That was just a sob story by Be. Apple had been giving them some support, presumably because they were considering buying Be before they purchased Next instead. Why spend money supporting another company's product when it doesn't provide you any benefit?
Notice the lack of hand-holding didn't stop Linux and BSD coders from developing for the Macs of the time. Also note that some of the cloners were offering to put Be on their machines (Power Computing, IIRC).
This guy is (rightfully) sueing Apple for anticompetative behaviour.
No, he's not. Did you miss the part of this being a single-use piece of hardware? Apple can do whatever the hell they want with it. They are in no way obligated to assist their rivals in competing with the iTMS.
The judge will have to decide if apple has enough marketshare to make this practice illegal.
Its going to get laughed out of court with extreme prejudice is what's going to happen, either immediatly or uppon appeal, assuming the guy finds a dumbass judge.
So when Paul Berendt said every vote should count, that even if certification has already happened in a county they should go back and include votes they missed when he was losing, and then when his side was winning he said it is too late to include votes once a county has certified, that qualifies as what? Consistency? Interesting planet you live on.
Got some links for that? Context? I do a Google for Berendt and I get a bunch of right wing blogs. While you're at it, go looking for evidence that Berednt speaks for all Democrats in the state of Washington, because I'm sure I can find some dubious comments from Republican officials in the state as well.
You're simply blind or lying to say they have not changed their positions.
Uh huh. Has anybody checked to see what the candidate says? According to the Seattle Times, Gregoire said:
"I respect the rights of others to file an action in court. That's their right," she said. "I have to respect that, I'm the attorney general."
Since when has the iTMS dominated Wal-Mart or buymusic.com? Most sales!=dominating your compeditors in anything other than marketshare.
This suit is about forcing people to get an ipod to use a player with itunes.
Force, shmorsh. If you bought a song from the iTMS, you bought it from within iTunes, so you can already listen to it. As far as players go, tell me where on the iTMS page it says anything about *any* portables, including the iPod. If you look at their terms of service at the bottom it quite clearly says you have to have an iPod to play the songs on the go.
This suit is going to be thrown out on its ear, along with the idiot that brought it.
he same obligation that microsoft cannot modify windows to make 3rd party DOS not work with it.
Not a relevant comparison. PC's were an open multi-use platform. The iPod was never built or marketed to be an open multi-use platform. Apple did not make the iPod so Real could put their songs on it, so Real can't bitch when Apple changes it, and neither can you.
Well you've been suitably flamed, so I'll help you out here.
I have a iPod here infront of me, and sorry, when I try to play the mp3 file I "copied" (I believe converted and then copied) to the iPod, I can't play it in VLC.
Either that's not really an mp3 file, or you accidentally converted the mp3 to aac in iTunes. It's pretty hard to do by accident, as you have to right click on the song, and select "convert to aac".
As for Winamp, I belive the latest version plays aac files, and plugins are available for older releases.
So, to play mp3's on an iPod, first drag the mp3 or aac in question (or folders of mp3s) to iTunes. Once you plug in your iPod, it will show up in iTunes. Select the files you want to transfer, in iTunes, and drag it to your iPod icon, in iTunes, and you're done.
Okay, I can't resist a little flamage. My Dad was able to figure all this out with very little help, and he is completely computer illiterate by Slashdot standards.
There's nothing MS does that isn't also done by someone else.
Okay, who else can put pressure on Dell, Gateway, IBM and HP to include Feature X on their PC's and not include Feature B from Compeditor Y? Also, name me an equivilant of the Office monopoly that Microsoft has. A great many businesses *have* to upgrade ot the latest version of Office, because they can't risk that their clients will send them 2003 files that wont work with the previous version.
Why get so bent out of shape when someone points out your lie?
Cause its not a lie, dumbass. See above.
but if you make shit up you deserve to get pounded for it.
Good that you feel that way, so you can't get beat of out shape for being called a dumbass. Another one for ya: how can you prop up one of the largest companies in the world, that makes thousands of products, on only two product lines, without being a monopoly? Microsoft can afford to lose insane amounts of money on ventures like the XBox because they make insane amounts of money on Office and Windows. If they had real competition for either Windows or Office, they wouldn't have such insane profit margins, and would actually have to try to make money in all their business operations. You know, like normal, non-monopoly companies do.
You're making it seem that if you run windows you *must* be getting this stuff.Seccondly, if there isn't such stuff on Macs, why is there Macintosh anti-virus software (which also lists spyware/adware as viruses)?
To protect PC's, that's why.:) Your Mac wont be affected by spyware, but you can still pass it along to PC's as an email attachment or if your Mac is a file server and a PC user opens the wrong file.
I mean, theoretically, such software couldn't exist for the MacOSX platform, unless there was some sort viruses and adware/spyware for macs
Nope, see above.
which in reality, there is.
Like what? The only notable vunerability in OS X was an exploit in Safari that, if you went to a webpage, would auto-download a disk image, auto-mount it, and auto-execute some code, which then could be used to do various nasty things. A cool exploit, but quickly fixed by Apple. The one before that was a hacked TCP/IP packet in OS 9 that would return a packet many times as large to an address you forged. Also quickly fixed, and do you know how many *years* its been since Macs were shipped with OS 9? The desktop exploits before that were all Microsoft Office macro viruses, and this was about ten years ago. The list of viruses/exploits is *very* short for Macs, and spyware is non-existent.
No offense, but why would someone NOT consider to make something that would effect the most systems possible and their largest userbase?
If thats the case then why are the vast majority of web server cracks for IIS and not Apache?
Also, let's not forget that most macs these days run alot of 3rd party, non-apple software, like Apache etc.. Of course if the Macintosh get's hacked through a apache exploit, does that automatically mean that apache was only hacked and not the Macintosh? Sorry. That's not how it works in the real world. Alot of opensource products have exploits, and have the potential of being exploited.
Because those exploits target specific machines, and those services you mention are turned off by default. You can take a Mac running beta 10.0, plug it into the net, and you'll be fine because no services are running. Contrast that to Windows, where you can just hook a freshly installed box up to the internet, and be infected in minutes, without ever installing an extra service or visiting a web page.
Aside from sloppy coding, there are a couple more reasons why Windows would still have all the viruses even if Windows had 5% marketshare and Apple had 95%. The first is the aformentioned running of too many services and too many ports open. The other is piss poor privedge seperation. On Windows, its a pain in the ass to run as anything other than an Administrator, as there is no reauthentication process a la sudo on Linux or Mac OS X.
Microsoft has finally buttoned up default installs to a certain extent, but they will always have problems with desktop exploits as long as they don't have an equivilant for sudo. And no, right clicking and selecting "run as" is *not* an equivilant, because it forces you to have a seperate Administrator account, which in itself is a security risk. This problem gets even worse if you are in a multi-user environment.
"Apple has unlawfully bundled, tied, and/or leveraged its monopoly in the market for the sale of legal online digital music recordings to thwart competition in the separate market for portable hard drive digital music players, and vice-versa," the lawsuit said.
Its not bundled, its not tied, and they aren't remotely close to having a monopoly on either hardware or online music. Next?
I don't know about you, but if I get music from a music store I expect to be able to play it on a variety of players
Then buy the fucking cd, and you can encode it into whatever format you want. The iPod is no different in this respect then players that use wma or Sony's format. Its really not that hard. And name me a single song on the iTMS that you can't buy on cd or from some other online store. As you can't, Apple has no monopoly.
Those stores-without-players that sell label songs are only sustainable if they are run by Microsoft, who can afford to throw money away, and Wal-Mart, who can put brick-and-mortar pressure on labels to get favorable terms. Any other stores are unsustainable, because if they don't have hardware, there is no way to compete with iTMS or Wal-Mart. The bullshit is yours.
He's suing because Apple is trying to gain monopolies in digital music and digital music players
And how are they doing that? Have they forced the labels to sign exclusivity contracts with them? No. So your argument Is Not Scottish. For that matter, as long as albums are sold on cds, people can rip and encode them into whatever format they want.
Don't be daft. CDs are clearly different from downloaded music.
Huh?
They're sold differently
So whats so different from buying the cd from Best Buy, its the samn damn music! And for that matter, you can always buy the cd online as well. It'll just take longer to get to you.
used differently
What, you think there's no way to get your latest Duff cd onto your iPod? Are you daft?
are priced differently
Bitch at the labels for that one. They set the pricing in stores, not Apple.
contain different data.
You can rip and encode a cd in a matter of minutes, even on a slow computer. Quicherbichen.
his point is that Apple is forcing him to buy an iPod in order to play the music he has already purchased.
Nonsense...if he bought a song from the iTMS, he did it using iTunes, and thus can already listen to it. This guy needs a nice, warm cup of STFU, like a lot of the whiney bitches here.
No, that's not bending over backwards to help your compeditors. Oh, and Apple has no monopoly on either online music store or portable players, they have a monopoly on iPods the way GM has a monopoly on Chevies.
Apple doens't make much money on the iTMS, they make it on the hardware. There is no way Apple could charge Real enough money in licensing to make up for lost iPod sales, so that makes no sense for them.
If it were anyone other than Apple doing this, you wouldn't think twice before saying so.
With the exception of Microsoft, if it were anyone else *but* Apple, people wouldn't be bitching at all.
You must use iTunes (or other software which contains reverse-engineered code to update the iPod database; e.g. EphPod) to copy songs to the iPod and expect them to play.
Online music sales is fast becoming a booming industry.
More like a ballooning dot-com industry. Apple didn't make the iTMS to make a profit, so for anyone to compete with them and make money, they also have to lose or break even on the store while making money on a player. iRiver and Creative don't have the market presense or muscle to compete on those terms, and AFAIK Real's store and www.buymusic.com weren't going anywhere with their stores.
That leaves just a few other playres. There's Microsoft, who cheefully sets fires to large piles of money in order to gain marketshare (i.e. XBox). That leaves Wal-Mart, the only entity that can make labels bend over at the ankles and take anal like a trooper, and the labels themselves to elimiate the middleman (i.e. Sony's store).
How do you disable something that never existed in the first place?
they're the ones refusing to license FairPlay to other player manufacturers
No, that would be refusing to be driven out of the market, as licensing would do nothing but cost Apple money and in the long run turn wmv into the dominant format.
Remember when Real came out with the new Harmony thing that allows Real's online store to send protected files to iPod's by faking FairPlay support? Remember the huge fuss they raised then, calling Real a bunch of hackers and pirates, in no uncertain terms?
Remember when Apple in no uncertain terms rebuffed Real the first time they asked?
They want to lock in users to Apple in both markets. That just ain't right, man.
Bitch, bitch, bitch. The iPod plays open formats like wav and mp3 just fine, and you can always by the physical disk.
Slashdot Mirror
That was just a sob story by Be. Apple had been giving them some support, presumably because they were considering buying Be before they purchased Next instead. Why spend money supporting another company's product when it doesn't provide you any benefit?
Notice the lack of hand-holding didn't stop Linux and BSD coders from developing for the Macs of the time. Also note that some of the cloners were offering to put Be on their machines (Power Computing, IIRC).
Which one? There's about ten in the summary.
This guy is (rightfully) sueing Apple for anticompetative behaviour.
No, he's not. Did you miss the part of this being a single-use piece of hardware? Apple can do whatever the hell they want with it. They are in no way obligated to assist their rivals in competing with the iTMS.
The judge will have to decide if apple has enough marketshare to make this practice illegal.
Its going to get laughed out of court with extreme prejudice is what's going to happen, either immediatly or uppon appeal, assuming the guy finds a dumbass judge.
Oh, nm then. :)
Got some links for that? Context? I do a Google for Berendt and I get a bunch of right wing blogs. While you're at it, go looking for evidence that Berednt speaks for all Democrats in the state of Washington, because I'm sure I can find some dubious comments from Republican officials in the state as well.
You're simply blind or lying to say they have not changed their positions.
Uh huh. Has anybody checked to see what the candidate says? According to the Seattle Times, Gregoire said:
- "I respect the rights of others to file an action in court. That's their right," she said. "I have to respect that, I'm the attorney general."
Who's blind and lying?but no excuse for apple to be abusing their position
How is locking out a compeditors hack of their product "abusing their position"?!?!?
Like using your dominant online music store
Since when has the iTMS dominated Wal-Mart or buymusic.com? Most sales!=dominating your compeditors in anything other than marketshare.
This suit is about forcing people to get an ipod to use a player with itunes.
Force, shmorsh. If you bought a song from the iTMS, you bought it from within iTunes, so you can already listen to it. As far as players go, tell me where on the iTMS page it says anything about *any* portables, including the iPod. If you look at their terms of service at the bottom it quite clearly says you have to have an iPod to play the songs on the go.
This suit is going to be thrown out on its ear, along with the idiot that brought it.
he same obligation that microsoft cannot modify windows to make 3rd party DOS not work with it.
Not a relevant comparison. PC's were an open multi-use platform. The iPod was never built or marketed to be an open multi-use platform. Apple did not make the iPod so Real could put their songs on it, so Real can't bitch when Apple changes it, and neither can you.
Well you've been suitably flamed, so I'll help you out here.
I have a iPod here infront of me, and sorry, when I try to play the mp3 file I "copied" (I believe converted and then copied) to the iPod, I can't play it in VLC.
Either that's not really an mp3 file, or you accidentally converted the mp3 to aac in iTunes. It's pretty hard to do by accident, as you have to right click on the song, and select "convert to aac".
As for Winamp, I belive the latest version plays aac files, and plugins are available for older releases.
So, to play mp3's on an iPod, first drag the mp3 or aac in question (or folders of mp3s) to iTunes. Once you plug in your iPod, it will show up in iTunes. Select the files you want to transfer, in iTunes, and drag it to your iPod icon, in iTunes, and you're done.
Okay, I can't resist a little flamage. My Dad was able to figure all this out with very little help, and he is completely computer illiterate by Slashdot standards.
Wow, you're much more charitable than I am. My rev a iMac just kicked up its legs and died, so I'm taking out my bitter sadness on these wankers.
Not licensing their protected AAC format is anti-competitive.
Not bending over backwards to help your compeditors is not being anti-compeditive.
There's nothing MS does that isn't also done by someone else.
Okay, who else can put pressure on Dell, Gateway, IBM and HP to include Feature X on their PC's and not include Feature B from Compeditor Y? Also, name me an equivilant of the Office monopoly that Microsoft has. A great many businesses *have* to upgrade ot the latest version of Office, because they can't risk that their clients will send them 2003 files that wont work with the previous version.
Why get so bent out of shape when someone points out your lie?
Cause its not a lie, dumbass. See above.
but if you make shit up you deserve to get pounded for it.
Good that you feel that way, so you can't get beat of out shape for being called a dumbass. Another one for ya: how can you prop up one of the largest companies in the world, that makes thousands of products, on only two product lines, without being a monopoly? Microsoft can afford to lose insane amounts of money on ventures like the XBox because they make insane amounts of money on Office and Windows. If they had real competition for either Windows or Office, they wouldn't have such insane profit margins, and would actually have to try to make money in all their business operations. You know, like normal, non-monopoly companies do.
You're making it seem that if you run windows you *must* be getting this stuff.Seccondly, if there isn't such stuff on Macs, why is there Macintosh anti-virus software (which also lists spyware/adware as viruses)?
:) Your Mac wont be affected by spyware, but you can still pass it along to PC's as an email attachment or if your Mac is a file server and a PC user opens the wrong file.
To protect PC's, that's why.
I mean, theoretically, such software couldn't exist for the MacOSX platform, unless there was some sort viruses and adware/spyware for macs
Nope, see above.
which in reality, there is.
Like what? The only notable vunerability in OS X was an exploit in Safari that, if you went to a webpage, would auto-download a disk image, auto-mount it, and auto-execute some code, which then could be used to do various nasty things. A cool exploit, but quickly fixed by Apple. The one before that was a hacked TCP/IP packet in OS 9 that would return a packet many times as large to an address you forged. Also quickly fixed, and do you know how many *years* its been since Macs were shipped with OS 9? The desktop exploits before that were all Microsoft Office macro viruses, and this was about ten years ago. The list of viruses/exploits is *very* short for Macs, and spyware is non-existent.
No offense, but why would someone NOT consider to make something that would effect the most systems possible and their largest userbase?
If thats the case then why are the vast majority of web server cracks for IIS and not Apache?
Also, let's not forget that most macs these days run alot of 3rd party, non-apple software, like Apache etc.. Of course if the Macintosh get's hacked through a apache exploit, does that automatically mean that apache was only hacked and not the Macintosh? Sorry. That's not how it works in the real world. Alot of opensource products have exploits, and have the potential of being exploited.
Because those exploits target specific machines, and those services you mention are turned off by default. You can take a Mac running beta 10.0, plug it into the net, and you'll be fine because no services are running. Contrast that to Windows, where you can just hook a freshly installed box up to the internet, and be infected in minutes, without ever installing an extra service or visiting a web page.
Aside from sloppy coding, there are a couple more reasons why Windows would still have all the viruses even if Windows had 5% marketshare and Apple had 95%. The first is the aformentioned running of too many services and too many ports open. The other is piss poor privedge seperation. On Windows, its a pain in the ass to run as anything other than an Administrator, as there is no reauthentication process a la sudo on Linux or Mac OS X.
Microsoft has finally buttoned up default installs to a certain extent, but they will always have problems with desktop exploits as long as they don't have an equivilant for sudo. And no, right clicking and selecting "run as" is *not* an equivilant, because it forces you to have a seperate Administrator account, which in itself is a security risk. This problem gets even worse if you are in a multi-user environment.
"Apple has unlawfully bundled, tied, and/or leveraged its monopoly in the market for the sale of legal online digital music recordings to thwart competition in the separate market for portable hard drive digital music players, and vice-versa," the lawsuit said.
Its not bundled, its not tied, and they aren't remotely close to having a monopoly on either hardware or online music. Next?
I don't know about you, but if I get music from a music store I expect to be able to play it on a variety of players
Then buy the fucking cd, and you can encode it into whatever format you want. The iPod is no different in this respect then players that use wma or Sony's format. Its really not that hard. And name me a single song on the iTMS that you can't buy on cd or from some other online store. As you can't, Apple has no monopoly.
If it were Microsoft doing this slashdotters would be unanimous in their condemnation.
Good thing the analogies are totally irrelevant then. Next?
Those stores-without-players that sell label songs are only sustainable if they are run by Microsoft, who can afford to throw money away, and Wal-Mart, who can put brick-and-mortar pressure on labels to get favorable terms. Any other stores are unsustainable, because if they don't have hardware, there is no way to compete with iTMS or Wal-Mart. The bullshit is yours.
He's suing because Apple is trying to gain monopolies in digital music and digital music players
And how are they doing that? Have they forced the labels to sign exclusivity contracts with them? No. So your argument Is Not Scottish. For that matter, as long as albums are sold on cds, people can rip and encode them into whatever format they want.
Don't be daft. CDs are clearly different from downloaded music.
Huh?
They're sold differently
So whats so different from buying the cd from Best Buy, its the samn damn music! And for that matter, you can always buy the cd online as well. It'll just take longer to get to you.
used differently
What, you think there's no way to get your latest Duff cd onto your iPod? Are you daft?
are priced differently
Bitch at the labels for that one. They set the pricing in stores, not Apple.
contain different data.
You can rip and encode a cd in a matter of minutes, even on a slow computer. Quicherbichen.
his point is that Apple is forcing him to buy an iPod in order to play the music he has already purchased.
Nonsense...if he bought a song from the iTMS, he did it using iTunes, and thus can already listen to it. This guy needs a nice, warm cup of STFU, like a lot of the whiney bitches here.
That is abusing a monopoly.
No, that's not bending over backwards to help your compeditors. Oh, and Apple has no monopoly on either online music store or portable players, they have a monopoly on iPods the way GM has a monopoly on Chevies.
Apple doens't make much money on the iTMS, they make it on the hardware. There is no way Apple could charge Real enough money in licensing to make up for lost iPod sales, so that makes no sense for them.
If it were anyone other than Apple doing this, you wouldn't think twice before saying so.
With the exception of Microsoft, if it were anyone else *but* Apple, people wouldn't be bitching at all.
You must use iTunes (or other software which contains reverse-engineered code to update the iPod database; e.g. EphPod) to copy songs to the iPod and expect them to play.
And this is a great hardship how?
Online music sales is fast becoming a booming industry.
More like a ballooning dot-com industry. Apple didn't make the iTMS to make a profit, so for anyone to compete with them and make money, they also have to lose or break even on the store while making money on a player. iRiver and Creative don't have the market presense or muscle to compete on those terms, and AFAIK Real's store and www.buymusic.com weren't going anywhere with their stores.
That leaves just a few other playres. There's Microsoft, who cheefully sets fires to large piles of money in order to gain marketshare (i.e. XBox). That leaves Wal-Mart, the only entity that can make labels bend over at the ankles and take anal like a trooper, and the labels themselves to elimiate the middleman (i.e. Sony's store).
They're the ones who disabled WMA support
How do you disable something that never existed in the first place?
they're the ones refusing to license FairPlay to other player manufacturers
No, that would be refusing to be driven out of the market, as licensing would do nothing but cost Apple money and in the long run turn wmv into the dominant format.
Remember when Real came out with the new Harmony thing that allows Real's online store to send protected files to iPod's by faking FairPlay support? Remember the huge fuss they raised then, calling Real a bunch of hackers and pirates, in no uncertain terms?
Remember when Apple in no uncertain terms rebuffed Real the first time they asked?
They want to lock in users to Apple in both markets. That just ain't right, man.
Bitch, bitch, bitch. The iPod plays open formats like wav and mp3 just fine, and you can always by the physical disk.
CD Players are not what we're talking about, and you know it. We're talking about digital music players and online music sales here.
We're talking about using copy protected AAC files on portable players, and the last time I checked, portable cd players were...portable.