Some sponsor might need money
-
@asuffield said:
You are still obsessing over this notion of "monopoly abuse means when somebody with a monopoly adds a feature".
Where did you get this idea? Get rid of it. It's wrong.
THE SPECIFIC CHANGES MADE ARE IRRELEVANT.
Monopoly abuse is a crime of intent and effect. The action that created the effect is neither important nor relevant to the case. If you have a monopoly and you act with intent to drive somebody out of a market by exploiting that monopoly, and your effect is to partially or completely drive them out of that market, then you have committed monopoly abuse, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU GO ABOUT DOING THAT.
You can commit monopoly abuse with a web browser, or a calculator, or a new type of pencil. You can commit murder with a gun, or a knife, or a rock. The method does not have anything to do with it.
And you are still obsessing over this notion that Microsoft is a monopoly. For Microsoft to hold a monopoly on Operating Systems, you would have to admit Apple holds a monopoly on MP3 Players - they both have about the same market share in respective markets (and oh noes, Apple is trying to put online music retailers out of business by making iTunes Store very prominent in the software you must use to sync your iPod!). Somehow, I don't see anyone with your opinion ever admitting Apple is a monopoly.
@ammoQ said:
Bundling WMP?
Windows Media Player (once just called Media Player) has been bundled with Windows since before RealNetworks and whoever made iTunes even existed (I think it was in Windows 2.0, it was definitely in 3.0). Now you can be pinged for "anti-competitive practices" for doing something which MIGHT make you a monopoly in 15 years?
-
That's a good point, why hasn't Apple been brought to court over the ipod? They do just as much shady stuff as Microsoft.
-
@Kyanar said:
And you are still obsessing over this notion that Microsoft is a monopoly. For Microsoft to hold a monopoly on Operating Systems, you would have to admit Apple holds a monopoly on MP3 Players - they both have about the same market share in respective markets (and oh noes, Apple is trying to put online music retailers out of business by making iTunes Store very prominent in the software you must use to sync your iPod!). Somehow, I don't see anyone with your opinion ever admitting Apple is a monopoly.
It seems likely to me that Apple will have some anti-trust problems with iPod+iTunes, too.
Windows Media Player (once just called Media Player) has been bundled with Windows since before RealNetworks and whoever made iTunes even existed (I think it was in Windows 2.0, it was definitely in 3.0). Now you can be pinged for "anti-competitive practices" for doing something which MIGHT make you a monopoly in 15 years?
It obviously depends on the features of WMP. But you do not get pinged for doing something which might make you a monopoly in 15 years, but for having a monopoly AND abusing it to get another one.
-
@Cap'n Steve said:
That's a good point, why hasn't Apple been brought to court over the ipod? They do just as much shady stuff as Microsoft.
As I said earlier, it is incredibly hard to prove these cases and most corporations get away with it. Antitrust law is really very weak. Nobody will even file charges unless they can get hold of some real evidence. Almost every time, this takes the form of internal company documentation leaked by whistleblowers and/or ex-employees. If you can't get enough to persuade a judge that there's a case to answer, you won't get the necessary subpoena for all the rest of the documentation/memos/email.
It's the usual problem of the difference between knowing that a corporation is acting criminally, and being able to prove it in court. Most large corporations push the limits of what is legal, and have a large staff of lawyers dedicated to making sure that nobody can ever prove any of it.
-
@ammoQ said:
@Kyanar said:
And you are still obsessing over this notion that Microsoft is a monopoly. For Microsoft to hold a monopoly on Operating Systems, you would have to admit Apple holds a monopoly on MP3 Players - they both have about the same market share in respective markets (and oh noes, Apple is trying to put online music retailers out of business by making iTunes Store very prominent in the software you must use to sync your iPod!). Somehow, I don't see anyone with your opinion ever admitting Apple is a monopoly.
It seems likely to me that Apple will have some anti-trust problems with iPod+iTunes, too.
Windows Media Player (once just called Media Player) has been bundled with Windows since before RealNetworks and whoever made iTunes even existed (I think it was in Windows 2.0, it was definitely in 3.0). Now you can be pinged for "anti-competitive practices" for doing something which MIGHT make you a monopoly in 15 years?
It obviously depends on the features of WMP. But you do not get pinged for doing something which might make you a monopoly in 15 years, but for having a monopoly AND abusing it to get another one.
He has a point, really (though a bit clumsily expressed). They didn't have a monopoly on anything at the time they first started including a media player with windows.
-
Apple achieved their perceived "monopoly" on MP3 players on having [i]really nice products[/i] that [i]everybody wanted[/i]. Microsoft... not so much. Nobody really [i]chooses[/i] Microsoft, they just stick with what they have/know. With a few exceptions (gaming systems and, um...) I would never choose to spend my money on a Microsoft operating system again.
Apple make the [i]best[/i] music players. There were plenty of MP3 players around before the iPod, and many continue to exist... but the market shows pretty clearly what people prefer. On the other hand, do Microsoft make the [i]best[/i] browsers or operating systems? Regardless, most people simply have NO CLUE that there is anything other than Windows or IE. Windows is "the computer" and IE is "the internet." Microsoft's market share doesn't reflect consumer choice. It reflects what has been foisted on hundreds of thousands of people who bought their first computers at Best Buy or were exposed to them at their workplace.
-
@ammoQ said:
It obviously depends on the features of WMP. But you do not get pinged for doing something which might make you a monopoly in 15 years, but for having a monopoly AND abusing it to get another one.
Oh, Christ! Ammoq, you're sounding as idiotic as Andrew. I'd always thought you were smarter than this.
For the last time: Microsoft DOES NOT HOLD and NEVER HAS HELD a monopoly. They couldn't have, unless you can convince me that DR-DOS, CP/M, OS/2, OS/X, BEOS, Unix, Solaris, and Linux never existed, or that Mozilla, Netscape, FireFox, Safari, Opera, and Lynx didn't exist, or that RealNetworks and iTunes never existed, or Lotus SmartSuite or OpenOffice never existed.
If MS had a monopoly in any area that they do business in, there would be no competition in that area. The only area I didn't cover above is gaming consoles, but I figured that even you and Andrew could figure that one out. But, I forget - you two seem to have lost the power of cognitive thought. So I will at least provide a hint: PlayStation and wii enough?
-
@asuffield said:
As I said earlier, it is incredibly hard to prove these cases and most corporations get away with it. Antitrust law is really very weak. Nobody will even file charges unless they can get hold of some real evidence. Almost every time, this takes the form of internal company documentation leaked by whistleblowers and/or ex-employees. If you can't get enough to persuade a judge that there's a case to answer, you won't get the necessary subpoena for all the rest of the documentation/memos/email.
It's the usual problem of the difference between knowing that a corporation is acting criminally, and being able to prove it in court. Most large corporations push the limits of what is legal, and have a large staff of lawyers dedicated to making sure that nobody can ever prove any of it.
You forgot to include your "vast conspiracy" theory, or your "Bill Gates bribed President Bush with campaign contributions" theory.
Who was on the grassy knoll, Andrew?
If you can't get enough to persuade a judge that there's a case to answer, it's most likely because there isn't a case. Someone was smart enough to see that after the first failed attempt, and decided not to throw away yet more taxpayer dollars trying to prosecute what didn't exist.
It's kinda like you filing a lawsuit against Caspar the Friendly Ghost for trespassing and property damage; kinda hard to win when he doesn't exist except as a children's cartoon figure from years ago.
-
I should clarify that I do realize that Microsoft [i]did[/i] earn their popularity about twenty years ago, by being cheaper and more flexible than their competitors. Times have changed.
-
@KenW said:
Oh, Christ! Ammoq, you're sounding as idiotic as Andrew. I'd always thought you were smarter than this.
For the last time: Microsoft DOES NOT HOLD and NEVER HAS HELD a monopoly. They couldn't have, unless you can convince me that DR-DOS, CP/M, OS/2, OS/X, BEOS, Unix, Solaris, and Linux never existed, or that Mozilla, Netscape, FireFox, Safari, Opera, and Lynx didn't exist, or that RealNetworks and iTunes never existed, or Lotus SmartSuite or OpenOffice never existed.
If MS had a monopoly in any area that they do business in, there would be no competition in that area. The only area I didn't cover above is gaming consoles, but I figured that even you and Andrew could figure that one out. But, I forget - you two seem to have lost the power of cognitive thought. So I will at least provide a hint: PlayStation and wii enough?
There are different definitions of "monopoly"; for the antitrust laws to kick in, the 90-something % market share of Windows is obviously enough. Micorosoft dominates the market, there is no doubt about it. Whether you call it "monopoly" or "domination" or whatever doesn't change the fact that MS can put a lot of pressure to PC manufacturers, software companies etc.
-
Apple achieved their perceived "monopoly" on MP3 players on having really nice products that everybody wanted. Microsoft... not so much. Nobody really chooses Microsoft, they just stick with what they have/know. With a few exceptions (gaming systems and, um...) I would never choose to spend my money on a Microsoft operating system again.
We've gone through this and it remains to be simply untrue. People choose Microsoft's OS for a wide variety of reasons, one of which is that they work well. While you may not want to believe that in your tiny little world, it doesn't change anything.
When will people drop this "Windoze is only popular because it's used all over!!!111oneoneone" line of BS.
-
For the last time: Microsoft DOES NOT HOLD and NEVER HAS HELD a monopoly.
Based on US Laws, Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS market. In the US, Monopoly is just a specific amount of market share that allows you to solely control the entire market without producing a product. Ie, Microsoft at the time could increase prices by 50% and the general expecation is that nothing would be done about it. While Microsoft doesn't have a complete Monopoly, I believe the US DoJ percieved that Microsoft had monopoly power despite there being obvious competition. The law defines many areas where you can have effective monopolies without actually achieving monopolistic status. This is done because once there is a monopoly, breaking it down results in a lot of turmoil in the industry. Whereas if you take measures to stay the monopoly, competition grows and it has a tendancy to work itself out in the end.
Fair? Not really, but fairness always depends on who you're asking :)
-
@djork said:
Apple make the [i]best[/i] music players. the market shows pretty clearly what people prefer.
The second statements does not necessarily follow from the first, as it's largely a similar situation as you describe with people not choosing Microsoft.
The market, rather than showing quality, shows clearly what people find pretty and cool.
-
@dhromed said:
@djork said:
Apple make the [i]best[/i] music players. the market shows pretty clearly what people prefer.
The second statements does not necessarily follow from the first, as it's largely a similar situation as you describe with people not choosing Microsoft.
The market, rather than showing quality, shows clearly what people find pretty and cool.
I'd even say “pretty” can be subtracted from that sentence - because, it’s not really a music player, it’s actually a status symbol.
-
@dhromed said:
@djork said:
Apple make the [i]best[/i] music players. the market shows pretty clearly what people prefer.
The second statements does not necessarily follow from the first, as it's largely a similar situation as you describe with people not choosing Microsoft.
The market, rather than showing quality, shows clearly what people find pretty and cool.
I think it does, though. The iPod and Windows are different products at very different stages in their respective lives. The iPod took off in the last few years because people like things about it. Windows took off 15 years ago because people liked certain things about [i]it[/i] as well. But, at the moment, the reasons for their popularity are different. The iPod is popular because people still [i]want[/i] them, and Windows is still popular because it is established in the average person's mind.
-
@Random832 said:
I'd even say “pretty” can be subtracted from that sentence - because, it’s not really a music player, it’s actually a status symbol.
It's not really a music player? I've been fooled! I never thought of my 3-year-old plain vanilla iPod as much of a status symbol. It was just a really nice music player to me.
-
@Random832 said:
I'd even say “pretty” can be subtracted from that sentence - because, it’s not really a music player, it’s actually a status symbol.
Definitely. It's a situation comparable to sports shoes: Even people who do not actually get exercises wear shoes from Nike, Adidas etc. which would be an excellent choice if used for sports. IMO, the ipod is one of the worst mp3 players available on the market.
-
@Random832 said:
I'd even say “pretty” can be subtracted from that sentence - because, it’s not really a music player, it’s actually a status symbol.
Apple has great marketing, and they made everybody believe they [i]want[/i] an iPoo. It doesn't matter that there are some much better products on the market - they can't afford the same amount of advertising as Apple, so people don't know them, and choose an iPod because everybody else has one already.
-
@ammoQ said:
IMO, the ipod is one of the worst mp3 players available on the market.
Probably in the same way that people feel like Windows is one of the worst OSes on the market? Regardless of how you feel, a lot of people are impressed by, enjoy using, and (as cheesy as it sounds) love their iPods. [i]Nobody loves Windows[/i]. Paul Graham said "nobody loves Java." So why is it so freaking popular? Marketing, pointy-haired-bosses, etc. ... the same reasons Windows remains as popular as it does for most people.
On a side note (since this isn't really about iPods): I haven't found a music player that I like using more than the iPod. I like simple devices that do something and do it well. There is a trade-off where you get less and less "do it well" as you add more "somethings." I guess it's a Windows/Unix mindset thing.
-
I personally would never buy an iPod. Why? They're overpriced and have none of the things I want from an mp3 player. Apple are good at one thing and one thing only: they can make products that your average guy off the street can plug in and use... most of the time at least. I have an iRiver H10, my mate has some model of the Creative Zen, and they are both far better players than the iPod. Why don't people pick them up as much? Not as much advertising, and as an extension very little word of mouth.
-
@djork said:
@ammoQ said:
IMO, the ipod is one of the worst mp3 players available on the market.
Probably in the same way that people feel like Windows is one of the worst OSes on the market? Regardless of how you feel, a lot of people are impressed by, enjoy using, and (as cheesy as it sounds) love their iPods. [i]Nobody loves Windows[/i]. Paul Graham said "nobody loves Java." So why is it so freaking popular? Marketing, pointy-haired-bosses, etc. ... the same reasons Windows remains as popular as it does for most people.
On a side note (since this isn't really about iPods): I haven't found a music player that I like using more than the iPod. I like simple devices that do something and do it well. There is a trade-off where you get less and less "do it well" as you add more "somethings." I guess it's a Windows/Unix mindset thing.
I prefer mp3 players that don't need special software and drivers just to load some frickin' mp3s to it. Just imagine you visit me and hear some nice song from my collection (of course only music I've made myself, we would never pirate music, would we?) and you want to take it away on your iPod. But since I do not have an iPod, you can only copy the mp3 to the iPod, but not actually play it until you have somehow processed it at home using the iTunes software. Now doesn't that arbitrary limitation suck?
The ability to play ogg would be nice, too, though only a minority of all devices offers that. The mp3 player I'm currently using - a rather cheap usb-stick with a small LCD - works on normal AAA batteries. So it's easy to have a supply of batteries e.g. when going to a long journey. Built-in batteries that cannot be replaced suck. My son has a cheap mp3 player where the batteries are fixed, and guess what, they battery is already dead two months after buying that piece of crap. Now I guess Apple uses better batteries, but in the end, they will be dead just as well. And then you have to send it to Apple to have the batteries replaced, for the price of two normal mp3 players.
-
@ammoQ said:
I prefer mp3 players that don't need special software and drivers just to load some frickin' mp3s to it. Just imagine you visit me and hear some nice song from my collection (of course only music I've made myself, we would never pirate music, would we?) and you want to take it away on your iPod. But since I do not have an iPod, you can only copy the mp3 to the iPod, but not actually play it until you have somehow processed it at home using the iTunes software. Now doesn't that arbitrary limitation suck?
The ability to play ogg would be nice, too, though only a minority of all devices offers that. The mp3 player I'm currently using - a rather cheap usb-stick with a small LCD - works on normal AAA batteries. So it's easy to have a supply of batteries e.g. when going to a long journey. Built-in batteries that cannot be replaced suck. My son has a cheap mp3 player where the batteries are fixed, and guess what, they battery is already dead two months after buying that piece of crap. Now I guess Apple uses better batteries, but in the end, they will be dead just as well. And then you have to send it to Apple to have the batteries replaced, for the price of two normal mp3 players.
Disk mode. I copy files onto my iPod without iTunes all the time. Of course, when I do get home I import them into iTunes for the sake of cataloging them. There's no arbitrary limitation that I can see. And as for sending the iPod to Apple to replace the batter? I guess some people send their cars to the shop to replace the battery since it's about as difficult... but it's a pretty trivial thing for anybody with tools, for the iPod [i]or[/i] car.
-
@ammoQ said:
My son has a cheap mp3 player where the batteries are fixed, and guess what, they battery is already dead two months after buying that piece of crap. Now I guess Apple uses better batteries, but in the end, they will be dead just as well.
Don't count on it - my sister's iPod mini's battery died twice in the first 3 months (it wouldn't turn on, and after trying to do a hard reset, it displayed an empty battery symbol on the screen).@djork said:Disk mode. I copy files onto my iPod without iTunes all the time.
How do you play MP3s you copy to your iPod in disk mode (without having to use itunes)?
-
@ender said:
How do you play MP3s you copy to your iPod in disk mode (without having to use itunes)?
Copy them to the right place, or use one of the innumerable free apps out there.
-
@djork said:
Copy them to the right place, or use one of the innumerable free apps out there.
Just copying won't work, because iPod only looks in it's database ... which was protected against 3rd party modifications with the latest firmware upgrade.
-
@ender said:
@djork said:
Copy them to the right place, or use one of the innumerable free apps out there.
Just copying won't work, because iPod only looks in it's database ... which was protected against 3rd party modifications with the latest firmware upgrade.Then I stand corrected. Of course, I'm only going on conjecture here, as I've never actually had the [i]need[/i] to do this, as there are lots of ways to transfer files. I've ripped plenty of files [i]off[/i] of iPods with no difficulty though.
-
the latest firmware update got cracked again i think. And players like banshee and rhymbox support ipod's pretty good. (although it will take a little while for the code to crack the new algo to get into those players, (or libipod or whatever, i think it's a lib anyway))
-
@stratos said:
the latest firmware update got cracked again i think. And players like banshee and rhymbox support ipod's pretty good. (although it will take a little while for the code to crack the new algo to get into those players, (or libipod or whatever, i think it's a lib anyway))
But isn't this little cat-and-mouse game pathetic? Apple is actively making it hard for their users to use the iPod in an uncomplicated way. And we are not talking about the "protecting intellectual property by DRM" way of making it complicated. It's much more the "because we can" way of showing who the boss is.
-
@ammoQ said:
@stratos said:
the latest firmware update got cracked again i think. And players like banshee and rhymbox support ipod's pretty good. (although it will take a little while for the code to crack the new algo to get into those players, (or libipod or whatever, i think it's a lib anyway))
But isn't this little cat-and-mouse game pathetic? Apple is actively making it hard for their users to use the iPod in an uncomplicated way. And we are not talking about the "protecting intellectual property by DRM" way of making it complicated. It's much more the "because we can" way of showing who the boss is.
Well hopefully it's a game apple will eventually lose. At some point furthering the protection of there media will reach a point where the consumer can no longer 'just use it'. Some would say that point has already been reached, but i don't think so; Not until my apple fan boy colleagues start bitching about it, instead of defending it.
The bad thing about this method of showing apple we don't like drm or vendor lock-in, is that they can use it to prove that they need it to defend their IP/media from cyber terrorists*. And in effect the reverse engineer laws will get tighter and new stricter implementations of the DMCA will be passed, to fight for the freedom of companies.
To be honest i don't know what would work best, keep breaking the protections as a form of silent protest, or try to talk some sense into apple by way of law or whatever. I really don't know, however i doubt i have the influence to stop people from cracking the drm even if i wanted to, so it doesn't really matter what i think.
There's a lawrence lessig speach where at the end they talk about about just this. ( at 1:10 or something )
* If someone hasn't already i will bet a 100 euro that at one point in time it will get called terrorism.
-
@ammoQ said:
@stratos said:
the latest firmware update got cracked again i think. And players like banshee and rhymbox support ipod's pretty good. (although it will take a little while for the code to crack the new algo to get into those players, (or libipod or whatever, i think it's a lib anyway))
But isn't this little cat-and-mouse game pathetic? Apple is actively making it hard for their users to use the iPod in an uncomplicated way. And we are not talking about the "protecting intellectual property by DRM" way of making it complicated. It's much more the "because we can" way of showing who the boss is.
What's the problem, though? You [i]can[/i] just use it. Copy files onto it all you want. The device is just designed to have a parsimonious interface for its firmware. It has an indexed database of all the songs and never has to re-scan the disk while you're using it. No DRM, no restriction of anyone's rights, nobody showing anybody who the boss is. All of the songs you copy onto the generic disk side of things can be imported into the music library... just not on-the-go.
Apple doesn't really have a stake in making you use iTunes... they just don't give a flying rat's about whether or not TunezHax will work with the iPod after the next firmware update.
-
Off the top of my head, here's some suspicious things Apple has done with the ipod:
1. I think they sued Real because they were selling ipod compatible music.
2. iTunes mysteriously didn't work on Vista when it was first released.
3. Recent update that just happened to break every third-party interface.
Now maybe I'm missing something, but that seems much more blatantly anti-competitive than anything Microsoft has done.
-
@Cap'n Steve said:
Off the top of my head, here's some suspicious things Apple has done with the ipod:
1. I think they sued Real because they were selling ipod compatible music.
2. iTunes mysteriously didn't work on Vista when it was first released.
3. Recent update that just happened to break every third-party interface.
Now maybe I'm missing something, but that seems much more blatantly anti-competitive than anything Microsoft has done.Except for (2), which might just-as-well be an anti-competatitive move on MS' side (and would be rather stupid of Apple to do deliberately), I aggree with you.
-
@Cap'n Steve said:
Off the top of my head, here's some suspicious things Apple has done with the ipod:
1. I think they sued Real because they were selling ipod compatible music.
2. iTunes mysteriously didn't work on Vista when it was first released.
3. Recent update that just happened to break every third-party interface.
Now maybe I'm missing something, but that seems much more blatantly anti-competitive than anything Microsoft has done.1. They never sued them
2. A lot of things mysteriously didn't work on Vista when it came out (and they do now, it's called "patching") Seriously... some very wonky software to begin with (admit it, iTunes on Windows isn't really the greatest piece of work in the first place) is expected to work flawlessly when a new operating system is released, or it's anti-competitive!? I haven't even [i]thought[/i] about Vista compatibility for anything I do at work or for fun! Nobody has tried yet!
3. It's the [i]Apple[/i] iPod, and [i]Apple[/i] iTunes, and as a result that's all that they are concerned about. They won't make "breaking changes" to their own system, but why should they care about the third party ones that exist only to bypass what they think is the best way to use the iPod? There aren't exactly many open standards for MP3 players out there like DCF for cameras.
-
@ammoQ said:
There are different definitions of "monopoly"; for the antitrust laws to kick in, the 90-something % market share of Windows is obviously enough. Micorosoft dominates the market, there is no doubt about it. Whether you call it "monopoly" or "domination" or whatever doesn't change the fact that MS can put a lot of pressure to PC manufacturers, software companies etc.
No. A monopoly is having zero competion. 90% market share is not a monopoly. MS may dominate the market because they have the most market share, but that doesn't mean that they have a monopoly.
I agree that MS can put a lot of pressure on the companies you mentioned. But in the automotive market, that's true of the larger manufacturers - they can put a lot of pressure on the smaller companies that provide them parts and services. In retail, WalMart exerts tremendous control over the companies that supply them - I know this for a fact, because I used to work for one of those suppliers. WalMart is so strict on their labeling policies, for example, that if you ship them a load of palletized freight (like 6 pallets at once) and a single pallet's barcoded label is not in the correct position, WalMart rejects the entire load of 6 pallets. But that doesn't mean that WalMart has a monopoly on retail, does it? Or that they're engaging in bad or illegal business activities? No. It means they're doing their jobs - exerting the influence they've earned in their area of business in order to make money for their shareholders and grow their business.
-
@KenW said:
No. A monopoly is having zero competion. 90% market share is not a monopoly. MS may dominate the market because they have the most market share, but that doesn't mean that they have a monopoly.
I won't argue about that, it just a matter of terms and definitions.
I agree that MS can put a lot of pressure on the companies you mentioned. But in the automotive market, that's true of the larger manufacturers - they can put a lot of pressure on the smaller companies that provide them parts and services. In retail, WalMart exerts tremendous control over the companies that supply them - I know this for a fact, because I used to work for one of those suppliers. WalMart is so strict on their labeling policies, for example, that if you ship them a load of palletized freight (like 6 pallets at once) and a single pallet's barcoded label is not in the correct position, WalMart rejects the entire load of 6 pallets. But that doesn't mean that WalMart has a monopoly on retail, does it? Or that they're engaging in bad or illegal business activities? No. It means they're doing their jobs - exerting the influence they've earned in their area of business in order to make money for their shareholders and grow their business.
It's not illegal to be strong. It's not illegal to make money out of this. It's not illegal to reject a whole truckload of pallets if they are not correctly labeled. (Austrian supermarket chains do the same, trust me, though they do not have the same power like WalMart). But there are illegal forms of abusing this power. It's especially illegal to use the dominance in one market to take over another one. Let's assume WalMart wants to enter the catering business. Since WalMart (the supermarket) buys a lot of beverages, they might tell their suppliers that they must not deliver beverages to other caterers or they will lose their contract with WalMart (the supermarket empire). otherwise. Without beverages, other cateres have a hard time and WalCatering is soon number one - that is, until getting problems by the DoD.
-
admit it, iTunes on Windows isn't really the greatest piece of work in the first place
I think this just might be the understatement of the month...
-
@djork said:
@ammoQ said:
@stratos said:
the latest firmware update got cracked again i think. And players like banshee and rhymbox support ipod's pretty good. (although it will take a little while for the code to crack the new algo to get into those players, (or libipod or whatever, i think it's a lib anyway))
But isn't this little cat-and-mouse game pathetic? Apple is actively making it hard for their users to use the iPod in an uncomplicated way. And we are not talking about the "protecting intellectual property by DRM" way of making it complicated. It's much more the "because we can" way of showing who the boss is.
What's the problem, though? You [i]can[/i] just use it. Copy files onto it all you want. The device is just designed to have a parsimonious interface for its firmware. It has an indexed database of all the songs and never has to re-scan the disk while you're using it. No DRM, no restriction of anyone's rights, nobody showing anybody who the boss is. All of the songs you copy onto the generic disk side of things can be imported into the music library... just not on-the-go.
Apple doesn't really have a stake in making you use iTunes... they just don't give a flying rat's about whether or not TunezHax will work with the iPod after the next firmware update.
That used to be true, but things have gotten worse. On the latest iPods, there's a cryptographic hash over the database that depends on the serial number and is deliberately designed to be difficult to reverse engineer. (In fact, it looks like it was designed to be cryptographically impossible to reverse engineer without taking a debugger to iTunes or similar, and Apple forbid doing this in their license agreement.) If the hash doesn't match, it refuses to read the database. See this /. article and related pages for details.
-
@makomk said:
That used to be true, but things have gotten worse. On the latest iPods, there's a cryptographic hash over the database that depends on the serial number and is deliberately designed to be difficult to reverse engineer. (In fact, it looks like it was designed to be cryptographically impossible to reverse engineer without taking a debugger to iTunes or similar, and Apple forbid doing this in their license agreement.) If the hash doesn't match, it refuses to read the database. See this /. article and related pages for details.
And they cracked it in a day or two, and Apple aren't suing anybody. Really, the only reason the 3rd party apps keep breaking is because Apple [i]doesn't care[/i] if they work or not. Why is it a crime for Apple to develop the iPod in the way they see fit? It's just the indexed database and not the files themselves. It's still quite open as far as devices go. Why do you feel 3rd parties have a "right" to have every aspect of the iPod laid bare to them? I'm sure the developers of libgpod have no delusion that it is some fundamental right to be able to tinker certain files on a proprietary device. It's a liberty that Apple have done [i]very little[/i] to curtail.
-
@djork said:
And they cracked it in a day or two, and Apple aren't suing anybody.
Let's wait until a provider for music downloads (e.g. Amazon) offers a program similar to iTunes that loads mp3s directly to the iPod, making use of the cracks. Can you hear an army of Apple lawyers marching?
-
@djork said:
@makomk said:
That used to be true, but things have gotten worse. On the latest iPods, there's a cryptographic hash over the database that depends on the serial number and is deliberately designed to be difficult to reverse engineer. (In fact, it looks like it was designed to be cryptographically impossible to reverse engineer without taking a debugger to iTunes or similar, and Apple forbid doing this in their license agreement.) If the hash doesn't match, it refuses to read the database. See this /. article and related pages for details.
And they cracked it in a day or two, and Apple aren't suing anybody. Really, the only reason the 3rd party apps keep breaking is because Apple [i]doesn't care[/i] if they work or not. Why is it a crime for Apple to develop the iPod in the way they see fit? It's just the indexed database and not the files themselves. It's still quite open as far as devices go. Why do you feel 3rd parties have a "right" to have every aspect of the iPod laid bare to them? I'm sure the developers of libgpod have no delusion that it is some fundamental right to be able to tinker certain files on a proprietary device. It's a liberty that Apple have done [i]very little[/i] to curtail.
There are some very good reverse engineers out there who don't care what the license agreement says, and I think certain juristictions don't allow that sort of restriction on reverse engineering. It was still a deliberate attempt to sabotage interoperability with other software, and if it was done on a player that got less attention than the iPod it would probably have worked. I think it also makes the new iPods the least open MP3 player on the market. (Sony used to pretty bad, but I hear they've opened up a bit with the newer players.)
Most of the MP3 players on the market either act like a drive and allow you to copy MP3s on with whatever software and OS you like (since they generate the database themselves) or use a Microsoft-developed syncing protocol called MTP (which is annoying, but somewhat workable). Some devices support both, but according to Wikipedia Microsoft is trying to force manufacturers to drop support for the USB disk mode on newer players (probably because it works on operating systems other than Windows).
-
@djork said:
@Cap'n Steve said:
Off the top of my head, here's some suspicious things Apple has done with the ipod:
1. I think they sued Real because they were selling ipod compatible music.
2. iTunes mysteriously didn't work on Vista when it was first released.
3. Recent update that just happened to break every third-party interface.
Now maybe I'm missing something, but that seems much more blatantly anti-competitive than anything Microsoft has done.1. They never sued them
2. A lot of things mysteriously didn't work on Vista when it came out (and they do now, it's called "patching") Seriously... some very wonky software to begin with (admit it, iTunes on Windows isn't really the greatest piece of work in the first place) is expected to work flawlessly when a new operating system is released, or it's anti-competitive!? I haven't even [i]thought[/i] about Vista compatibility for anything I do at work or for fun! Nobody has tried yet!
3. It's the [i]Apple[/i] iPod, and [i]Apple[/i] iTunes, and as a result that's all that they are concerned about. They won't make "breaking changes" to their own system, but why should they care about the third party ones that exist only to bypass what they think is the best way to use the iPod? There aren't exactly many open standards for MP3 players out there like DCF for cameras.
1. I looked it up and Real apparently dropped support because they feared a court case (even though they thought they would eventually win) and because Apple promised to undo their work with every ipod update.
2. And a lot of things did. I'm sure Apple had access to the betas, and I really doubt iTunes and Quicktime are all that complicated. Are they just incompetent?
3. But it sure looks like breaking third-party software was the intent of the update. The ipod worked just fine for quite a while without this "feature".
-
@Cap'n Steve said:
3. But it sure looks like breaking third-party software was the intent of the update. The ipod worked just fine for quite a while without this "feature".They obviously did that because companies started selling unprotected mp3s, which of course play fine on the IPod. Apple don't want those companies to be able to offer an convinient way from the download to the IPod.
It has become clear that Apple has become a company that values it's own advantages much more than the customer's. They don't mind hurting their customers as long as they also hit competition. Like MS in the worst of its times. In my eyes, MS has become a lot better since than, while Apple is in its darkest dark age.
-
@ammoQ said:
@Cap'n Steve said:
3. But it sure looks like breaking third-party software was the intent of the update. The ipod worked just fine for quite a while without this "feature".They obviously did that because companies started selling unprotected mp3s, which of course play fine on the IPod. Apple don't want those companies to be able to offer an convinient way from the download to the IPod.
It has become clear that Apple has become a company that values it's own advantages much more than the customer's. They don't mind hurting their customers as long as they also hit competition. Like MS in the worst of its times. In my eyes, MS has become a lot better since than, while Apple is in its darkest dark age.
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. There's no chance that there was a practical point to verifying the integrity of the database on the iPod? The iPod doesn't build the DB itself, iTunes does. It could be used to verify the state of the iPod and wether or not it needs to be synchronized.
Do you mind elaborating on Apple being in their "darkest age" while MS has become a lot better? How about the "fire and motion" strategy of API releases Microsoft follows compared to Apple's steady improvement and enhancement of Cocoa? How about the fact that you can install Mac OS X without any product keys and without any activation? Full-fledged developer tools for free? An OS that is designed to be hackable and tinkered with?
-
@djork said:
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. There's no chance that there was a practical point to verifying the integrity of the database on the iPod? The iPod doesn't build the DB itself, iTunes does. It could be used to verify the state of the iPod and wether or not it needs to be synchronized.
Occams razor: If there could be a very sophisticated reason or the simple reason to keep off the competition, I choose b). For a practica integrity check (who needs that), a simple CRC hash would have been enough. They chose a cryptographic hash for a reason: Throw the DMCA at anyone who dares to sell music for the IPod that does not need ITunes.
Do you mind elaborating on Apple being in their "darkest age" while MS has become a lot better? How about the "fire and motion" strategy of API releases Microsoft follows compared to Apple's steady improvement and enhancement of Cocoa? How about the fact that you can install Mac OS X without any product keys and without any activation? Full-fledged developer tools for free? An OS that is designed to be hackable and tinkered with?
You see it from a programmer's point of view. Understandable, since we are all programmers. Obviously Apple wants to attract programmers to their OS, so more software for OS X is written.
But that's not what I'm talking about. Apple is in the dark age because they look at their normal users as if it were cattle. They include "features" in the IPod that are not at all usefull for the customers, quite the opposite. They build the IPod in a way so customers cannot easily buy music downloads from any other vendor than Apple. This is obviously not in the best interest of the customers - and unlike DRM, it's not a "necessary evil" to protect intellecual property and stuff. It's simply anti-competitive behaviour from the market leader.
-
@ammoQ said:
@djork said:
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. There's no chance that there was a practical point to verifying the integrity of the database on the iPod? The iPod doesn't build the DB itself, iTunes does. It could be used to verify the state of the iPod and wether or not it needs to be synchronized.
Occams razor: If there could be a very sophisticated reason or the simple reason to keep off the competition, I choose b). For a practica integrity check (who needs that), a simple CRC hash would have been enough. They chose a cryptographic hash for a reason: Throw the DMCA at anyone who dares to sell music for the IPod that does not need ITunes.
Do you mind elaborating on Apple being in their "darkest age" while MS has become a lot better? How about the "fire and motion" strategy of API releases Microsoft follows compared to Apple's steady improvement and enhancement of Cocoa? How about the fact that you can install Mac OS X without any product keys and without any activation? Full-fledged developer tools for free? An OS that is designed to be hackable and tinkered with?
You see it from a programmer's point of view. Understandable, since we are all programmers. Obviously Apple wants to attract programmers to their OS, so more software for OS X is written.
But that's not what I'm talking about. Apple is in the dark age because they look at their normal users as if it were cattle. They include "features" in the IPod that are not at all usefull for the customers, quite the opposite. They build the IPod in a way so customers cannot easily buy music downloads from any other vendor than Apple. This is obviously not in the best interest of the customers - and unlike DRM, it's not a "necessary evil" to protect intellecual property and stuff. It's simply anti-competitive behaviour from the market leader.
I really have a hard time understanding your point. What do you mean about not letting people use music that they bought somewhere else? If it's non-DRMed MP3 or AAC then it will play perfectly fine on the iPod.
-
@djork said:
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. There's no chance that there was a practical point to verifying the integrity of the database on the iPod? The iPod doesn't build the DB itself, iTunes does. It could be used to verify the state of the iPod and wether or not it needs to be synchronized.
Do you mind elaborating on Apple being in their "darkest age" while MS has become a lot better? How about the "fire and motion" strategy of API releases Microsoft follows compared to Apple's steady improvement and enhancement of Cocoa? How about the fact that you can install Mac OS X without any product keys and without any activation? Full-fledged developer tools for free? An OS that is designed to be hackable and tinkered with?
Are you really using OSX as an example of nice business practices? The same OSX that Apple goes to great lengths to ensure that you can't run unless you bought your hardware from them?
-
@ammoQ said:
@djork said:
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. There's no chance that there was a practical point to verifying the integrity of the database on the iPod? The iPod doesn't build the DB itself, iTunes does. It could be used to verify the state of the iPod and wether or not it needs to be synchronized.
Occams razor: If there could be a very sophisticated reason or the simple reason to keep off the competition, I choose b). For a practica integrity check (who needs that), a simple CRC hash would have been enough. They chose a cryptographic hash for a reason: Throw the DMCA at anyone who dares to sell music for the IPod that does not need ITunes.
Actually, I could just about understand them using a cryptographic hash like SHA1 (though it'd be an odd thing to do, given that the verification had to be implemented in the iPod firmware), but that's not what they did. They actually used HMAC-SHA1 with a secret key derived from the serial number, various tables, and another fixed secret key in a really odd way. (The whole point of HMAC-SHA1 is to prevent anyone who doesn't know the secret key from being able to generate valid hashes.)
-
@djork said:
I really have a hard time understanding your point. What do you mean about not letting people use music that they bought somewhere else? If it's non-DRMed MP3 or AAC then it will play perfectly fine on the iPod.
Yes of course, but you need ITunes to load it to the IPod. This means another vendor cannot offer a convenient program that lets users buy and install music in one go. Instead they have to save the mp3s somewhere, fire up ITunes, import them etc. I guess for some users (e.g. those not introduced to the concept of directories aka folders) this is already to much hassle, so they buy at ITunes' instaed.
-
@Cap'n Steve said:
@djork said:
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. There's no chance that there was a practical point to verifying the integrity of the database on the iPod? The iPod doesn't build the DB itself, iTunes does. It could be used to verify the state of the iPod and wether or not it needs to be synchronized.
Do you mind elaborating on Apple being in their "darkest age" while MS has become a lot better? How about the "fire and motion" strategy of API releases Microsoft follows compared to Apple's steady improvement and enhancement of Cocoa? How about the fact that you can install Mac OS X without any product keys and without any activation? Full-fledged developer tools for free? An OS that is designed to be hackable and tinkered with?
Are you really using OSX as an example of nice business practices? The same OSX that Apple goes to great lengths to ensure that you can't run unless you bought your hardware from them?Yeah. That's the worst part of the deal. If you don't accept that part of it then you don't have to buy it. On the other hand, with Windows, even after you pay for it you get shafted hard in a dozen different ways!
-
I don't own an iPod. If it needs some software to load play my music, it is an attempt of vendor lock-in and I resent it.
I use Linux at home in my computers and at work in my servers because its for me BETTER than Windows and does not lock me in because all-most everything I use in Linux I can use in Windows(well, I do miss a decent command line shell and Yakuake, but there are ways to get even those, tho not as usable as in native realm).
I use windows at work because I must. Here I am locked in. And that in itself is unpleasant but not the problem here. The problem is the effort that M$ puts into hindering me using my Linux running equipment and interfacing with my Linux running things through proprietary extensions in standards(so called IE only HTML) and through non-public protocols(SAMBA/AD domain, extensions to KERBEROS making a standard kerberos non-AD compatible, etc) thus abusing their dominant position on the market.
There are windows fan boys jumping around saying there is nothing better. There are also Linux fan boys declaring their faith in the OSS. And then there are people who say, well today I am locked in, but we should not let the key keeper stomp out all potential liberators before they have tried to prove their worth and either succeeded or failed. Linux on the server market already has a position of its own. In desktops it slowly finding its place. There will always be a market for Windows, the corporate giant, but it will be a sad world indeed when there would be no middle ground between windows and others, no interoperability, and thus with the dominance of windows today, no others.
