Apple and anti competitive practices.

Music DRM was enforced by the Music Companies, not by Apple. To sell music you had to include DRM. This was the same with all other online music stores. Amazon, Microsoft with Zune Store etc.

Apple were a big pusher for DRM free music, but had to break the model of 59p for every song to keep the Music Companies happy.

Music can now be purchased through itunes and taken out of itunes and played on any device that supports the AAC codec.

iTunes has never been designed to work with other players/devices. They don't provide an API for iTunes syncing.

Palm were using a 'back-door hack' / Reverse engineered iPods/iTunes to get the Pre to sync with itunes. (source)

Many Palm engineers working on the Pre had previously worked for Apple, specifically the iPhone / iPod / iTunes departments. This actually puts Palm on extremely dodgy ground. Did they actually clean room reverse engineer (allowed) or did they use their insider knowledge from working at apple (not-allowed)? Nobody knows... It's very sneaky from palm.

If palm hadn't made a big fuss about the fact you could sync with itunes, apple disabling it wouldn't have hit the headlines as much as it did. The pre also syncs with many other music players.

Microsoft were done for Anti-Competitive behavior as 'out of the box' you couldn't get onto the internet without using their browser. You also couldn't fully un-install the browser from windows. This was deemed anti competitive, because many less-computer savvy users would just settle with using internet explorer not giving other browser vendors a look in.

Microsoft had two options. Install other browsers by default (like apple do on os x) or completely remove IE. They went for the latter.

How is this different from itunes/ipods?

You don't have to download and use iTunes or its music store. You may choose to do so because it is the superior service.

Other players can't sync with itunes, sure, but any music you purchase can be freely taken to other music players and put onto other devices. (I know this hasn't always the case but you can do this now) (source)

My thoughts on the Pre blocking: It's sneaky from both parties. You can't put the blame solely on apple. However, i feel it's a bit like the bully stealing your ice cream or lunch money. It's not anti-competitive though because you can still move tracks purchased from the music store to another piece of software and transfer them to the pre that way.

Question: If itunes didn't have a music store or one that was anywhere near as good as it is now, would anyone give a rats bum about the fact apple have blocked palm from syncing with iTunes. I don't think so.
 
Many Palm engineers working on the Pre had previously worked for Apple, specifically the iPhone / iPod / iTunes departments. This actually puts Palm on extremely dodgy ground. Did they actually clean room reverse engineer (allowed) or did they use their insider knowledge from working at apple (not-allowed)? Nobody knows... It's very sneaky from palm.

All they were doing was syncing the tunes as if it were an iPod. It would hardly be rocket science to reverse engineer that.
 
Which isn't a patch on the anticompetetive practices of Apple...

Which are what exactly?

Wicksta said:
All they were doing was syncing the tunes as if it were an iPod. It would hardly be rocket science to reverse engineer that.

If it's so easy why haven't other vendors already done this? Could you do it? I know I wouldn't even know where to begin. It goes much more beyond simply spoofing the USB Vendor ID. You have to know how the iPod stores its music files etc etc... however easy it may or may not have been something fishy has gone on from palms point of view.
 
If it's so easy why haven't other vendors already done this? It goes much more beyond simply spoofing the USB Vendor ID. You have to know how the iPod stores its music files etc etc... however easy it may or may not have been something fishy has gone on from palms point of view.

It's simple reverse engineering of a protocol, something I have experience of myself. Like I said, it's not rocket science, it's a simple protocol to copy files over.

Why has no one else done it? Maybe they didn't think it was worth the effort. It's hardly a killer feature is it. You make it sound like the entire iPod/iTunes department all left and went to Palm. People leave companies all the time, I'm sure there are lots of ex-Apple people working for other handset manufacturers who could provide this oh so valuable 'inside info'.
 
Microsoft had two options. Install other browsers by default (like apple do on os x) or completely remove IE. They went for the latter.
Say what? Like Apple do what on OS X? My three Apple machines have all come with just Safari. 2 weeks old the last one, 1 year and 2 years.
 
Which are what exactly?

Read back over my posts in this thread, with regards to abuse of marketshare and illegal hardware/software tie-ins.

If it's so easy why haven't other vendors already done this? Could you do it? I know I wouldn't even know where to begin. It goes much more beyond simply spoofing the USB Vendor ID. You have to know how the iPod stores its music files etc etc... however easy it may or may not have been something fishy has gone on from palms point of view.

So you are admitting that Apple have created a hardware tie-in they wish to control. Do you think that is acceptable activity given their market share?
 
It's irrelevant how 'simple' this 'simple protocol' is or how complicated it is. It's still *probably* been reversed engineered with the use of insider knowledge. Thats not the discussion anyway. Is it anti-competitive from apple? Palm started the game of cat and mouse... apple are finishing it?

Ha, thats not what I meant at all, or meant it to sound like. But a number of key figures from within the department were head hunted by the gent (i forget his name now) who was put in charge of the whole Pre project. He himself happens to have been heavily involved with the iPhone development.
 
Say what? Like Apple do what on OS X? My three Apple machines have all come with just Safari. 2 weeks old the last one, 1 year and 2 years.

Yeah, actually i made a boob on this. It's not, but you can fully un-install safari if you want too. What I was on about was this ... I had opera 'appear' on os x, when I didn't install it myself.
 
Read back over my posts in this thread, with regards to abuse of marketshare and illegal hardware/software tie-ins.



So you are admitting that Apple have created a hardware tie-in they wish to control. Do you think that is acceptable activity given their market share?

Abuse of market-share? Please enlighten me...



Market share of what exactly? Are you talking about market share of iPods or of their music store here? They're separate entities.

Read back over my posts in this thread, music store music is now no-longer limited to use in just iTunes/on iPods. You can take it anywhere you want, use it with any program that supports AAC. Nothing anti-competitive here...

Regarding the syncing of music to a player. Thats completely different. I don't think its anti competitive of apple to prevent other companies using their software to sync music.

It's their software, they want to control the syncing experience.

No doubt if they did allow palm or other companies to sync with itunes either legitimately or not-so, they would end up dealing with support calls when it breaks or doesn't work correctly. Why should they have to do that? They would also get lumped with the bad rep of producing a 'crap' piece of software that doesn't 'just work', when actually its palms fault, or creatives fault, for not implementing their protocol correctly.

Why should they let their reputation be tarnished? If you want to use iTunes to manage and sync your music with an MP3 device, get an iPod. If you don't want an iPod you have to settle for using another piece of (possibly inferior) software.

A similar has happened with with app store developers and jailbroken iPhones. Software isn't running correctly, as the device is jail-broken. (Less memory available in jailbroken phones, more background proceses etc). Jailbroken users complain to the developers (they wrote the software, right?). They refuse to help because the device is jailbroken. They get the bad rep.
 
Market share of what exactly? Are you talking about market share of iPods or of their music store here? They're separate entities.

isn't that what anti competion laws are about, using a monopoly/market share in one market to give you unfair advantage in another?

Also didn;t the music store and the ipod used to be linked much more strongly?


If you want to use iTunes to manage and sync your music with an MP3 device, get an iPod. If you don't want an iPod you have to settle for using another piece of (possibly inferior) software.

surely that anti competitive?
 
Abuse of market-share? Please enlighten me...
Market share of what exactly? Are you talking about market share of iPods or of their music store here? They're separate entities.

Read back over my posts in this thread, music store music is now no-longer limited to use in just iTunes/on iPods. You can take it anywhere you want, use it with any program that supports AAC. Nothing anti-competitive here...

See posts 61 and 74

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14501443&postcount=61
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14501443&postcount=74

The lack of fairplay is a very recent thing and was a result of anti-monopoly cases that they knew they would lose, not some wonderful philathropic act by Apple. Please do full research instead of using the press releases that Jobs et al excrete.

Regarding the syncing of music to a player. Thats completely different. I don't think its anti competitive of apple to prevent other companies using their software to sync music.

It's not, unless you are a de facto monopoly using the process for competetive advantage.

It's their software, they want to control the syncing experience.

No doubt if they did allow palm or other companies to sync with itunes either legitimately or not-so, they would end up dealing with support calls when it breaks or doesn't work correctly. Why should they have to do that? They would also get lumped with the bad rep of producing a 'crap' piece of software that doesn't 'just work', when actually its palms fault, or creatives fault, for not implementing their protocol correctly.

Why should they let their reputation be tarnished? If you want to use iTunes to manage and sync your music with an MP3 device, get an iPod. If you don't want an iPod you have to settle for using another piece of (possibly inferior) software.

A similar has happened with with app store developers and jailbroken iPhones. Software isn't running correctly, as the device is jail-broken. (Less memory available in jailbroken phones, more background proceses etc). Jailbroken users complain to the developers (they wrote the software, right?). They refuse to help because the device is jailbroken. They get the bad rep.

My heart bleeds for Apple, really. What's your opinion of the actions against microsoft for significantly less in the way of anticompetetive behaviour? Would you be happy if microsoft deliberately and repeatedly restricted windows so only IE would run on it, you couldn't run any other browser? That's the analogue for Apple's behaviour. Is it acceptable?
 
Back
Top Bottom