Class Action Against Apple For WMA-Blocking "Monopoly"

carpenter

Can you day Steve Job$?

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10237

bobman1235

I gotta side with Apple on this one; there are way too many alternatives in both online purchasing (especially with Amazon and others recently opening up cheaper, DRM-free stores for online music) and music players. While Apple may dominate the market there's nothing that really KEEPS them in dominance; I could easily see someone coming into the market with a great player and the tides turning quickly.

markmarc

this is nothing more than some lawyer wanting to get rich by getting a "Class Action" designation so he/she can get a windfall.

PhantomOG

1. Consumers should be smart enough not to buy it because of the WMA disabling.

2. I wonder how Apple would feel if all of the sudden M$ decided to release code making Windows incompatible with all things Apple. I think they'd be suing as well.

bobman1235

PhantomOG wrote: »

1. Consumers should be smart enough not to buy it because of the WMA disabling.

2. I wonder how Apple would feel if all of the sudden M$ decided to release code making Windows incompatible with all things Apple. I think they'd be suing as well.

The thing is, Apple doesn't really "block" WMA. They just don't support it. In fact, I'm pretty sure they have a built in converter that will take unprotected WMA files and convert them to MP3. So I still don't see the problem. Where do people get WMA files anyway? I can't say I've ever had one from any source.

PhantomOG

The complaint adds that the third party iPod component, the Portal Player System-On-A-Chip, and the iPod Shuffle third party component, the SigmalTel STMP3550, are both capable of playing WMA files but that Apple intentionally cripples this ability with software. The complaint states, "Deliberately disabling a desirable feature of a computer product is known as 'crippling' a product, and software that does this is known as 'crippleware.' "

From the article. That fits my definition of "block".

bobman1235

Hmph, my mistake.

I still agree with your previous sentiment - if people care they have every ability not to purchase the product. There's a LOT of alternatives out there.

Face

bobman1235 wrote: »

Where do people get WMA files anyway? I can't say I've ever had one from any source.

When you set WMP to rip in "lossless", it's a WMA file. That's what I use on my computer.

Shizelbs

From what I understand WMA is getting more and more of the market share. A small amount still, but its growing.

cmy330go

Since when is it illegal to change software to block certain features? Verizon has been doing that with their phones for years. Not that I'm defending them, I just don't see how they can control that.

Anyway. It's about time someone took apple down a peg. I'm so sick of their "stick it to the man" advertising strategy. Not to mention their elitist attitude. IMO they are every bit as evil as MS. They have been price gouging for ages. Their computers and MP3 players are far more expensive then competing products from other manufacturers.

Also....how is it that it's easy and acceptable to run Windows on a Mac, but it is virtually impossible or at least a major pain in the a$$ to run mac OS on a PC. I could understand it in the early years when their were pretty major differences in the hardware, but those days have passed. I can't believe some of the major PC manufacturers (Dell, HP, etc.) haven't put up more of a stink about that.

PhantomOG

Because Apple pushes the idea that they are the underdog, when as far as mp3 players go, they are apparently the monopoly.

The cell phone market is segmented in such a way that each carrier seems to get away with whatever they want. At least there isn't a monopoly in that market. Verizon can claim that their disabling of certain bluetooth profiles enhances stability and restricts piracy.

Apple writing software which specifically prevents chips it buys from playing Microsoft files is nothing more than them sending a big F-U to Microsoft. Something Microsoft can't get away with in the O/S segment because they are considered a monopoly. But if Apple is considered a monopoly in the mp3 player space, the rule should apply to them as well.

Strong Bad

I like how part of the article says that about 100,000 Iphone users are suing Apple because it can only be used on AT&T's network. Hey stupid ****, ya didn't see that when ya bought it??? I didn't buy one for a number of reasons and one being it only works on AT&T. Pretty effing straight forward if ya ask me.

I wonder how much cheaper products, for example the Iphone, would be if the company didn't have all these outragious litigation fees to factor into the company's accounting and expenses. All the lawyer fees, settling and payout of lawsuits, etc...

bobman1235

I'm suing Levi - these jeans made for thin people don't fit me.

PhantomOG

Strong Bad wrote: »

I wonder how much cheaper products, for example the Iphone, would be if the company didn't have all these outragious litigation fees to factor into the company's accounting and expenses. All the lawyer fees, settling and payout of lawsuits, etc...

I'm guessing that Apple actually prefers higher than average pricing for the "Bose" effect --- "well, jeez, this one costs more so it MUST be better" :rolleyes:

Being cheap doesn't fit in well with the Apple "elitist" attitude.

halo

Didn't Bill Gates bail out Apple some years back? Doesn't he profit from both companies success?

Honest question here.

Aimen RG

my intel x86 doesnt run max os x, sue intel

my xp cant run apple aperture, sue ms

my blue ray doesnt run hd dvd, sue em

my hp printer doesnt take canon cartridges, sue hp

my samsung tv doesnt work with sony remote, holly ****, monoply, SUE EM

my petrol civic doesnt work on diesel, sue honda

PhantomOG

Aimen RG wrote: »

my intel x86 doesnt run max os x, sue intel

my xp cant run apple aperture, sue ms

my blue ray doesnt run hd dvd, sue em

my hp printer doesnt take canon cartridges, sue hp

my samsung tv doesnt work with sony remote, holly ****, monoply, SUE EM

my petrol civic doesnt work on diesel, sue honda

Was the content of the article that hard to grasp? In all of your "examples" the products were created from the ground up, and in order to make them compatible with what you are asking dramatically alters the product in and of itself and requires alot of additional design.

In this case, we have a manufacturer that is buying an off the shelf component with widespread compatability, and intentionally writing software which reduces that compatability to block a very specific competitor. According to the suit, Apple is in a monopoly position in that market and therefor is not allowed to act that way.

With all the bogus lawsuits in this country, this is the one to get upset over? I mean, I understand the joking and all... but it just doesn't really apply in this case.

markmarc

Phantom:
This is a bogus lawsuit, period. Until Apple came along with iTunes/iPod, there was no online music market for legal purchases. Apple made deals with record companies to sell their product online using DRM. In order to make it work, they had to pick formats. They did but still allowed people to install songs from cd's onto their iPod. The system is not "closed", but rather limited.
Only later, when other online music services came into being that people complained. In fact, anyone with the ability to surf Google and run iTunes can, in fact, convert music from other mp3 formats into forms that iPod can play. It just takes a few steps and a piece of third party freeware.
This lawsuit is pure crapola, nothing more, nothing less. It eats up tax dollars and time of federal employees. In addition, with the ending of DRM, watch out for a massive onslaught of format convertors/DRM code strippers.

cmy330go

One more thought.

Windows Media Player blocks the importing of all my m4a files from iTunes. Who wants to join me in suing them?

Joking aside this does actually piss me off. I know WMP is capable of playing the format, yet they are obviously doing the same thing Apple has done with the iPod and chosen to block the competitors primary format.

I HATE big business!

PhantomOG

I just think some of you are blinded by some supposed "goodness" of Apple.

You pretty much just admitted that Apple owns (monopoly) the online music market. They brought about it being mainstream... kudos for them. But now there are competitors in the market. The actual mp3 player and the media itself are two separate entities. By specifically writing code into their mp3 players which shuts out competitor formats, they are abusing their position in the mp3 player market to their advantage in the media market. Apple doesn't design their own chips -- they are specifically writing code which alters the compatibility of the chips they buy.

This is absolutely NO different that Microsoft getting slapped around for pushing Internet Explorer with Windows.

Overall, yes I think its a bit of a waste of time and money in the courts as well. However, if you are against this case, you are a hypocrite if you don't also feel the same way about the cases against Microsoft.

Aimen RG

may u cant take humor, anyways
x86 can run mac os x, thou apple asks them to block illegal use
infrared remotes can be programed aswell to any infrared frequency and transmit
samsung sells apple stuff for ipod, they use that in thr mobiles aswell, its just about mass producing, dosnt mean a buyer has to run all the features, they can program any firmware according to thr requirments. many mobo manufactures block certain features in thr bios/firmware thou they all use intel chipset.

schwarcw

Funny, last week many folks were siding with RIAA and their rights to protect their property, which I support.

However, from some of the attitudes people have with Apple, MS or whomever, it's easy to understand why downloaders see it as sport to get back at the companies that are trying to monopolize them.

markmarc

Phantom:
I'm no Apple apologist, I spent several years ripping into them on the Internet for their stupidity in how they destroyed their education market. But in this case, the biggest falsification of this lawsuit is that it is closed system that forces iPod owners to buy their music from iTunes. I have an iPod, and I have NEVER bought one song from the iTunes store. Every single song comes from my CD collection, or from free, legal downloads on the Internet installed via iTunes software on my laptop.

I have two friends who have used information on the Internet thru software to create an iTunes-free iPod. Apple has never prevented people from reformatting their iPod to do this via a Bios chip.

Once again, personal ignorance is no reason to sue. The plantiff is being portrayed in the suit as a clueless individual who didn't know the iPod/iTunes store system. The truth is probably far from it. This lawsuit was filed in an area that contains Silicon Valley. To me this is a red flag that the plantiff may just actually be someone with a jealous axe to grind.

PhantomOG

markmarc wrote: »

Once again, personal ignorance is no reason to sue.

If only that were true, but our courts have made it not so. Seriously, I'm of the same mindset, I'm only trying to point out that Apple is doing the same damn thing that other "evil" companies have done, but for some reason the Apple marketing machine has convinced alot of people that it can do no wrong.