“This potential threat to first amendment rights and Apple’s crackdown on Web sites that, in general, love the company and its products, do nothing to bolster Apple’s image. In fact, the company’s success of late has yielded accusations of bullying and potentially unlawful business tactics, not to mention complaints that songs purchased from its iTunes music service, the dominant digital music store, don’t work with music players other than its own. To some, that might sound like its neighbor to the north,” says Forbes.
Forbes: Is Apple The New Microsoft?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
well, microsoft is a company which earns money and – suprise – apple is also one
There’s one big difference between Microsoft and Apple.. Apple has style.
http://bitsofnews.com
Yes, they sue you “with style”. Give us a break.
I will say that when it comes down it to when you take technical merit out of the picture Microsoft is much more benevolant a dictator than Apple would ever would be if it had Microsoft’s power. There about as sue happy as you can get and have no problem with suing even minor hobbyists for things like “infringing on apple’s looks” because of a desktop theme or harassing projects like Y’z dock which Apple forced to shut down.
Microsoft is no angel either and if you actually read any of the anti-trust stuff your probably not a huge fan of them, but Apple is no better and IMHO are actually much bigger control freaks and are quicker to sue then Microsoft.
“well, microsoft is a company which earns money and – suprise – apple is also one”
Just one last thought. I can’t stand when people say this, as if the fact that they in it for the money gives them carte blanche to whatever the hell they want. That’s a fools arguement.
I have a genuine question. If the sources broke a contract (NDA) by disclosing information to a journalist, is this grounds for a lawsuit? Can the journalist be required to reveal his/her sources then?
I find this an interesting case. IMHO, freedom of speech should be checked by laws, and if you’ve signed a contract agreeing that you will not disclose any information, you are bound by that contract and shouldn’t be able to break it using the first amendment as a shield.
IANAL so my knowledge of law is suspect at best 🙂
…Apple is WORSE than MS!
I dont remember MS suing Neowin, Winsupersite, etc over Longhorn sneak peaks. Also MS employees are free to blog about their activities unlike Apple employees.
Enthusiasm is obvisouly not appreciated in the Apple collective.
Mike wrote:
“well, microsoft is a company which earns money and – suprise – apple is also one”
Just one last thought. I can’t stand when people say this, as if the fact that they in it for the money gives them carte blanche to whatever the hell they want. That’s a fools arguement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s not that they “do” have carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want; it’s that they “think” that they do. Remember the Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.
>Also MS employees are free to blog about their activities unlike Apple employees.
I have to give emphasis on this. Apple SPECIFICALLY does NOT allow its employees to blog at all, and in fact they don’t allow them to work on personal software side-projects either.
I find Apple way more secretive and dubious than M$. Especially since they got so big success with itunes/ipod. When they only had the mac business, they were a bit more accessible and sensible.
Why do M$ people complain about APPLE itunes only works on APPLE ipods… well duh…
You are all so ready to complain about Apple’s behavior. So what would you do if someone you trust betrayed you and violated your trust, probably costing you a great deal of money and possibly destroying a new product? — just forgive them? I doubt it.
Why do M$ people complain about APPLE itunes only works on APPLE ipods… well duh…
Because Microsoft’s DRM works on a wide variety of devices. I realize that Microsoft here is just the lesser of two evils, but why will Apple not license Fairplay to work on portable devices other than iPods? (Of course, we know the reason why … because without this lock-in strategy, iPod doesn’t have a leg to stand on.)
Why do M$ people complain about APPLE itunes only works on APPLE ipods… well duh…
For the same reason the Apfel people would complain if MS Office would work only on MS Windows, and so practicaly exclude Apfel machines from being useful for anything except downloading songs from the ITMS and showing off some widget animations.
Apple is the most closed system company of all Os’s so this isn’t very surprising. They would certainly enjoy and take advantage of every abuse they could if they had the chance to be a monopoly.
Could you imagine Linus suing someone over their Linux fansite? It is hilarious to even consider it.
> Apple SPECIFICALLY does NOT allow its employees to blog at all
So why does Dave Hyatt (Safari’s lead programmer) blog? Will they fire him? 😉
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/
I am familliar with him. He is the only one who is kind of allowed to do blogging *because* Safari comes from an open source code family. It was Apple’s strategic goal to give an “open flavor” to Safari, and his blog serves this goal too (why no one else from his team blogs, but only the project manager?).
Besides, have you noticed that he’s only blogged twice in 5 months? I fear that Apple PR sensors most of what he says.
At some level Apple is worse than MS in this and similar instances. The thing to remember is that Apple does not have a Monopoly, so the damage they do is less. If they did have a Monopoly they would be more tightly regulated.
Above Viro wrote: “if you’ve signed a contract agreeing that you will not disclose any information, you are bound by that contract and shouldn’t be able to break it using the first amendment as a shield.”
The thing is Apple is not suing the people who violated the agreement (yet), they are suing the “Journalist” who published the info (to force them to reveal their sources). Apple has a right to sue the violater, but this win bodes poorly for online free speech.
And another thing: FreeBSD’s founder was asked to wim down his freebsd public appearances, speeches, interviews, coding, blogs, you name it, after he joined Apple. Apple wanted him “contained” just like any other employee.
That’s a lot like Transmeta was trying to limit Linus. It just doesn’t sound and isn’t right.
The freebsd founder guy had a name, a history, and lots of code in that CVS. Apple should be more open with its employees and less secretive about what they do. Even the Darwin developemtn feels secretive, we rarely hear anything about what’s planned.
he thing is Apple is not suing the people who violated the agreement (yet), they are suing the “Journalist” who published the info (to force them to reveal their sources). Apple has a right to sue the violater, but this win bodes poorly for online free speech.
Could it be argued that the journalist is aiding a ‘criminal’ (I’m using the term very loosely here)? Will the first amendment protect them then? IMHO, this is a major case because it will set the precedent for cases that follow. How free is free speech and what happens when freedom of speech of an individual encroaches on the freedoms of others.
I thought Appe could do no wrong! Man, this really throws off my whole world view. Is it OK to like Microsoft now?
copyrights get 20 years? No, I don’t think so. If that were the case, Orson Scott Card would no longer be allowed to enforce the copyright on Ender’s Game (published 1985) after this year, and I hardly think that’s reasonable.
>>The thing to remember is that Apple does not have a Monopoly<<
Don’t they? Who else is building Macs? Or iPods?
I guess msft owns way more of the desktop than anybody else. But msft doesn’t have a monopoly on everything.
“Because Microsoft’s DRM works on a wide variety of devices. I realize that Microsoft here is just the lesser of two evils, but why will Apple not license Fairplay to work on portable devices other than iPods? (Of course, we know the reason why … because without this lock-in strategy, iPod doesn’t have a leg to stand on.)”
Maybe because iTMS only exists to help sell iPods. You are also failing to recognize that Microsoft is not, for the most part, a hardware company. Microsoft creates software to sell software, Apple creates software to sell hardware.
>The thing to remember is that Apple does not have a Monopoly
Yes. Apple has a monopoly with the iPods/iTunes. Not with the Macs though. Macs barely do 2% of the computer market. They do have a monopoly at the PowerPC market, but that’s hardly relevant when everyone is on the x86.
For literature, 20 years is definitely not enough. On the other hand, there has been very good music on the order of 30 years old that is dying because the recording industry doesn’t think it can make a profit.
And the century that people get nowadays is just absurd.
“The thing is Apple is not suing the people who violated the agreement (yet), they are suing the “Journalist” who published the info (to force them to reveal their sources). Apple has a right to sue the violater, but this win bodes poorly for online free speech.”
Its kind of hard to sue the NDA violators when the only ones who know who they are are those sites who ACTIVELY SOLICITED people with insider information in the first place.
The obvious questions to ask are:
1. Does the reporter shield law apply only to “legitimate members of the press” and if so, who qualifies as such? Does the reporter shield law apply to high school and college newspapers? Community newsletters? Bloggers? Online media?
2. How was Apple harmed by the leaked information? Did their competitors beat them to market with a similar product?
The answer to the latter question is “no”; what they got out of this incident was free publicity for Mac Mini. IMVHO this is merely an harrassment tactic to get the online reporters to rat on the people who may have violated their Apple non-disclosure agreements.
The guy seems most upset about the ThinkSecret suit, but he also throws in the DRM and hardware look and feel suits for good measure. The Microsoft comparison is a typical journalist tactic, like accusing some democratic government of behaving like Nazis. It’s designed to invoke a fear and loathing reaction.
Come on, none of this stuff has any similarity to the tactics Microsoft used against Netscape, DR DOS, Real Networks and others in the 1990s. You can argue that it’s just as evil or heavyhanded or whatever, but it’s completely different. Might as well accuse Steve Jobs as being the next Ken Lay.
“How free is free speech and what happens when freedom of speech of an individual encroaches on the freedoms of others.”
Except that in this case it’s the freedom of speach of a real individual encroaching on the “freedom” of an artificial person, a legal construct known as a corporation, designed solely to make a profit and to protect it’s owners from personal accountability.
…to buying an Apple Mac Mini when news of the law suits hit. I choose not to reward bad behavior with my money, much as I like the looks of the Mini. As the stories have unfolded I have gained a new appreciation of open architecture and open source.
If Apple was in Microsoft’s position, they’d be worse than Microsoft is now, most likely.
Fortunately, their small size spares the world of that. They make good systems – I like my powerbook – but Apple tends to be secretive and lawsuit-happy.
Apple will never be a (new) Microsoft, partially because of its techniques; cracking down on clone vendors and suing enthusiasts hurts market share.
Don’t they? Who else is building Macs? Or iPods?
Who else makes Hondas, or Pontiacs? Good god hundreds of automobile monopolies!!
yes its small, but still a monopoly.
They were losing in Clone wars sometime ago, and got to switch to dark side, hire darth sidious, crush the republic to barely survive.
Could it be argued that the journalist is aiding a ‘criminal’?
I’m no lawyer, but I believe contract disputes like this are a civil matter, not a criminal one. You’d be liable for damages but not labeled as a criminal (except maybe by Apple).
“If Apple was in Microsoft’s position, they’d be worse than Microsoft is now, most likely. ”
Heres the deal guys, #1 market leaders in any industry suck, use bad business tactics to get more money out of you, etc.
Blockbuster, Microsoft, Comcast, Clear Channel, etc really stink. I never buy from the #1 company, cause 9 times out of 10 they really stick it to you. why? cause they’re number one. They can do that. They have that market share.
So I tend to go with the #2 person, Apple, Hollywood Video… They really treat their customers well because they are really fighting for their business. The problem with this is, that as soon as #2 becomes #1 they fall into the same practices.
Don’t know if Apple is the “new Microsoft”.
But what’t sure is they Apple is acting like Microsoft in a lot of areas…
Leo.
Of course apple has a monopoly onthe macintosh world… they created the Macintosh world!
There are other MP3 players that you can buy, for cheaper. So they don’t have the market on the mp3 player market. Of course they have a monopoly on the iPod market, it’s their damn product…
Does Microsoft have a monopoly on the WindowsXP market?
your mp3 player doesn’t work with iTunes? use napster or other pc friendly music distributor. msn messenger doesn’t allow me to use webcan to chat with my friends and you do not see me riot.
MS mugs you with an AK47…
Apple mugs you with a polished colt revolver…
Whats the difference, a scruffy thief or a clean shaven thief???
Robbed is robbed…
Boy you Apple guys…
You will watch Apple bang up on your fellow Apple users, and as long as it is not you, they can do no wrong.
Stick your head in the sand and pretend you do not see anything…
That is all.
>Does Microsoft have a monopoly on the WindowsXP market?
Does IBM have a monopoly on the PC market ?
No. And yes, IBM introduced the PC… But did not *forbid competition*. Maybe that’s why 120 million PCs are sold each year in the world while Apple is barely selling 5-10 million of Macintoshs.
Leo.
I just don’t understand this mentality. Apple created a product that works with their products. In any other industry this doesn’t create a monopoly. If VTech creates a battery that works only with their wireless phones, do panasonic phone owners throw up their arms and scream monopoly?
If Scientific Atlanta creates a filesystem that doesn’t allow you to unplug the hard drive and put it in a standard computer, does that give them a monopoly on the DVR market?
Apple makes computers…Dell makes computers, HP, Compaq, Alienware, they all make computers.
Apple does not have a monopoly on computers.
Dell makes a mp3 player, so does Creative, and hundreds of other smaller companies. Where does a monopoly come in? In fact, the iPod is a lot more costly than many other mp3s…
ITunes works with the IPod, as well as the HP mp3 unit.
“Apple Computer Inc. can force three online publishers to disclose where they got confidential information about new Apple products.”
I personally don’t see the issue here. Apple is suing to get the names of those people who have voilated their NDA and/or stolen their intellectual property. It just so happens that these pro-Apple sites have posted that information on their sites.
This isn’t a case of someone spotting a new vehicle on the road and taking a snapshot of it “in the wild”. This information was removed from Apple illegally (probably an employee) and then posted to the Internet. Those “kids” running the web sites should have known better and probably did. Apple isn’t even really after them but the person who took the info info in the first place.
Does IBM have a monopoly on the PC market ?
No. And yes, IBM introduced the PC… But did not *forbid competition*. Maybe that’s why 120 million PCs are sold each year in the world while Apple is barely selling 5-10 million of Macintoshs.
what is your point? Apple does not have a monopoly. They create PPC computers. Anyone can build a PPC computer, just design one with the open specs from IBM. Apple won’t stop you, they won’t play dirty tricks or try to stop CompUSA from selling it.
Genesi does just this, they created a PPC computer. Apple sells more than Genesi even though they are more expensive.
Apple sells more iPods than Creative sells Xen mp3 players, even though they are more expensive. This is not a monopoly. This is not illegal. This is a company who designs products that are more attractive to the user than some of their competition.
Dell sells more computers than Apple…so no monopoly.
Napster sells mp3s for your win mp3 players…no monopoly on iTunes.
If you don’t like the way iTunes only works with iPods then don’t buy from iTunes. If you only like the fact that iTunes is the only store that integrates with the iPod, don’t buy an iPod…
Stop complaining.
you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater..
i couldn’t create a website on someone and proceed to publish their mothers maiden name, SS#, DOB etc that some friend of theirs told me..
they aren’t suing TS to shut them down, they are suing to discover who broke their NDA.. this is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal (federal).
some folks need to watch more Law & Order.. WWJmD? (What would jack mccoy do?)
Society is a legal, and defacto-legal “construct”. All else is just individuals. “Free speech” applies to indiviuals, and “aggregate of individuals”. Just as an individual can’t say anything they want (Fire!). Corporations can’t say whatever they want (The health benifits of…).
The situation here however is. Was the information obtained through good guessing? Was the information obtained through violations of contract law, and can one hide behind the First Amendment?
At best, I think the “not legitimate press” is a poor argument, and not as strong as a contract defense. Although it will be harder to prove (…a negative)..
“>>The thing to remember is that Apple does not have a Monopoly<<
Don’t they? Who else is building Macs? Or iPods? ”
….and chevrolet has a monolopy on chevrolets….sheesh
Believe it or not, just like Apple, Microsoft also used to have an army of fanboys for whom MS could do no wrong. I remember the fevered launch of Windows 95, with them all lining up outside stores at midnight to be the first to own a copy – I don’t think even the Apple fanboys have got this bad yet!
However, for all the blind loyalty, slowly but surely people started to hate Microsoft. I can see Apple going exactly the same way. Why? Because like Microsoft, they have started to screw the average Joe around and act anti-competitively.
When they make their cute little computers, they can pretty much get away with charging at a premium, as they have total lock-in and nobody else can make a compatible, yet cheaper device (and competition is one of the main things that commerce is founded on). However, with, for example, the iPod and iTunes store, a lot of other companies have been able to produce alternatives that are cheaper, and do the job just as well, but better. What’s the Apple answer? Lower the costs? Make their products (Fairplay DRM I’m looking at you) more attractive to consumers? Nope. Instead they try to stifle the competition by making their hardware only able to purchase tracks from their own online store (which kind of feels like a car manufacturer only allowing their cars to be used with their own brand gas), and taking legal action against any competitor that tries to provide tracks that can be made to work with Apple’s hardware.
If that isn’t anti-competitive, and the Microsoft way, then I don’t know what is.
A battery is an accessory. iTunes is not an accessory. Sure, there are other music stores. However, consider this. Quite a lot of bands are releasing tracks *exclusively* through iTunes. Apple, of course, encourages this (and actively solicits bands to do this). According to Apple, if I want to listen to this music portably, I’ve got to do it on an iPod. That’s *the only sanctioned way* to get this music. It’s only thanks to Real (and, soon, thanks to the unnamed hacker bunny who’s hacking iTunes for gstreamer right now) that I can avoid this.
What’s the Apple answer? Lower the costs? Make their products (Fairplay DRM I’m looking at you) more attractive to consumers? Nope. Instead they try to stifle the competition by making their hardware only able to purchase tracks from their own online store (which kind of feels like a car manufacturer only allowing their cars to be used with their own brand gas)
What’s stopping me from buying DRM free mp3s from any band on their website and putting it on my iPod? Nothing, it works.
iTunes is their store, they integrated their store into iTunes and it works with their iPod. Why should they do that for anyone else? It’s their product!
i just bought a mini and reading this isn’t helping. oh well, if it gets too bad i could just install fedora core 4
… but then the cycle begins allover again. every company’s goal is to make uber amounts of profit and make their customers dependent on their product or service. you could deny this but it’s stupid, accept it. the only question is, which poison do you prefer? microsoft or apple? i’ll take apple’s poison anyday.
“I couldn’t create a website on someone and proceed to publish their mothers maiden name, SS#, DOB etc that some friend of theirs told me”
actually, legally speaking, you could. Nothing illegal about it.
It’s the bands decision to release tracks only to iTunes. And if it’s not, it’s the record companies who decide.
I fail to see how this is a monopoly. If people don’t want to buy an iPod, don’t buy one. You don’t have to own one simply because Apple says it’s shiny and cool.
If by breaking the DRM allows you to circumvent the iTunes/iPod integration, Apple will fix that again. It’s a moving target, you shouldn’t expect this to work. Write to the artist and tell them you don’t want to be locked into Apple’s ‘monopoly’…they’ll listen more than the record companies…
“Microsoft also used to have an army of fanboys for whom MS could do no wrong.”
Used to?? What do you mean “used to”? They still do. They are alive and well, and lingering in this forum.
Only purchase players that support Open Codecs. If it can’t play Ogg Vorbis files then it ain’t going to be owned by me. In this hell bent consumerist society you can only vote with your wallet. Starve the suckers of their income and they will come to heal.
We have to exercise this power wisely because it is the only one left to us.
Apple is worse than M$ because it is a company which make closed hardware, sell music in closed format AND make closed software (ok, Darwin is open but nobody can do something useful with it and it has no advantages over other free operating systems). And Apple products are expansive and not easily upgradeable.
The only advantage os Apple over M$ is that its products are better in quality and good-looking. The only advantage of MacOS X is its Unix roots but only nerds know and use this.
The only advantage for M$ is that runs on PCs, which are cheaper and flexible and you can put a decent operating system like Linux or *BSDs on them, for free.
Apple is worse than M$ because it is a company which make closed hardware, sell music in closed format AND make closed software (ok, Darwin is open but nobody can do something useful with it and it has no advantages over other free operating systems). And Apple products are expansive and not easily upgradeable.
Xbox – closed source hardware
Windows – Closed source software
WMA – closed source audio codec
How is this any better than what Apple is doing?
} copyrights get 20 years? No, I don’t think so. If
} that were the case, Orson Scott Card would no longer
} be allowed to enforce the copyright on Ender’s Game
} (published 1985) after this year, and I hardly think
} that’s reasonable.
Yeah! Otherwise, we might get some decent sequels instead of the drivel Card has been writing in those twenty years. We just cannot risk that. Card must be permitted to coast on his achievements and take the cultural potential of his ideas to the grave like some sort of a latter day Pharaoh.
I love hearing the argument that Apple is monopolistic because they choose not to release their products openly. A lot of people clamor for an X86 version of OS X, for example. If such a product existed, I’d probably give it a shot, because I have come to love using OS X. On the other hand, why aren’t those same people clamoring for Microst to release Office for Linux? I’d love to hear arguments about OpenOffice being superior so MS Office isn’t needed…
The fact of the matter is, Apple has the right to decide to whom and for how much they want to sell their products. If you don’t like it, and many people obviously don’t, then don’t buy their products. Apple also has a right to be secretive about their products. If that’s the route they choose, who are we to criticize them? Again, if you don’t like it, look elsewhere.
It seems to me that people don’t understand that Apple is a company that is not in business to make consumers’ lives easier; they’re in business to make money for their stockholders, and they do this by trying to make a product that’s attractive to consumers (business 101). It’s certainly a different strategy than open source software, but since when is a different (e.g. competing) strategy a bad thing?
Which is exactly what Microsoft does. So, why should we feel better about Apple? It’s on the same bag as M$ is.
Jon,
how is closed hardware and software a sign of monopoly? IBM has closed software and hardware. HP has closed software and hardware…
I didn’t say otherwise. That doesn’t make me look at Apple with a brighter eye though.
There is more than enough room in the tech industry to have more than one belief on how software and hardware are engineered. So if Apple makes closed source software and hardware, they are just as bad as Microsoft, who has been convicted of anti competitive tactics?
I like Open source software, but it’s not always the best product on the market. Sometimes it is: apache, php, perl, ipf, etc…
but not always.
I fail to see how closed hardware and software makes you look at them in darker light.
The “ligit members of the American and Canadian media” are really nothing more than a medieval court jester collective. If Apple is really making those claims, then the conclusion is inescapable: Apple appears as a big American tech firm totally in support of corporate ruling class concepts, and totally opposed to democracy in almost all senses of the word, plain and simple.
So basically Apple is bad because they are trying to protect their products. It’s not as if Apple has had their innovations/ideas stolen more than once. Can anyone really blame them for trying protecting themselves?
Apple appears as a big American tech firm totally in support of corporate ruling class concepts, and totally opposed to democracy in almost all senses of the word, plain and simple.
Wow…so apple wants to keep it’s trade secrets secret…and they are against democracy? A person breaks his NDA, effectively breaking contractual law, and Apple is against democracy? Apple goes after the only people who are aware of this peron’s identity, in order to punish the offender and they are against democracy?
Whatever…
<http://www.crazyapplerumors.com/>
put yourself in their position. if not then apple dies and then comes the real monopoly as we know. if you don’t like itunes you can use other musics store. if you push apple to open up fairplay, then apple is loosing its cash cow to keep surviving.
if you feel everything is wrong, than built your own device and standard. it’s that simple.
What a surprise !
You thought MS was number one evil. Imagine a MS like company with both hardware and OS monopoly. No doubt the pretty commercials and the cool design would help a lot living in such hell.
Look people, in a capitalist society corporations will do _anything_ that they believe they can get away with legally in order to increase their profit margins. The only responsibility a corporation has is to its shareholders.
If Apple was in a position where it could have a legal monopoly (ie Microsoft) they would take it without thinking twice.
Apple only appears to be a nice friendly company because their marketshare is marginalized. If history would have went down slightly differently I guarantee everyone would be screaming about how Apple/Jobs are terrible and immoral.
Wow…so apple wants to keep it’s trade secrets secret…and they are against democracy?
Donny_S was being IRONIC.
Apple only appears to be a nice friendly company because their marketshare is marginalized. If history would have went down slightly differently I guarantee everyone would be screaming about how Apple/Jobs are terrible and immoral.
Wait, so to have a majority of the market under you, using your products, enjoying them…and you acheived it legally, this automatically makes them evil?
Honestly, folks…Microsoft apologists are the funniest people around. Microsoft’s monopoly, no one really cares about…it’s their ABUSE of said monopoly that is the real problem.
Deal with it, Microsoft did illegal deeds to get and mantain their monopoly…doesn’t mean everyone would.
Donny_S was being IRONIC.
sorry, i didn’t see it as such. With the off the cuff stupid remarks most people are making on this thread, it’s hard to tell.
Hah. I’m hardly a Microsoft apologist. I’ve used only free software for the past 4 years or so.
I’m not sure how you interpreted my post as being critical of Apple specifically; I’m being critical of the corporate system that we live in today. It’s a system that discourages freedom, quality and interoperation. It encourages corporations to decrease the diversity of the technological landscape while at the same time making software which is _just_ good enough to sell (any better and profit margins suffer).
Both Apple and Microsoft do things to decrease competition. Apple’s bundling of the iLife software directly competes with small software shops which used to thrive by selling such software to mac users. As soon as Microsoft begins bundling media players, movie editing software, etc people scream bloody murder. When apple does it it is simply brilliant.
For me it’s irrelevant. The freedom to tinker far outweighs any solution Apple or Microsoft offer for my personal use.
I do slightly prefer Apple to Microsoft actually, mainly because of their embracement of open standards.
“Wait, so to have a majority of the market under you, using your products, enjoying them…and you acheived it legally, this automatically makes them evil? ”
Evil? Oh I don’t know, but definitely against the best interest of the customer. Diversity and competition are in the best interest of the customer; not a single domineering entity capable of buying out any competition. This is the problem; once in power a dominating corporation _will_ buy out its competitors. Hell, even non-dominating corporations like Apple do this.
Apple is worse than Microsoft when it comes to their proprietary lock-in tactics. They just don’t have as much power.
how about some examples of how their proprietary lock ins are worse than microsoft?
Ah… Apple is about to be Microsoft’s salvation. What do you do to refurbish your image when everybody thinks you are evil? Find somebody who is even MORE evil. Suddenly you’re a saint and everybody loves you.
MS and Apple both suffer from the cloak-and-dagger style of cut throat business. They create a product that is successful and from then on their world revolves around that product. They patent the hell out of it and sue anybody who even looks at it funny. It’s like a cat who is your best friend, until it gets ahold of a scap of meat. From that point on it growls and shreads anything that gets near it.
They’ve got to learn to always stay ahead of the (oh so slippery) curve. Got a product that works? Good. Now move on and focus on the next killer product, because the current one is going to be old hat this time next year.
I may be misinformed but isn’t all apple wants is the sources in which the media gets its inside stories?
Well i’m not in total disagreement about them knowing that because look how often companies copy apple in their products, for example the ipod, they were the first now they are one of many. apple historically makes money on being the first while others follow and if people know what apple is doing before it comes out, companies can copy before the product is done and then apple cannot make profits (at least not as much) on their products
They are just doing business and protecting bottom line, and I have no problem with that
btw: if Apple was a monopoly like microsoft they would not need to be the first in their product lines so they would be able to be more open. Unfourtunately as a minority you need to have products that are better not just a copy to survive
“…freedom of speech should be checked by laws, and if you’ve signed a contract agreeing that you will not disclose any information, you are bound by that contract and shouldn’t be able to break it using the first amendment as a shield.”
As far as being Americans who “stand for freedom”, you sure like having those freedoms restricted.
Corporations having equal rights as indivduals?
Come on! Think of what would happen when a multi-billion dollar company goes in court (as an individual) to defend itself by someone killed by their product.
Shucks, I forget, it’s already happened…
You’re just lucky Apple isn’t a pharmaceutical/tobacco/automobile company.
aren’t you being a tad bit dramatic?
The person broke contractual law. Apple is not defending itself as an individual person, it’s going after an individual who has broken an agreement, a signed legal document that states that if they are to break this agreement, legal repricussions will occur.
How is that giving up freedom of speach? He signed the document on his own, he wasn’t force to work for apple, he wasn’t forced to go to the rumor mills and talk…he chose to.
Apple wants him punished, rightfully so.
Apple were not the first with the iPod. I remember hearing about hard-drive based mp3 players years before I heard about the iPod.
The article in Forbes makes a lot of sense. Apple is a company that wants to increase its profits, just like any other company, not just Microsoft. The fact that they are suing to find out who is leaking the information is totally legit in my opinion. Although, I don’t ever recall thinksecret.com revealing the specs to such detail that I could purchase the parts and build my own ishuffle, or ipod, or iMAC. So I really don’t see the harm thinksecret did. But I do agree that Apple is in its right to find out who is leaking this information. It doesn’t make sense for apple to have a coporate policy that states you cannot disclose certain information and have it violated. Furthermore, some people were stating that the ipod+itunes marriage is a sign of a monopoly. Hmm.. it sort of is and it sort of isn’t. In one hand I see the itunes service as a mechanism to simplify your music purchases. Maybe other mp3 players should adopt the m4a standard. I don’t know the deal with Apples protection. On the other hand, Apple created the itunes service, created the ipod, sets the pricing, like everyone before me said, you don’t need to buy it. The ipod is a luxury item for those who cannot afford it. For those with the money, an ipod is a nice toy.
argh, I hate that Forbes is spreading this nonsense
journalists cannot publish trade secrets. it is illegal, all legitimate journalists know it. Their sources can only be protected in cases of public interest, nothing else. Knowing future apple products is NOT in the best interest of the public (or is it?).
These guys profit from the leaking trade secrets. No court is going to side by them, claiming this bogus freedom of speech thing when it’s not.
The only harm done to Apple was stealing Steve Jobs thunder before his big presentation. No more, no less.
Steve’s ego is driving the lawsuits.
If Apple employees broke their NDA, Apple should use better controls in-house.
Renaldo,
How do you know that the sites actively solicited information? How do you know that the people who gave away the information were not the truck drivers of the products in questions or a graphic designer doing the brochures who were not under an NDA?
Stop justifying what Apple does when it is clearly trying to change the scope of what freedom of speech means. Apple is saying that only “legitimate journalists” have the right to protection. In the days of the open web, who decides who is a legitimate journalist? Apple? A judge in Apple’s home turf?
Give me a break!
Well, why hasn’t Apple sued the GNAA people who admitted that they gave MacRumors.com screenshots of OSX “Tiger” three days early?
Is it because they feel that it would be easier to win over these guys than the GNAA people? Or just a public relations thing?
I think that part of the problem is people’s misunderstanding of “monopoly”. Obviously there’s different types (as welll as different rules). Also the monopoly determination isn’t done via a checklist. But on a case by case basis, with general guidelines in place.
http://www.technolawgy.com/fs_lawyers.asp?page=LawAndCases_overview…
[ AdamW (IP: 204.209.209.—)]
“‘I couldn’t create a website on someone and proceed to publish their mothers maiden name, SS#, DOB etc that some friend of theirs told me’
actually, legally speaking, you could. Nothing illegal about it.”
You might want to check with a lawyer before attempting the above. Legal today, isn’t always legal tomorrow. Especially with the Choicepoint scandal fresh in everyone’s minds.
http://www.enbank.com/Pages/newsitems2.html
“….and chevrolet has a monolopy on chevrolets….sheesh”
No, but if you could only get tires for your Chevy from Chevrolet, than woulnd’t be too good, would it?
Well, you can only use the Ipod with the ITMS. Those tunes from ITMS will not play on any other MP3 player. That’s the problem.
Probably somewhat off topic, but what about the tactics of breaking Harmony that would play the Apple DRM music?
As a casual observer, I see it as about the same as MS giving the spurious error messages when DrDos was used under Windows, (or the “ain’t done till Lotus won’t run” strategy)…
How would it go down if MS made all users update (patch) their OS so that iTunes wouldn’t run under Windows? I don’t mean legally, I mean as far as comsumer perception of the which company is more “evil”…
what is your point? Apple does not have a monopoly. They create PPC computers. Anyone can build a PPC computer, just design one with the open specs from IBM. Apple won’t stop you, they won’t play dirty tricks or try to stop CompUSA from selling it.
Genesi does just this, they created a PPC computer. Apple sells more than Genesi even though they are more expensive.
You are both right and wrong. Yes, you can build/buy a PPC computer using other sources than Apple to purchase the hardware. But you cannot legally run OSX on it. In fact, OSX won’t run unless you use Mac-On-Linux (MOL). This is from the MOL website (http://www.maconlinux.org):
Q: Does MOL run on non-Apple hardware?
A: It does. MOL runs for instance on the Pegasos board, the Teron board and on AmigaOne hardware. In short, MOL should run on any PowerPC hardware (with the except of 601-based systems). However, the EULA of MacOS prohibits its usage on non-Apple hardware (it is of course perfectly legal to use MOL to boot a second Linux though).
I am personally very interested in building a PPC system, but I most definitely will not buy one from Apple.
Um, as someone with a degree in economics, I think some education is needed as to what a monopoly is. To be a monopolist, a company has to be the only one to produce a good, or produce the vast majority AND there have to be excessively high barriers to entry to keep competitors from releasing similar products.
Windows and Office are classic Microsoft examples. And the antitrust suit revealed to what ends Microsoft abused its power. Not to mention the everyday price-gouging on Windows and Office because there are no viable alternatives for industry — in economics this is called a “rent” because it is money taken above the equilibrium price if the market were competitive and the laws of supply and demand ruled.
Apple and Microsoft can do the same thing with their respective OSes — Include a browser? Rip off Konfabulator? Bundle a media player? — but it is only illegal when Microsoft does it because they have 95% of the desktop OS market, and Apple has 2%. Without the constraints of antitrust law, Microsoft would leverage Windows and Windows Media Player to exact huge rents from the entire digital media industry — say $5 per DVD download or 50 cents per song. Apple has ZERO ability to do this with QuickTime, or iTunes, or anything else.
Apple has a tiny % of the OS market.
Apple has a tiny % of the PC market.
Apple has a tiny % of the market for recorded music. No one will pay $5 per iTune when they can buy a CD for $12. The idea that iTunes is somehow a monopoly when Apple is making maybe 2 cents on the dollar is ridiculous.
Apple does now have a sizable % of the MP3 player market, but there are virtually no barriers to entry — Apple can’t charge $800 for an iPod because Sony would steal their market share in a second if they did.
But if Microsoft were to raise the price of Office by $200, millions and millions will pay because they have no choice.
> Apple is the most closed system company of all Os’s so this isn’t very surprising.
For very small values of ‘all OSes’
Ever heard of OpenDarwin? MOST of Mac OSX is Open, at least most of the important parts.
Now, ask me how many OSes I can name off the top of my head that are by far more closed and secrative than OSX (give you a hint, it’s over fifteen).
“If Apple employees broke their NDA, Apple should use better controls in-house.”
If she had never worn that short skirt, and those sexy stockings, I never would have raped her.
[Eu (IP: —.209.42.38.dsli.com)]
“Well, you can only use the Ipod with the ITMS.”
http://www.apple.com/ipod/
“As for all of those CDs you already own, iTunes makes it easy to quickly transfer your favorite songs and albums. Just pop a CD into your Mac or PC and click the Import button. You can import music in a variety of formats, such as MP3 or AAC, and at whatever quality level you’d prefer.”
“Those tunes from ITMS will not play on any other MP3 player. That’s the problem.”
“Just 99¢ a Song, Plus Generous Personal Use Rights
The iTunes Music Store lets you quickly find, purchase and download the music you want for just 99¢ per song. You can burn individual songs onto an unlimited number of CDs for your personal use, listen to songs on an unlimited number of iPods and play songs on up to five Macintosh computers or Windows PCs. And the iTunes software works so smoothly on both platforms that you can share music with any combination of Macs and Windows PCs on a local area network — regardless of whether you’re running iTunes on a Mac or PC.”
Apple is a business looking out for the benefit of its stockholders as any company would. People are so quick to bash Apple. The popular argument is for them to have more control in-house over leaks. Therein lies the problem. They are trying to get the sources of the leak so that they can figure out how the problem originated. It’s easy for someone to say that Apple should be able to control this kind of thing but that is incredibly naive; a corporation cannot control it if someone feels like talking to someone about something they shouldn’t be talking about. That’s what NDAs are for, Apple took steps to prevent this, someone broke their contract and now people are calling Apple the bad guy.
Another popular Apple-bashing point is the whole closed-thing. Some people are convince that only open source things are good while the rest is bad but that is not always the case. Apple keeps control over their hardware to guarantee that OSX will work. I will, and have, pay more for a computer that is guaranteed to work. People always complain about the iMac and the mini not being upgradeable…HELLO, it’s not meant to be. If you want to do that, buy something else. People seem to bitch when companies don’t cater directly to them, but people need to understand that companies cater to the general public and what the market warrants. To the tinkering geeks…get over it, you are not the market. You are not the majority of computer buying entities. The general public does not care about recompiling kernels, closed-source device drivers or overclocking. Most of the bashing against Apple seems to come from this field.
Listen dipstick,
Chevorlet does not have a “monopoly” on Chevys. If you are building replica Chevy cars, GM is more than happy to sell you the parts and specs (I should know, I build replica cars). They have not threaten me with lawsuits and such. The times I was able to sell a car for less than they, they did not try to revoke our supply agreement. Matter of fact, Chevy has been a joy to do business with. Looking at Apples history with their clone makers and suppliers, you could say that Apple behave much like the Gestapo. Give it a rest, Macoids.
A general perusal of this thread has led me to conclude that there are far too many people who are not familiar with living in the real world. Among these are:
1. Apple is a monoply because you can only get parts from Apple. Have you ever tried to put a part from a Ford on a Chevy? Or the reverse?. Some are interchangeable and others are not. This is not unusual and it does not constitute a monopoly for either Ford or Chevy.
The same is true for Macintosh computers, Linux, Windows. One can buy a variety of cards for a Macintosh that also work on x86 machines (eg., I have installed a “Window’s only” PCI wireless card on a Mac for $20 and it worked without having to tweak it or search for drivers. Most peripherals work on multiple platforms. And yes I know that one cannot replace a PPC processor with a x86 processor. And I know that programs written for Linux do not run under Windows (or Mac) unless properly configured and compiled for these OSs and processors. This does not make any of these a monopoly for a company..
2. In the real world research scientists sign non-disclosure documents that restrict them from relating company “secrets” to the outside world. This is a very old practice in business and has a valid place in protecting the loss of future values. This does not make the companies “evil” or a “monoply” when they want to “punish” someone violates the freely signed contract.
What I keep hearing is that there are a group of people who think that if they cannot get something “free” than the producer of those goods or services are evil. The question is whether the company actually participates in restricting other companies/individuals from taking a competitive roll in their business arena. When they do they are “evil”. If they own the bulk of the market for their area then they are labeled as a monoply.
Most companies have some dark periods and practices because they are run by humans (greed is still one of the deadly sins). Apple restricting the usage of songs downloaded from the iTunes store is not one of these evil doings just because you want to do it another way. There are other competitive alternatives available.
People are so quick to bash Apple. The popular argument is for them to have more control in-house over leaks. Therein lies the problem. They are trying to get the sources of the leak so that they can figure out how the problem originated. It’s easy for someone to say that Apple should be able to control this kind of thing but that is incredibly naive; a corporation cannot control it if someone feels like talking to someone about something they shouldn’t be talking about.
We understand how it works. And while it may be impossible to control, this doesn’t imply that a huge fan of Apple, and one who provides information just like any other journalist, should have to take the fall. It’s not HIS fault that Apple can’t keep a lid on their own employees. It’s not his responsibility to play policeman and try to determine what kind of information he can and cannot post on his website. I’m sorry but suing a fan-run website that has presumably provided Apple with a lot of exposure is one of the most backstabbing things that you can do. What a way to show appreciation.
“If Apple employees broke their NDA, Apple should use better controls in-house.”
If she had never worn that short skirt, and those sexy stockings, I never would have raped her.
That must be the most asisine comment I have ever read on here. Wow.
“How do you know that the sites actively solicited information? How do you know that the people who gave away the information were not the truck drivers of the products in questions or a graphic designer doing the brochures who were not under an NDA?”
Think Secret has a very prominent link at the top of their site labeled “Got Dirt?” directing people to an anonymous voicemail and email form. This is a very blatant example of a website which publicly solicits people with insider information to reveal what they know. So it’s quite laughable that Think Secret is trying to act as the innocent victim of corporate harassment.
The question is, is this website just as guilty as the people whom they are soliciting confidential information from when these people are either employees of Apple (or a partner) or they are in violation of an NDA for a developer preview?
Well, If I were to solicit somebody else to kill my wife, I may have not done the actual killing, but I’ll still get thrown in jail just the same.
I think a lot of you people are confusing a whistle-blower who passes sensitive information to a newspaper to bring activities to the public’s attention with a website which is soliciting sensitive information from people who have no legal right or cause to disclose it.
The first is protected by the law, the other should not be.