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.

Comments

So much for his career

[ShieldW0lf]

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.

Re:So much for his career

[Bogtha]

How is he throwing them under the bus? This isn't something they contest. They have already told the court they did this, because they were contractually obliged to do so by the record labels. All he's doing is supporting their version of events.

Re:So much for his career

[kae77]

"Yesterday, former engineer Rob Schultz ***unwillingly*** testified in court against Apple"

I hardly doubt that a future employer would hold him accountable for telling the truth under oath.

Re:So much for his career

[gnupun]

shady illegal practices after throwing his employer under the bus like this.

How is blocking competitors from your platform shady or illegal? Does Windows support running Linux apps? No. If Real wanted to sell music, it should've built its own music player like the ipod and also an itunes equivalent. Why and how does it get the right to sell music on apple's music platform (itunes/ipod)?

Re:So much for his career

[Charliemopps]

How is he throwing them under the bus? This isn't something they contest. They have already told the court they did this, because they were contractually obliged to do so by the record labels. All he's doing is supporting their version of events.

I'm sure they fought tooth and nail to try and give their competition a fair chance to compete. Those evil record companies, forcing Apple to be anti-competitive when, before this, Apple was a model for fair business practices right? lol

Re:So much for his career

[Darinbob]

"We only engaged in immoral activities because the alternative was less profitable. So you can see that we had no choice but to comply."

Re: So much for his career

[Karlt1]

Steve Jobs posted the following to the home page of Apple back in 2007 when everyone was clamoring for Apple to license FairPlay....

"If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music."

Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

'intended to block 100% of non-iTunes clients' [...] to improve iTunes, not curb competition.

In what universe does this statement make sense?

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

A white universe with rounded corners.

Re:Wait, what?

[teg]

'intended to block 100% of non-iTunes clients' [...] to improve iTunes, not curb competition.

In what universe does this statement make sense?

In the universe where you have DRM, being able to circumvent it is a defect and/or security hole. So why is someone fixing it a surprise?

Re:Wait, what?

[quantaman]

'intended to block 100% of non-iTunes clients' [...] to improve iTunes, not curb competition.

In what universe does this statement make sense?

In the Apple universe sadly enough.

I'm one of the rare people who finds Linux (and popular Linux Desktop Environments) to be much more user friendly than OS X. The reason for this is fairly simple, I can easily make my Linux boxes work and interact the way I want, but with Apple... not so much.

I think that's integral to the Apple philosophy of the walled garden. They figure out what they want the product to do, they figure out the workflows, then they build the product so that the given workflow works really well and seamlessly. If you want to do something a little different it's not great, but it works. If you want to do something real different like play oggs or use a different client then there's a very simple solution, don't bother.

I don't think the aim is necessarily anti-competitive, I think they're just trying to protect their walled garden. If Realplayer has a buggy client that screws up syncing that's Realplayer's problem, if they have a buggy client that screws up the sync to the iPod that's suddenly Apple's problem. If you want to understand why all the Apple fanboys go around bragging that Apple just works it's because Apple doesn't let them do any of the things that don't work.

Not incompatible

[Todd Knarr]

Apple argues, and Schultz agrees, that its intentions were to improve iTunes, not curb competition.

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.

Re:Not incompatible

[peragrin]

Not only that but apple has already testified they were contractedly obligated to fix those holes.

Lastly competitors used hacks and bugs in fair play to provide compatibility. By blocking competitors he was bug fixing too.

Lastly why didn't Microsoft's play for sure work with non Microsoft products?

Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Really?

[wiredlogic]

...its intentions were to improve iTunes

Then why is iTunes such a cruddy pile of shit?

Windows doesn't stop it

[Sycraft-fu]

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."

Re:Good to Be A Software "Engineer"

[mrchaotica]

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?

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.