[Eriamjh]

I call loser on this one. You don't have to be an Apple lover to see its flaw.

The fact that one can make CDs from purchased music and then play it on ANY MP3 device should easily invalidate his claim he was forced to buy an iPod.

This lawsuit has no merit.

[hardcat1970]

Originally posted by badidea:
This thread has to be remembered when one of you guys bitches about Microsoft or Real again!
This guy is defenitely correct!
If you buy music in an online store (whichever you like), it should be playable on any music player that can handle AAC or MP3 (or whatever format you bought)!

What would you guys say, if the iPod could only play music bought at the iTunes music store?

Apple maniacs...

what are you talking about? the other music players don't even let you play with a UN-protected AAC, which is fully open. Can't we counter sue them?

[badidea]

Originally posted by Xeo:
For the love of god even you agree this lawsuit has no merit! You are calling us hypocrites while agreeing with us. That makes no sense.

For the love of god do I always have to explain on MacNN that 1+1 = 2 so everybody here knows the result?!?

- Sueing Apple because they "force you to buy the iPod" is stupid!
- Sueing Apple because they try to make it impossible (even though they failed) to play your purchased music on anything else than the iPod is legitimate!
- crying Apple maniacs who pray towards Cuppertino headquarter every morning at 6a.m. are also stupid (and I am a die hard Apple fan myself)

[effgee]

Originally posted by badidea:
... Sueing Apple because they try to make it impossible (even though they failed) to play your purchased music on anything else than the iPod is legitimate! ...

I'm curious - when/how did they attempt that? Link for the source of this information?

[badidea]

Originally posted by effgee:
I'm curious - when/how did they attempt that? Link for the source of this information?

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=240532

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by badidea:

- Sueing Apple because they try to make it impossible (even though they failed) to play your purchased music on anything else than the iPod is legitimate!

the most widespread current music player is still the CD player

buy itunes tracks and burn a CD.

so your idea is a "badidea"

[Xeo]

Originally posted by badidea:
For the love of god do I always have to explain on MacNN that 1+1 = 2 so everybody here knows the result?!?

- Sueing Apple because they "force you to buy the iPod" is stupid!
- Sueing Apple because they try to make it impossible (even though they failed) to play your purchased music on anything else than the iPod is legitimate!
- crying Apple maniacs who pray towards Cuppertino headquarter every morning at 6a.m. are also stupid (and I am a die hard Apple fan myself)

Oh, so it's a game of semantics to you. I see. Well, his reason for your first bullet is your second bullet. Just because he chose the wording he did does not mean his lawsuit isn't based on the reason you agree with. And I don't think it's legitimate. Technically, if a court buys it, it becomes legitimate, but come on. I agree with you that it's similar to the copy protected CD thing. But that doesn't warrant a lawsuit. You can get pissy at Apple for their decision but unless they are claiming you can do things with the music you buy that you can't, then there is no base to sue them for damages.

So here's a scenario. 1) You buy an iPod. You don't want to use the iTMS. No problem, right? Assuming you aren't using DRM WMA files... 2) You buy music off the iTMS. You don't want to use an iPod. Oh no! Now what do I do? Here's a hint: if you want to buy music for another player, then buy music from a store that sells compatible songs! Geez! There is a choice. How can you sue for that?

[effgee]

Originally posted by badidea:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=240532

Duh - my question (in reference to your "1+1" post above) was: "How exactly does Apple try to prevent users from playing iTMS songs on anything else but the iPod?"* and, since this statement is obviously false, "Why would it be ok to sue Apple for that?"



* - iTunes?? Audio CD?? Any other device via AAC > AIFF > MP3/AAC/whatever??

[mitchell_pgh]

In other news...

Man sues Microsoft because he must buy Windows to run IIS.
Man sues Microsoft because he must have Windows to play XYZ Windows only game.

Basically, every proprietary codec, piece of hardware etc. would be under fire.

[badidea]

Originally posted by Xeo:
... There is a choice. How can you sue for that?

Don't ask me, ask the lawyers!
I didn't say that this guy will win but as I posted before: Microsoft has to remove the MediaPlayer from the standard Windows Installation (though you still had a choice to use another one)! There is a difference if you have a monopoly and Apple dominates the market with the iPod (and this is good - for Apple, not for us)!

linky

[hardcat1970]

Originally posted by Xeo:
Here's a hint: if you want to buy music for another player, then buy music from a store that sells compatible songs![/i] Geez! There is a choice. How can you sue for that?

because people who calling us "apple maniacs" are always having double standard. It is okay for mac users to get shut out of using other computer services whether they are internet services, browsers or music services but not the other way around, despite itms is a cross-platform music services already.

[badidea]

Originally posted by hardcat1970:
because people who calling us "apple maniacs" are always having double standard. It is okay for mac users to get shut out of using other computer services whether they are internet services, browsers or music services but not the other way around, despite itms is a cross-platform music services already.

Why do people who are calling us "apple maniacs" always have a double standard?
Why do I have a double standard?
Where did I say that "It is okay for mac users to get shut out of using other computer services whether they are internet services, browsers or music services but not the other way around"?
Do you know what "double standard" means?

I would say that I have exactly the opposite of a "double standard" because I treat the holy church (Apple) the same as all the others if they are doing something that I don't consider to be ok.

[gatekeeper]

Contrast

"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.

with

"Microsoft has unlawfully bundled, tied, and/or leveraged its monopoly in the market for the sale of operating systems to thwart competition in the separate market for Internet browsers, and vice-versa," the lawsuit said.

or

"Microsoft has unlawfully bundled, tied, and/or leveraged its monopoly in the market for the sale of operating systems to thwart competition in the separate market for media players, and vice-versa," the lawsuit said.

[hardcat1970]

Originally posted by badidea:

Why do people who are calling us "apple maniacs" always have a double standard?
Why do I have a double standard?
Where did I say that "It is okay for mac users to get shut out of using other computer services whether they are internet services, browsers or music services but not the other way around"?
Do you know what "double standard" means?

I would say that I have exactly the opposite of a "double standard" because I treat the holy church (Apple) the same as all the others if they are doing something that I don't consider to be ok.

oops, my replied is not directed to you. I just answered what the mo' previous post.

[Webscreamer]

Originally posted by storer:
This is not acceptable. Be prepared to be cast out.

Then u can't accuse microsft of having a OS monoply either, because there are plenty of other choices.... according to you.

[turtle777]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
Dang, Apple forced me to buy an iPod mini by making it sleek, sexy, and down right awesome... bastards!

I still hate them for giving me the best portable music player experience ever !

-t

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by Ghoser777:
Isn't the reason he can't play the DRM'd music on his Rio is because Rio hasn't licensed fairplay (which they could do)? Please correct me if I'm wrong, this whole licensing situation always confused me.

Rio could only license Fairplay if Apple would license it to them. Apple refuses to license Fairplay.

No matter what these Apple fanboys say, it's anticompetitive.

[Xeo]

I think you have to look at what you're comparing. Apple has, what, 70% of the legal downloads? You really think the majority of those people are using iTunes and then saying "oh, now I need an iPod, doh!"

When Microsoft has 90% of the user base out there on Windows, they can pretty much force anyone to use whatever they want if the anti-trust stuff didn't keep them from doing so. They could break other browsers and media players. They could keep iTunes from running on it. There's all kinds of stuff they can do. That's why they need to be kept in check.

When Apple has 70% of the music downloads, what can they do? Just because a person downloads a song from iTMS does not in anyway keep them from continuing to purchase from there. They can switch at any moment for no extra cost. They don't have to buy new hardware or software. All they have to do is log into another service and download a new song in WMA format. Big flipping deal.

Do you not see the differences there? Sure Apple is using iTMS to boost the iPod. That's the whole reason for the iTMS existing. But they aren't doing anything that legitimizes a lawsuit.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Rio could only license Fairplay if Apple would license it to them. Apple refuses to license Fairplay.

No matter what these Apple fanboys say, it's anticompetitive.

Why is it always "Apple fanboys" when it comes to stuff like this? Are you also suggesting the guy should win the lawsuit and Apple should be forced to license fairplay?

[JC Denton]

What Apple has with the iPod is not a monopoly. Thankfully, the Department of Justice doesn't become involved in a company's business practices just because a product is extre