Apple has been engaged in a lawsuit this week over what some deemed “anticompetitive” measures put into place in the iPod several years ago. Those measures essentially prevented users from playing back any music from third-party stores. Apple, for its part, has owned up to those actions, saying it did so to protect the user experience and the device from possible malicious files.
Today a former engineer who worked on iTunes at the time testified that he was part of a team responsible for ensuring that music from all competing stores was blocked from working on the iPod. He held to Apple’s claim that it was done for security and user experience reasons.
The iTunes engineer was the final witness to be called in the trial, following several others including Steve Jobs himself through a videotaped deposition that was played earlier this week. At this point, the outcome is in the jury’s hands. Deliberations are expected to start next week.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
> He held to Apple’s claim that it was done for security and user experience reasons.
What the? Was it done for competitive reasons or was it done for security/user experience reasons? Could the latter be done without blocking out competition? If no, then it isn’t antitrust.
I wish more companies cared about there customers as much as Apple does. People who are causing this lawsuit are people that don’t understand the Apple ecosystem or the internet. I used to work for a major electronics retailer, who also had a tech element to it. You would not believe how many viruses i saw in media files on customer machines. These are malicious files that can do major damage to a machine. Apple found a way to ensure the user experience by blocking the ability for potentially dangerous files from landing on there devices. It makes for a consistent user experience.
“I wish more companies cared about there [their?] customers as much as Apple does”.
Seriously? Hahahahahahhaha. Apple doesn’t care one bit about you. They pretend they do because of the money they need from you to buy their products.
What frustrates me is how the media completely lacks the accuracy when it comes to reporting the facts. Apple has never blocked third parties from selling music to customers with iPod’s (or any i-device) along with never blocking one from being able to rip and sync music from ones own private CD collection to their iTunes library. The issue isn’t about blocking third parties broadly but blocking third parties that used the reverse engineered FairPlay specifications to sell DRM music to customers that was compatible with the DRM technology Apple was employing. At no time did Apple ever offer to licence the DRM technology nor did those third parties ever acquire a legal licence to that DRM technology, the technology that those music retailers were using was acquired through reverse engineering so they have no legal leg to stand on because Apple has no obligation to licence their DRM technology in the first place.
Most importantly, what people over look is this, there is nothing stopping those third parties from selling music DRM free to i-device customers – many independent music companies like Daptone records have been doing it for years so there is nothing stopping Real from negotiating a contract with the music companies to sell DRM free music that would be compatible with i-devices along with many other vendors. As for the shtick of ‘anti-competitive’ – the iTunes Music/App’s makes next to no profit although makes a lot in revenue – it is merely a vehicle to further i-device sales rather than the other way around. The only reason why iTunes exists was because what the market offered at the time was so abysmal that Steve Jobs realised that they would need to step up and fill in the niche and make the consumers experience a lot easier than it was at the time. To claim that it was Apple’s goal to monopolise the music reselling industry is to ignore Apple’s whole business model – everything is built to make things easier for consumers and spur sales of hardware with any marketshare gained by virtue of those online sales being a side effect rather than the initial goal.
It doesn’t matter whether Apple licensed FairPlay or not. The relevant facts are around whether Apple reacted solely to block third party music sales that would work on the iPod or whether it was to close security holes in its own DRM. It’s completely legitimate for third parties to reverse engineer lock-in technologies so they can sell competitive alternatives. It really comes down to what Apple’s intentions were when they changed the software.
Again, they weren’t blocking third parties from selling music, they were blocking third parties that used Apple’s FairPlay DRM, and that is important because if these third parties wished to sell music to iPod customers they could have negotiated an arrangement with the music companies to sell DRM free music which would have avoided the whole situation from the beginning. As for the DRM technology itself, I wouldn’t be surprised that as part of the agreement Apple had with the music companies that they were obliged to ensure that their DRM was secure and any security breaches were corrected in a timely manner. For you to talk about ‘blocking third parties’ as if ALL sales of third parties were blocked is to ignore the many other vendors out there who were selling music to customers with FairPlay and never experienced being blocked. That is important because it narrows it down specifically to DRM and the need to keep it secure.
*Correction (due to this crappy forum not allowing editing)
….vendors out there who were selling music to customers without FairPlay and never….
correct me if i’m wrong, but i thought they copied your music, convert it to a standard format, add missing cover art, tag etc. , add drm for higher quality ones , then delete the old ones to save space.
Pretty clear how distorted the media has been toward Apple. Seems like they genuinely were looking out for their customers. As usual, if anything we should hope other companies would have the guts to do the same for their customers.
Great posts by everyone but . . . .
I still don’t understand how this “trial” is on-going as they haven’t (to the best of my recollection) come up with a client who can act as the “aggrieved and wronged” customer – who can legally file charges.
American Jurisprudence is being dictated by $$$$ – yet again.
It’s a lawyer driven lawsuit. That’s our legal system for us. They find a reason to sue then they have to search out people and notify them that they are actually victims. That’s why whenever I recieve a letter asking me to join a class action lawsuit I always throw it away. I might get $10 out of it plus higher premiums all so some lawyers can make more money.
Glad you throw it away. That means more money for the other plaintiffs.