient for us.
So would you and whichever moderator modded you up remove your tinfoil hats?
Since I have gone from being scared to deeply depressed about this issue (mostly after seeing the majority of Slashdot suddenly embrace the concept of DRM once they realized they could get something in return for it) I wish it wouldn't worry me, but I see nothing "tinfoil hat" about it.
It is Microsoft and media industry's stated aim to have remote attestation built into the fabric of the web, so that websites will use DRM for their content, so that communication will only be possible between DRM enabled users, etc etc. I thought Slashdotters and maybe even Mac-heads would fight the takeover of our computers by programs hostile toward us, but instead they have become the backers and defenders of the process. It seems little other than inevitable now that we will not in a few years face a closed, proprietary, and restricted Internet.
Well if people never attempt to commit a crime why should they care if there "hands are binded."
I don't know whether to be happy that you are making my argument for me, or scared that there are actually people in world who think like this...