Slashdot Mirror
Former iTunes Engineer Tells Court He Worked To Block Competitors
loftarasa (1066016) writes Yesterday, former engineer Rob Schultz unwillingly testified in court against Apple that he worked on project 'Candy' which 'intended to block 100% of non-iTunes clients' from 2006 to 2007. In his opinion, the work of his team contributed to create 'market dominance' for the iPod. Apple argues, and Schultz agrees, that its intentions were to improve iTunes, not curb competition.
He'll never be employed to engage in shady illegal practices after throwing his employer under the bus like this.
It's a good day.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
'intended to block 100% of non-iTunes clients' [...] to improve iTunes, not curb competition.
In what universe does this statement make sense?
where he worked for Steve Jobs?
I guess that reality distortion field only dissipated outside of Apple upon his death, not amongst personnel within.
My first thought was that this sounds a lot like the famed situation between Windows and Lotus. Personally, I miss Musicmatch.
I'd note that the two alternatives aren't incompatible. It's entirely possible to intend to improve iTunes while also determining that the best way to improve it is to block all competitors from accessing it (doing that would, among other things, eliminate bugs due to incorrect accesses and malformed music files and remove an inconsistent user experience due to badly-written software from other vendors). After all, when AT&T was banning all other vendors from connecting equipment to it's phone network it was only intending to protect the network from damage due to incorrectly-designed equipment (or at least so it's testimony went). In neither case do intentions alter the end result.
The logic is that when you only have to support your devices, it's easier to provide a better experience. If a shitty 3rd party device can't use iTunes, then the consumer may fault Apple for their bad experience. It's easier for Apple to say "only Apple devices".
I don't agree with Apple, but that's their logic.
And Hitler only wanted to improve Germany, therefore his actions are righteous.
You managed to Godwin this thread on with the fifth post.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
There is nothing wrong with this. Blocking competitors is the normal way to do business. That is what business are in the business of doing. As long as they don't do anything illegal then there is nothing wrong. Nothing to see here. Just lawyers trying to get rich quick.
This is right about the time Winamp quit kicking the llama's ass.
"Windows ain't done till Lotus won't run"?
Ken
...its intentions were to improve iTunes
Then why is iTunes such a cruddy pile of shit?
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
n/t
Does Apple really give internal projects names like "Candy?"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You deal with the fucking impossible demands placed on software engineers and offer liability.
Built any bridges recently for which the budget was cut halfway, you were forced to use chocolate fudge instead of cement, the location was switched every two weeks and the timescales halved, and delivered a working bridge nonetheless?
No? Fuck off back to your pitiful superiority complex then you egotistical shit.
There's a big difference between not going out of your way to support something and going out of your way to prevent it. Windows doesn't have a native POSIX interface (it used to have a basic one) but you can add one if you like. It can be done higher level via something like Cygwin, or it can be done directly in the executive just like the Win32/64 APIs. There is nothing stopping you from adding it, they don't care.
Same deal with DirectX and OpenGL. A Windows GPU driver has to provide DirectX support. It is just part of the WDDM driver. Windows provides no OpenGL acceleration, and no software emulation. However you can provide your own OpenGL driver if you wish, and Intel, nVidia, and AMD all elect to do so. Windows does nothing to stop this and they work great (if the company writes a good driver). Indeed you could develop your own graphic API and implement that, if you wished.
There's a big difference between saying "We aren't going to do any work to support your stuff," and saying "We are going to work to make sure your stuff can't be supported."
You discover Apple software sucks way less on OS-X. The fanboys will tell you this is evidence of how much better OS-X is, of course, but the real reason is Apple doesn't do a good job on their ports. They really half-ass their Windows ports so they end up not being good software. It is possibly something to try and make OS-X look better but more likely simply laziness and a lack of good Windows developers.
It shouldn't be a crime, because I wasn't trying to kill him, I was just trying to help him be healthier by letting out some of his blood.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Been there done both. The difference is that NO boss comes and speaks bullshit to the engineer that is responsible for the strength calculations. Because his name is on the record, he will just simply say fine then you sign the calculations.
I don't know... I find that iTunes pretty much sucks regardless of OS. In fact, I've actually found that the Home Sharing feature is more reliable from Apple TVs when iTunes is running on Windows than it is when iTunes is running on OSX.
iTunes is also shit on OSX, it's just not shit in as many ways. It is, however, shit in many of the same ways.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
..of course, but the real reason is Apple doesn't do a good job on their ports.
Why should they? Are the obligated to provide support to their competitors? Are they obligated to provided support of one of their products on a different OS at all?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Most of us don't like it any more than you do. As a developer who has held several positions where the official title included the word "Engineer," they're listed on my resume as "Developer." Don't blame the programmers, blame Personnel - er, I mean, Human Resources - for constantly inventing new terms.
Security failures, obvious complicit interactions with the NSA and other agencies, buggy as crap even though they design the hardware and write the code, something only a fanboi could love.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
You deal with the fucking impossible demands placed on software engineers and offer liability.
Built any bridges recently for which the budget was cut halfway, you were forced to use chocolate fudge instead of cement, the location was switched every two weeks and the timescales halved, and delivered a working bridge nonetheless?
No? Fuck off back to your pitiful superiority complex then you egotistical shit.
If you are a software engineer, what the fuck do you know about building bridges?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You know why REAL engineers don't have to deal with that shit? It's because the project can't get built until we put our stamp on the plans! Management's demands get a whole lot more reasonable when they can't replace you with some dumbfuck yes-man.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Considering Windows is the dominant OS in the market and has been for a long time, I'd say that they are obligated to do just that. Half-assing it irritates a lot of people, many of which are (were) potential future customers.
I got an iPod shuffle.... I think, in 2005 for a girlfriend. I went to set it up for her, plugged it into my computer. It proceeded to rename a good 200 albums or so into 8character.ext filenames. I've never touched an apple product since.
Considering Windows...
We are not talking about Windows.
A company is not required to provide technical support to a competitor.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Yes, it is good to be a Software Engineer. Are you a "proper" engineer that is ticked off at software developers co-opting your glorious title? Words sometimes take on additional meaning over time.
Unless someone claims to to be a Professional/Licensed/Registered Engineer, then there is nothing wrong with saying Software Engineer.
... that you are just an ignorant lair.
Seriously, you couldn't come up with a more believable lie??
Yeah okay.
Not if you don't need the market share.
Even better, Apple could've posted a large disclaimer on the iTunes' download page: "We don't guarantee 100% Windows support"
Democracy is for the people; you only vote once per season and we'll do the rest of the work for you don't have to.
Absolutely - but they can replace software engineers with some cheap as shit grad in India who will deliver _something_, so the choice is simple: Deal with the shit and deliver anyway, or watch the job go offshore.
Just because you have the fortune of regulatory protection doesn't diminish the skills and capabilities of people using the title software engineer, and doesn't mean that their job is as easy as yours. Any cunt can build a sewer, there's been a couple of millenia of practice to learn from.
Apple could've posted a large disclaimer on the iTunes' download page: "We don't guarantee 100% Windows support"
They could have, but why would anyone assume different?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
If I refuse to stamp my work, I'd better have a defensible ethical reason not to.
And "I don't think it's right and just" is *not* part of the Ohio Revised Code.
"I have the license so I make the rules." will teach you very quickly the meaning of "the golden rule"
Anything to back up the assertion or is His testimony as good as making up shit?