“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
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
Really ? Didn’t the latest iPod firmware update render the Real Player useless when it comes to transfering music to the iPod ?
Its exactly the same kind of thing and in many ways Apple is far scarier than Apple. When dealing with MS you have to get big before you become a target.
Apple seems happy chasing down its own fans and throwing ceast and desist orders like its party confetti.
The products rock – the company SUCKS.
Well First Apple needs to stop making things that work to become the next Microsoft. It’s a long buggy road before one can claim the covited title of M$.
Stop cheering for the underdog.
The fact remains, people leaked information from Apple, after signing a NDA; be it a sole NDA or one as part of an employment contract. You break your contract, face the consequences of your actions.
Stop trying to make Apple as some sort of boogie man – imagine that you ran a company, developing that great new piece of software with awsome, never seen before technology, then one of your programmers leaked information to the press about it – you as the owner would be rightfully pissed off – same goes for Apple.
Apple need to bring home the cash for the shareholders – and they need to protect their revenue streams, the fact remains, when people *LEAK* the information, it could possibly damage their profitability – even if it is proven to be false, it could mean the difference between making money that week or not, as people hold out thinking that there is something around the corner.
As for Apple and iTunes – I said it once and I’ll say it again – nothing stops Real or Microsoft from creating their own media player and linking it with their own music service.
Real is losing because their player, media, service, everything about it is crap. As for Microsoft, quite frankly, I am sure they have greater concerns than to worry about whether or not Apple is winning a few converts – the underlying fact remains, Microsoft derives most of their revenue from business, no Joe and Jane Home User – what Apple is doing doesn’t affect Microsoft one iota.
As for iPods strangle hold; Apple got there because their device is superior. The alternatives either cost more or simply are crap when compared to what the iPod delivers.
Welcome to capitalism – survival of the most cunning. Its not Apples falt that the competition is so crap – just take a look at Real – I would NEVER install that on my machine again.
Sorry, start demanding registration simply to download and run Real Player – sorry honey – no sale. I don’t want my email address and details harvested and sold off to the highest bidder under the guise of a “partnership programme”.
apple haas always had an appliance mentality to their products and has never had the tinkerability of the X86 platform,this is very telling in the way they would behave if the were king of the world so to speak,it is also the reason they have hung on in the face of M$ while others like Be have gone by the wayside,Proprietary hardware and software,and a dedicated cult folloeing has been the key for them ,not to mention an eye for asthetic design,there is no real NEW news here ,they have always been as ruthless as M$ in their own way
“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.”
No, but what Apple is doing is trying to get the information pertaining to who broke that contract from the website who published it. This isn’t about going after who published the story, it’s about who gave the publishers the information, that’s why Apple filed suit.
if I interpret the bill of right correctly there is a right to freedom of speech PLUS a right to freedom of the press,in other words for example OSnews as a instrument of the press has the right to print the news as they see fit and sasquatch666 has the right,as a private citizen,to comment on it aas I see fit(if it gets modded down here there’s nothing to stop me from publishing my opinion elsewhere)I don’t see where Jobs comes off trying to prevent private citizens from exercizing their rights if I want to start a rumor that apple is coming out with a kerosene powered computer for the back alleys of the third world thats my right,as it is his right to deny it and say i’m fulla crap,Now if it turns out the rumors are true maybe he should beef up his corporate security and leave the rest of us alone.
I Agree.However legally Apple had a case,only legitimate members of the press don’t have to reveal their sources.Eventually in court they still have to.I’m glad here in Europe there isn’t a “sue your ass off” culture.
The fact remains, people leaked information from Apple, after signing a NDA; be it a sole NDA or one as part of an employment contract. You break your contract, face the consequences of your actions.
That still does not answer the question of this whole mess. What protections does the first amendment provide to people posting on the web ? Apparently apple wants to challenge that.
Apple need to bring home the cash for the shareholders – and they need to protect their revenue streams, the fact remains, when people *LEAK* the information
Same goes for MS and all other corporations. The question is does the *profitability* of these companies override your rights to free speech. Looks like we are going to find out thanks to Apple Inc.
As for Apple and iTunes – I said it once and I’ll say it again – nothing stops Real or Microsoft from creating their own media player and linking it with their own music service.
No but something does stop them from making those media players compatible with the most popular mp3 player on the market – apple revising firmware to specifically target them should they try. When MS did this years ago people screamed murder, when apple does it I guess they are just *protecting their revenue stream* and its no cause for concern.
Real is losing because their player, media, service, everything about it is crap.
Maybe you haven’t been following the news – Real is almost profitable right now thanks to their music sales.
Sorry, start demanding registration simply to download and run Real Player – sorry honey – no sale.
Yeah how dare they ask for an email address when giving away free software. They only need to *protect their revenue streams and bring in money for the shareholders* right ?
I’m thinking if you will not enter an email address you had no intention of purchasing the software anyway considering they’ll need more than that to charge you.
People like you want something for nothing and thats a fact.
I don’t want my email address and details harvested and sold off to the highest bidder under the guise of a “partnership programme”.
Then do not run the software – done deal.
Althought as someone who did provide my email address to Real Networks I have to say I’ve never recieved spam or solicitation from a Real Partner. Honestly I expected it too.
nop, read before posting. This is NOT a freedom of speech cause. This has nothing to do with constitutional rights or what have you. This is a simple civil case involving the publishing of trade secrets. The fact that the involved websites actively solicit trade secret information makes them look less than innocent. The biggest misconception here is to think that the web is an special media that deserves a different set of rules for journalism. It doesnt. The barrier of entry is lower since anyone can publish on the internet, but the legal consequences of such act still apply as in the offline world.
Apple has never respected the customer. This makes them the same as Microsoft.
Just as Microsoft is never shy about f-ing over their friends, neither is Apple.
In many ways, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are the same person. Just Bill knows business far better than Steve.
“The fact remains, people leaked information from Apple, after signing a NDA; be it a sole NDA or one as part of an employment contract. You break your contract, face the consequences of your actions.”
That still does not answer the question of this whole mess. What protections does the first amendment provide to people posting on the web ? Apparently apple wants to challenge that.
People can say what ever they want on the internet. I can say that GWB screws fish – what I don’t have a right to is to use confidential information.
If I said that Apples next computer would be made out of glass – but it was pure speculation, there would be no issues. If I said that the next computer would be made out of glass, but I received confidential information from with in Apple, then it would be a different situation.
Its like name suppression in a court case, then turning around claiming that you have a right to disclose the name under the rant of “freedom of speech”. Yes, there is freedom of speech, but there is also responsibility that goes with that right.
“Apple need to bring home the cash for the shareholders – and they need to protect their revenue streams, the fact remains, when people *LEAK* the information”
Same goes for MS and all other corporations. The question is does the *profitability* of these companies override your rights to free speech. Looks like we are going to find out thanks to Apple Inc.
No. You can say what ever you want, speculate however you like about the future direction of these companies – just don’t reference insider, confidential information.
I’ve speculated on my website many times about the future direction of Apple and SUN; some times I have right on the dot, and yet, I have not been targeted, why? because I didn’t use confidential information as part of my hypothesis, I based by ideas on existing, publically disclosed information.
“As for Apple and iTunes – I said it once and I’ll say it again – nothing stops Real or Microsoft from creating their own media player and linking it with their own music service.”
No but something does stop them from making those media players compatible with the most popular mp3 player on the market – apple revising firmware to specifically target them should they try. When MS did this years ago people screamed murder, when apple does it I guess they are just *protecting their revenue stream* and its no cause for concern.
Why should they make their player compatible with the other music providers? they’re a business, not a chariety. As I said, nothing stops Microsoft or Real from producing their own player that works exclusively with their own music service.
“Real is losing because their player, media, service, everything about it is crap.”
Maybe you haven’t been following the news – Real is almost profitable right now thanks to their music sales.
Please, Real Networks have been ‘almost profitable” for the last 10 years. Are we going to hear for another 10 years, “oh, we’re almost profitable”?
“Sorry, start demanding registration simply to download and run Real Player – sorry honey – no sale.
Yeah how dare they ask for an email address when giving away free software. They only need to *protect their revenue streams and bring in money for the shareholders* right ?”
I’m thinking if you will not enter an email address you had no intention of purchasing the software anyway considering they’ll need more than that to charge you.
Why do they need my email address? I’m download the free player. The WHOLE POINT OF ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO USE THE FREE PLAYER IS TO GET THEM TO PURCHASE THEIR SERVICES AND MEDIA! read and repeat. If I want to purchase services off them at a later date, I will setup an account, until such time, may I suggest that Real shove their spyware somewhere else, and allow me to use their player in an unobtrusive fashion.
I use iTunes because it is the opposite of Real. Where Real bombards me with advertisements about “services”, iTunes only ever asked me once whether I would like to go to the iTunes store, right at the intial setup. Thats it.
Tell me about the service, then leave me alone until such time I want that particular service.
People like you want something for nothing and thats a fact.
I don’t want my email address and details harvested and sold off to the highest bidder under the guise of a “partnership programme”.
Then do not run the software – done deal.
Althought as someone who did provide my email address to Real Networks I have to say I’ve never recieved spam or solicitation from a Real Partner. Honestly I expected it too.
Hence the reason I don’t run it, along with millions of others. Now that Real can’t ram their software down users throats via Real being a standard part of IE (like back in the early days), they’re trying to use the EU to ram their player down users throats.
Quicktime on the other hand seems to be doing a bloody good job – they have no special arrangement with Microsoft, and yet, people go out of their way to volunteerily to download and install Quicktime, along with iTunes.
Maybe there is something in that, the fact that Apple produces a better product, word of mouth spreads the good news, and users down load it. Oh, and relating to Real, talk to any user – those who have installed Real instantly uninstall it because of its 100s of icons it throws all over the desktop – little wonder they’re losing market share to Windows Media Player.
…that’s why Apple won’t be the new microsoft. That’s all. It explains why Apple has to really protect its projets.
“No, but if you could only get tires for your Chevy from Chevrolet, than woulnd’t be too good, would it?”
Ever heard of the Ferrari Enzo?
“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.”
Blaming the victum for other people’s actions usually is.
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 question is, why should he “earn” money today for a work he accomplished once 20 years ago?
Do I? I don’t.
Do you? Probbably not.
Then explain me why he should, except for the fact that you seem to like the book. Why is “20 years definitely not enough”..?
Two points. Firstly, if you looked at my IP address, you’d realise I am in the UK.
Secondly, your reasoning is a smoke screen. Apple isn’t accusing anyone of killing their product. Bringing up such a point is just to divert the attention from the real issue.
Someone broke a NDA. The NDA is a contract that binds an entity to secrecy. By breaking the NDA, the said entity has broken a contract and has broken the law, and can be sued.
If you were so hung up on freedom of speech in the first place, you could always refuse to sign any NDAs. That way, you can blog/write/talk about anything you wanted. IMHO, like I’ve posted above, this case is important since it will set the precedent for similar cases from here on. Does pleading the 1st amendment allow journalists ot shield people who are actively and wilfully breaking a contract?
Spare me…this is crazy
Microsoft’s last SECURITY patch disabled Google search in favor of MSN search. Users had no option: they needed the security patch, so MS abused that to their gain.
There is only one convicted monopolist in this industry with no morals or scrupples…and that is Microsoft.
yes.
I almost feel sorry for Apple. I mean after all they have and have had some of the most brilliant software/hardware developers and engineers around. They also have led the way in so many inovations-so many of the things which make computers today what they are were first pursued by Apple and Apple people like Steven Jobs, ie. Next. Apple has always had this wow-factor associated with their work-they knew and know how to capture that ‘je ne sais quoi’ that just leaves people ooohing and ahhhing. I will never forget my first encounter in Sept. 82 with the Lisa- foreshadowing all of what the Macintosh in all of its iterations would become.
But all of this inspirational and creative talent that one automatically associates with Apple is wrapped up in a ultra paranoid, defensive mentality which is also synonymous with Apple. Maybe we should blame the people who made the Franklin computers for this. After all they blatanly copied the Apple roms for their apple clone computers way, way back when- in fact aside from the copyright notice on the boot splash screen their, probably something on the order of 600 bytes, the Franklin roms were identical to apples. At any rate this was the beginning of Apples history as the ‘litigous bastards’.
And this was also the beginning of Apples, or I should say it is roughly at the same time that, need to utterly and absoultely clamp down on all third-party hardware and software products for their platform. In essence Apple became control freaks-paranoid and defensive. What with the rampant idea theft of the late 70’s and early 80’s which gave way to the rise of the current nightmarish IP-regime it is hardly surprising that Apple became as paranoid and defensive as the are. Their reaction was understandable-but that one can understand why they are this way does not by any stretch make it right.
What is so trully saddening is that the creative talent which Apple has so constantly tapped into and fostered is so radically contradicted by the vindictive paranoid super-secretive, super-exclusive mentality that permeates Apple. Sure with Mac OS X Apple has opened up a little- relative to how defensive they are regarding all things IP, it was a bold big step forward-but where Apple was 100 % closed they may now only be 90% closed-hmmm big diffference….
If Apple had ever been able to really be selfconfident and really believe in the superiority of their own products they would not need to be so ultra-defensive and ultra-paranoid-if they could have shed this aspect, which unfortunately is *also* synonmyous with Apple, they could have really revolutionize the entire industry- but alas most of their technological improvements have remained exclusive to their propietary platforms and have failed to directly impact the computing world.
If Steven Jobs had embraced Open Source back when he was doing his work at Next the entire computer industry today would be totally transformed- the advances which Next represented were far, far beyond anything in the computing landscape prior to or following- but this is now history- Mac OS X will never capitalize on what Next was already doing 15 years ago-and no one else, nor anything else will ever. It is trully sad.
I could go on and talk about Rhapsody and what might have become if Apple would have actually had the self-confidence to pull it off- their work could have permantently ended Microsoft’s monopoly ushering a new age of cross-platform applications.But they didn’t do it, they canned that technology, just like NextStep-Sure Mac OS X inherited a lot from NextStep but not that which really set Next apart….
I personally will never give any money to Apple-they don’t treat me with enough trust and repsect to deserve it. If they perhaps one day begin to trully open up and let go of their wounded-ego dilemna I might embrace their products. If their was ever a company which could have and should have succeeded primarily on technical merits- it is Apple. But Apple has been mistreating it’s users and developers and any and or all third-party software/hardware companies for so long that no amount of oohing and ahhing are going to allow me to trust them- quid pro quo.
Poor Apple, they might have made a real difference, but alas they are no more than an also-ran…..
What does that rant have to do with Apple going after someone who broke their NDA?
The day Apple.com
release its missing Quicktime videos for Linux
and allow linux users play the iPod files without the embarrasing need of a Windows Emulator. That day, they’ll will gain at least my respect.
In fact I see a company that is becoming more and more vicious, greedy, nasty and double-faced – all that while keeping their patronizing vogue: “We are so much stylish than you, honey!”
If any of the Linux folks is somewhat involved in Mac Open Source development, I would urge them to stop.
Apple is taking more than it gives back to the community.
Using FOSS as a marketting campaign, to buy themselves more “sympathy points”.
Does MS release the codecs for WMA/WMV on Linux? Thought so. Also, when you talk about Linux, what _architecture_ are you referring to? Does Macromedia release usable plugins on architectures other than x86? If they release for x86, will they be required to support other platforms too? Codecs that are released on x86 run only on two platforms. What about PPC, SPARC, PPC64, Alpha, and the rest?
I find many OSS advocates highly hypocritical. They just care if it works for their platform and nothing else. If they were so concerned about freedom, they’d actually be hounding MS/Apple/Real/ATI/nVidia/Adobe/Macromedia/etc to release specs to their codecs/plugins/apps/drivers so that they will run on all platforms Linux runs on. But no, they’re mostly content as long as their machines run, and to most, Linux only runs on x86. For some reason, Apple seems to be the favorite target. Envious of their success maybe?
As for Apple’s contributions to OSS, look up their contributions to KHTML and GCC. They are a company, they do what’s in their best interest. Same goes for all other companies.
I’m sick of people jumping on the anti-Apple bandwagon because they sued a website to get the names of their sources for their leaked news. The hardware hadn’t been announced yet and anyone can see that blindly throwing it up on a blog is just plain wrong. Maybe if Apple were doing something wrong and someone blew the lid on it, fine. That’s journalism. Leaking and publishing trade secrets is _not_ journalism — it’s just pretty lame. People also moan about iTunes not supporting other MP3 players. So what? APPLE make iTunes and APPLE make the iPod. Of course M$ are going to support as many MP3 players as will take their cursed DRM as they don’t make any players but if they did you can bet that they wouldn’t be too concerned with supporting iTunes music in their player.
The comparison to Microsoft implies that Apple is now employing the same illegal methods Microsoft has been convicted of: like stealing code or using predatory pricing to eliminate competition.
Anyone here suggesting Apple uses predetory priciing?
I won’t buy anything from Apple unless they stop suing everyone around. I wanted to buy a Mac Mini.
so what products do you buy? what do you eat or drive if ethics play a big part in what you buy? do you live in a cave in a mountain? do you eat meat or wear only synthetics?
If you wanted a Mac Mini you couldn’t have wanted it very much if think cause Apple are protecting trade secrets and suing someone who is leaking it its stopped you buying it.
I’ve never read so many supposed intelligent people sprouting so much rubbish. All I can think is too many hidden agendas
But they’re NOT suing everyone around. They’re suing for the NAMES of the people who leaked their trade secrets! They’re not even suing for damages from ThinkSecret — just the names!! Suing ThinkSecret is not suing “everyone”.
“Does MS release the codecs for WMA/WMV on Linux? Thought so.”
Yes.
Only the password protected DRM they don’t, which doesn’t really bother Linux users and it is commonly used for exploits and deliverying trojans to the Windows Operating system.
“Also, when you talk about Linux, what _architecture_ are you referring to? Does Macromedia release usable plugins on architectures other than x86? If they release for x86, will they be required to support other platforms too? Codecs that are released on x86 run only on two platforms. What about PPC, SPARC, PPC64, Alpha, and the rest?”
Macromedia Flash will run on more architectures and operating system then you’ve bothered to research. If you want to further enhance your self-contradicting argument – add MIPS to the list.
“I find many OSS advocates highly hypocritical. They just care if it works for their platform and nothing else. If they were so concerned about freedom, they’d actually be hounding MS/Apple/Real/ATI/nVidia/Adobe/Macromedia/etc to release specs to their codecs/plugins/apps/drivers so that they will run on all platforms Linux runs on. But no, they’re mostly content as long as their machines run, and to most, Linux only runs on x86.”
Don’t assume everyone thinks like you.
There should be freedom of platform-choice associated with a codec.
Freedom of choice is the word.
I love companies like Opera like goes out of their way to support different platforms and architectures. Flash, Real, DivX, nVidia are the same.
I can personally live without Quicktime player or plugins.
I can’t care less about iPods – I am not into such accessories.
It is in the interest of others, that I protest.
When software houses desist from the Apple platform (Corel and NetObjects to mention two, let alone many games) – I’ve shouted foul all the same.
“As for Apple’s contributions to OSS, look up their contributions to KHTML and GCC. They are a company, they do what’s in their best interest. Same goes for all other companies.”
It is indeed for Apple’s own interest to see these two open and public free utilities enhanced.
They are serving themselves. But by GPL (and thank God for that) they can’t make it their own, and hence have to declare any improvements (most likely PPC biased anway)
“For some reason, Apple seems to be the favorite target. Envious of their success maybe?”
I don’t need to identify myself to any brand or operating system.
I can easily jump and try new platforms (and have been doing since)
But I would definitely avoid one that would make me so selfishly small-minded and embarrasingly camp.
Stick to your ethics.
I was the same, because I like developing for cross-browsers and cross-platforms I was going to get a mac-mini for the sole purpose of testing websites under Safari and IE for Mac.
I have already two machines don’t really need a third.
It is a culmination of Apple’s attitudes that made me think – no; why should a company like that have my money? I am better off testing websites on emulators.
Funny isn’t it?
I am prepared to go out of my way so that even Apple users have a decent web-surfing experience.
But Apple can’t care about anyone else – sometimes even its own customers.
So… Macromedia releases a plugin that runs on PPC Linux? I’ve been trying to get that working for a while now, and the only option is to use the GPL libflash, which doesn’t work with many sites and often crashes.
nVidia supports PPC, SPARC or MIPS? I seem to have missed that announcement. WMV/WMA codecs are available for Linux on architectures other than x86 and are open sourced? I missed that too.
Freedom of choice is the word. Sadly, like most Linux advocates, your view seems only limited to x86. I run Debian on my Powerbook. Been running Ubuntu since September on it, but moved to Debian for various reasons. Unlike what you may be led to believe, Open Sourced software will only get you so far. that’s because Linux is growing more and more dependent on binary only releases. Once we get everything open sourced, only then will we have freedom of platforms. Till then, if you choose to use Linux, you’re ‘locked in’ to x86.
It seems Thievery, breaking contracts, spying and stealing is all OK now
well if its against Apple it is, and if they try and do anything about it, its unethical! LOL
“Apple were not the first with the iPod.”
No, it was Creative. I know cos I had one. It was big and chunky, but boy, the sound quality rocked ass. They based it on EMU’s high end hard-disk samplers.
Apple were the first to do a consumer-friendly HD mp3 player about a year and half later.
As an aside, I thought this was an amusing comment from The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1417476,00.h…
“Jump into a time machine, whizz back to 1979, ask the average TV viewer what irritates them the most, and the chances are they’ll answer “repeats”.
“There’s too many of ’em”, they’ll sigh. Then they’ll ask you where you bought your trainers, which probably look like futuristic space clogs to their eyes. At which point you could whip out your iPod and really give them something to think about.”
My views are only limited to my own experiences.
If you say there isn’t proper support for the PPC when there is a demand, you will have me on your side canvassing for the same. Noone should be excluded. That is unfair.
Again I dont even have iPods (nor desire one) just think its unfair giving it to Windows but not Linux.
The MIPS I’ve added to further illustrate that it is impossible to cater for all architectures. But that shouldn’t be an excuse of Apple for not porting.
Ideally Open Sourcing of Quicktime codecs would allow for true cross-platform / cross-architecture compatibility.
What I’d like to see is Apple releasing their iPod and QT for other platforms and architectures, at least where there is demand – that is fair.
They can’t release only for Windows and not Linux and they claiming to be Open Source Advocates.
Prior to me finding out Apple had a double-policy I was pretty much sympathetic towards your platform, even recommending it to Window users instead of Linux when appropriate.
Remember Linux is an operating system that will run on most architecture. It is the companies that mostly add restriction with codecs only porting x86.
I like playing with different OS’es, but different architectures is not as practical. PPC implies me getting a Mac. Sparcs are too expensive.
If only Apple showed more friendly commitment, it wouldn’t get criticized or attacked. Most Linux users aren’t overly protective of their OS, and many would recommend others – if it will genuinely help them with their jobs better be it FreeBSD for security / Apple for Multimedia.
But doing deals with Microsoft, while denying Linux users ports – and hence build a self-serving comparison table:
http://www.apple.com/education/hed/compsci/windows/guide.html
That will only attract more antagonism.
I’ve been pretty respecting of *nix OSes: Solaris, *BSD, QNX .. but Apple has being playing foul recently.
At $0.99 a song (with 2/3 going to the RIAA), it’s nearly impossible to cover the cost of the infrastructure to sell the songs. Thus, it makes perfect sense for Apple to tie its iPod to the site. Apple’s profit is with the iPod, not the iTunes store. That’s why no one else has been able to get a foothold selling songs online yet. And that’s probably also why would-be competitors will support RIAA’s push to up the price of selling those songs, and Apple’s against it. When RIAA is successful in increasing the cost, the competitors will add on just a bit extra that will make their subscription model, or by song model, viable. That will open the door for third parties to join the game. That will also increase Apple’s profits for iTunes, but weaken its current virtual music player monopoly, and give those third party MP3 players a new chance.
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.
Unfortunately, I can only wholeheartedly agree. Microsoft sees the need for activity and people doing things around their products. Apple are very stupid and dim-witted about such things. Microsoft might appear to be disappointed if someone leaks details of Longhorn for example, but secretly they’re not bothered about such things. People enjoy reporting that stuff, and Microsoft benefits by the excitement it generates. You don’t see Apple employees blogging, or developing software externally out of Microsoft to generate publicity and excitement for what Apple are doing. Developers, developers, developers, developers! It flies way over the heads every time.
Yep. Apple sell some nice stuff, but they are a terribly stupid company. I have a feeling it will be their downfall again.
“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.”
Finally someone sees the fact. iTunes was designed to help Apple sell more iPods. Steve Jobs have told many times, iTMS is not profitable.
By the way, Apple is different than Microsoft. Apple does not alter standards to make them only usable on Windows computer (Java, HTML, righ managment, etc.). Linux and Mac opensource browsers always have the same problems rendering some pages that are only possible using Explorer, and sometimes Opera.
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.
IBM never cared about the PC market. They created because they could. They sold the business these days.
After IBM created the PC, especially the XT, they realized they have made many mistakes in design. They tried to make a better design on the PS series, but the market was saturated by cheaper computers, so they did not do well.
I believed we could have better PCs today if the PS series were the base platform and not the XT.
Mac had clones but they were not doing what they were expected to do. Instead of getting a bigger Macintosh audience (coverting PC users to Mac) they started to rip Apple users into theire cheap systems. They only show ads on Mac magazines. They did not invest at all in publicity outside Mac publications at all. That was basically the problem, and that’s why Apple pulled the plug from them.
Microsoft might appear to be disappointed if someone leaks details of Longhorn for example, but secretly they’re not bothered about such things.
Actually, they’ve been accused of encouraging such coverage instead, previewing and promising upgraded versions of Office and Windows in order to freeze customers and discourage experimentation with other products.
I don’t think a lot of you remeber the times when Apple DID NOT protect their trade secrets, IP, or new product information.
I remember watching a MaWord where Gil Amelio was introducing new products but everyone already knew exactly everything that was being introduced at the keynote before it had even begun. There was no guessing this or that or rumor mongering. It was already know what was introduced.
I don’t know if any of you noticed but Apple is in a tough business. They have outlasted hundreds of PC manufacturers big and small. One of their assets to competing in this market is industrial design. Imagine if Intel discovered that Apple was going to make a Mini a year from now? Just recently at IDF they showed off a Mini knockoff. It was sad in that it was a peice of plastic but it was easily a Mini knockoff. As a shareholder of Apple stock what are you going to do if the company that you own does not protect themselves?
I feel bad for the bloggers and the websites but I have signed many NDAs and the language is pretty clear. You would have to be illiterate or an idiot not to understand what it says.
People should read some of the books on the history of apple, especially where they also compare to microsoft, in these books at least, Gates comes of as quite a nice guy, but Jobs is a complete bast**d (although so does Steve Ballmer but I presume Gates has some control over him)
Here in the US, the SEC is very aware of stock manipulations and insider trading.
After the leaks, and the leaks were bounced around to the more ‘legitimate’ news sites,Apple’s stock went up (prior to the official product announcements).
That is a real concern to any public corporation, more so I think, than some of the comments above saying it was all about stealing Jobs keynote thunder.
Stock price manipulation is illegal.
>>Why do M$ people complain about APPLE itunes only works on APPLE ipods… well duh…
because they like the iTunes product. It’s a cleaner, less cluttered interface to deal with. MS Media Player doesn’t have the ability to stream from other computers on your network like iTunes can, and by focusing on ALL types of media it makes MS Media Player distracting to work in.
And so people wish they could use other mp3 players with iTunes. The problem with that is though is that Apple used to make their money off hardware, (that’s changed now though due to iTunes). If they give in to other players supporting how long until people want it to play MS DRM music as well? If that happens then they lose their other revenue.
All MSFT has to do is unclutter their media center interface, include streaming and pump money into the mp3 makers that support their product like they did comp. manufacturers and iTunes will be dead over night.
I think Apple KNOWS this and that’s why they made the mac mini – to get iTunes lovers to buy a mac. For that matter maybe Apple should dumb down their computer and OS even more and make it just a multimedia device and web pc. They aren’t going to convert the world to Mac because they use Windows at work and for productivity that’s what they are accustomed to.
But then again, if the Sony Play Station 3 is made to connect to their own music service and Sony walkman mp3 player then that mac idea is crushed especially if it can stream the music to the computers on the network. Or XBox 2 using a console friendly win media player w/mp3 player hookup.
You can label everything in the world a trade secret…then stifle all speech in the world.
Gosh, lets be slightly more clever than that. Journalists report on the latest automobile, the latest computers, breakthroughs in science.
All these things are trades, and the companies involved had people sign NDA’s.
If Apple had its way, there would be no trade journalists…only marketing arms for the companies involved.
The problem here is that this case against thinksecret is in now way unique. Since they are just reporting stories like everyone else…if what they do is illegal, than most all trade journalism is going to be illegal overnight.
NDA’s have a place, and you can sue the NDA breaker…but you should not sue the journalist.
Another thing, many NDA’s are completely bogus and have completely indefensible language in them… but if you aren’t a lawyer, they may be scary and force you into silence.
an example…if a company is breaking the law. You sure as heck can report that, even if its a trade secret. Obvious? Oh no…its not obvious at all to someone with no lawyer and no power, and isn’t sure what to do.
life is complex, but I sure hope the judge see’s why Apple is merely a sick bully.
At $0.99 a song (with 2/3 going to the RIAA), it’s nearly impossible to cover the cost of the infrastructure to sell the songs. Thus, it makes perfect sense for Apple to tie its iPod to the site.
I think you’re very wrong. Looking at it from the perspective of a wholesaler (RIAA)/resaler (Apple) point of view, to be able to mark your product up an additional %50 is amazing. Considering that most of the costs are for server/bandwidth once they have the system in place, I’d say making 33 cents on transferring a 5 meg file is a pretty sweet deal.
I won’t argue with the second half of your comment, though.
“I think you’re very wrong. Looking at it from the perspective of a wholesaler (RIAA)/resaler (Apple) point of view, to be able to mark your product up an additional %50 is amazing. Considering that most of the costs are for server/bandwidth once they have the system in place, I’d say making 33 cents on transferring a 5 meg file is a pretty sweet deal.”
Apple also has to pay the cost for the credit card transaction for each song purchased, as well as the license they pay to Amazon for “one-click” downloads. There are probably other costs involved as well. I have no doubt that Apple is making a much better profit per song than they were a year ago as the volume has increased, but I seriously doubt it is anywhere close to 30%.
But threatening first ammendment rights isn’t. I wonder if it really is true like this article says that Apple is saying those bloggers do not have first ammendment rights about revealing their sources.
They aren’t defaming Apple, they are simply revealing products.
Anyway, Apple being a typical scummy company isn’t news to me. But at least they ship a good product.
Quote: “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.”
I do. 20 years is plenty of time to make money. If you can’t make money on something in the first 20 years, it’s obviously not very good, is it?
I don’t care about the corporate business with their nice shareholders, who do absolutely jack shit for the company but expect increasing profits every single year. I care about the users of the products, who are constantly getting stuffed over by pro business laws. A democracy is there to benefit the majority of the populace, not a very small percentage like businesses.
After 20 years, copyrighted stuff goes public domain. That’s the entire reason the system was designed – to give a specific period for inventors/artists/musicians/writers etc to make a profit, after that it went public domain to benefit everyone. Now copyright serves the business without any thought for the negative impact it has elsewhere. Profit is the motive. Of course, the US wouldn’t like to lose Mickey Mouse would they 😉
Dave
There are probably other costs involved as well. I have no doubt that Apple is making a much better profit per song than they were a year ago as the volume has increased, but I seriously doubt it is anywhere close to 30%.
No, I simply mean that 33% left over to cover costs is excellent. I do, however acknowledge your point.
well despite the rather flaming post (which may not exist by the time you read this) David does have a point, a link saying “got dirt” on your site isn’t soliciting, emailing apple employee’s asking them if they have dirt is, but it’s a question of active vs passive. so unless Think secret IS in the habit of emailing mac workers for scoops (which for all i know they might) they aren’t soliciting.
as for the general gist while apple and microsoft are about equal, at least microsoft doesn’t have nearly the tendency to tell me i’m an un-hip square for not using their products.
“I won’t buy anything from Apple unless they stop suing everyone around. I wanted to buy a Mac Mini.”
Let me guess, you WILL buy products from a convicted monopolist, though. Right?
So what do you do, buy Microsoft products instead?
I’m all for morals and voting with you wallet, but THAT is funny. Apple is not a convicted monopolist.
When will you people get it??
“If the party leaking information to Think Secret [one of the sites being sued] had sent it to, say, the San Jose Mercury News or The New York Times, and had those publications ran the news, Apple wouldn’t be suing them.”
Well guess what, neither The New York Times nor the San Jose Mercury News has a link at the top right hand corner of their website seeking insider information on Apple. If you’d done your homework (knee-jerk journalists such as yourself and Gilmor rarely do) you’d see such a link at ThinkSecret.com.
Why don’t you get your editor over at Forbes to green-light the placement of a similar link fielding insider information on the secret formula for Coca-Cola? You could then turn around and publish said formula prominently for all to see on your home page….. Hmmmmm….. ya think the folks over at Coca-Cola might pursue some sort of legal action? Gee, I wonder.
Innovation IS Apple’s lifeblood, and they have the right to protect it.
Hola Macolas,
Does anyone want to buy a Mac mini? It’s a sweet little machine. It is fully ex-First Amendment compatible! This little white box purrs… oh so happy it is.
You can do anything with Mac. It is power. Amazing. Industrial strength. UNIX. User interface. It is Mac.
Please let me know via this board!
Gracias,
I Love Mac!
actually, I’m not sure you get it.
So called “insider” information is exactly what all those publications publish everyweek.
They are “news” outlets…not “common knowledge” outlets. They publish scoops not things everyone knows already.
I’m not sure you really understand it, but anonymous sources is an every day part of journalism, and so is publishing so called ‘insider’ information…an investigative reports investigates in 2 ways…one way is first hand observation…but that is usually very impractical…no…the much more common way to scoop a story is with the aid of sources willing to talk.
Whether it be advances in science, automobiles, or computers…they are all trades with companies involved who try to protect their secrets. But, there is a balance…a balance with the publics ‘right to know.’
It’s been going on for hundreds of years…
it is perfectly legitimate to solicit insider information…
Apple has made the leap that insider information is exactly the same as trade secrets.
Apple has made that leap, because without making the leap, the suit gets thrown out with prejudice.
But its quite a leap, and not very sensical at all. Again, by their logic, all trade journalism that does anything more than simply reprint press releases, is a violation of trade secrets… well, we’ve had this balance for all these years, that companies like Dell, IBM, even Microsoft have managed to live with, but Apple needs special protection, and if that means dropping a few constitutional protections from the populace, well, they don’t care.
By all means, apple, go after the NDA breakers…but leave trade journalism alone, stop trying to implement a new legal standard by which the government has to decide what a journalist is (something specifically mentioned by the writers of the constitution as being a bad thing)..I mean, the issue here, is the way in which apple has chosen to stop a very minor leak.
there are other ways that don’t stomp over everyone’s rights.
oh I’m on a roll, but you know, it’s a bit frustrating that anyone can agree with Apple…I say that typing on my ibook.
but look a trade secret is, if someone took the methodology that seagate uses to build a new hard drive platter and sold it to Hitachi.
now, we see apple trying to apply that law, to online journalists who are scooping stories about upcoming product releases.
at least get the facts straight…soliciting insider information and dealing in trade secrets are not exactly the same.
There may be enough overlap that the judge is willing to hear the case, before spanking Apple…but only just barely so, if you ask me.
I know, who knows what a judge will decide…one judge would clearly favor the defendant, and then again a Bush appointee might go either way…but I will toss out a quick prediction…apple loses.
David, Why don’t you think the next time you post on OSNews. Tone down the profanity, nobody is impressed by it and no one thinks your tough.
I do agree on the points you mentioned and Eugenia doesn’t waste her time modding posts down.
because without this lock-in strategy, iPod doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Hey smarty pants, iPod was doing fine even before iTunes and Fairplay. You can honestly tell me there was a better player out there at the time it came out? Perhaps it does well because its a better product.
So basically your whole point was not to negate the claim that Think Secret solicits information in violation of legal contracts, but that when it does, the people with information have a choice to either reveal or not reveal what they know.
Quite profound, but I’m certain this would be obvious to most people. If nobody has divulged information, then Apple would not be trying to get the names of informants from these sites, would they?
The fact of the matter is that Think Secret does solicit information that they are well aware might be under NDA, even if having a link and voicemail is only passive solicitation as another poster here mentioned. They also routinely ask for people to send in Tiger specific info at the end of their stories relating to the current developer previews (which absolutely is under NDA right now). Again, this is passive solicitation. Nobody here has any proof if the editors also have regular sources who are actively queried for new “dirt;” and I’m not claiming that they do.
Again, nowhere is this a case of some corporate whistle-blower passing damning information to a news agency to get it out to the public. That is the kind of “anonymous” tipster the 1st amendment should be protecting, not some bozo who just decided to violate a legal agreement concerning a developer preview of an operating system or other device.
Dude, you’ve got some really strange ideas. You do realize that if you solicit someone to help you commit murder, you can be charged in a court of law.
>>….and chevrolet has a monolopy on chevrolets….sheesh<<
It’s not the same thing. All cars burn the same fuel. Not all PCs will run the same software.
For a short time, other hardware makers were selling Mac compatibles, Apple put a stop to that.
So apple does have a monopoly on PCs that run MacOS, and MacOS exclusive apps. That is significant. No HW maker has a monopoly on PCs that run Windows.
Apple also has a monopoly on devices that work with iTunes.
These are not natural monopolies. Apple worked hard to create the incompatibilities.
“It’s not the same thing. All cars burn the same fuel. Not all PCs will run the same software.”
Actually, all PCs run off of some type of electricty. So your analogy is incorrect.
They may use some of the tactics of microsoft, but with 1% marketshare comparing them to microsoft is like comparing the local bar & grill to macdonald’s. It requires an open system to become universally accepted and apple is fighting with all it’s might to stay closed. This isn’t a knock against apple, just merely the facts: it’s the basis of their business plan to stay proprietary. Apple has a steady niche and that’s that.
Apple is more like microsoft in another aspect: public reaction, they both have a huge amount of people who vehemently dispise them. Neither gates nor jobs are likeable personalities, and their natural abrasivness extends to their business practices. Jobs and gates are cut from the same egotistical cloth and their companies reflect their arrogance.
“Jobs and gates are cut from the same egotistical cloth and their companies reflect their arrogance.”
Errr, let’s see. Despite whay you say, both companies are highly successful.
What happened? Someone leaked secret, but not really damaging information to some apple fans who put that info on the net. Not Nice, definitely, breaking the wording of a contract.
Now Apple sues these young guys OUT OF EXISTANCE. Not nice either.
I want to state, that in my opinion Apple is 1000000 times “NOT NICE”er than those poor guys. No one likes a bully, and this is just bullying. I was no customer (an apple was too expensive for me) until today, but with that behaviour of apple I will never become one.
This whole issue strangely illustrates how RIGHT R.M.Stallman seems to be (although I find his views rather extreme and single-sided).
Whatever the case, Apple is looking out for their own best interest, and not in a way that should suprise anyone – IMHO
Apple is already releasing builds of Tiger, talking up a storm about, but supposedly somebody released their “trade secrets”. Bullshit. What secrets? What information did the guy release that everybody didn’t already know? This “leak” can only help their Mac sales. There are still some things they can learn from MS. And all you raving, drooling Mac fanatics can whine and cry about it all you like.
Did you read the article? This has got nothing to do with the leaks of Tiger to the public.
so your saying that apple is… a company? that it exists to make money, has all kinds of competition, and wants to find out which of its employees is breaking the law?
just because they make good products, doesnt mean that they are not a business. if they acted in any other way, it would be worthy of noting. the fact that they didnt means this is a non-issue.
let me re-iterate. if apple DIDNT try and find out who was breaking their NDA, that would be something to get excited about. the fact that they are behaving AS EXPECTED isnt suprising, let alone newsworthy.
anyone here who has read my comments on this site regarding apple knows i hold the company in the greatest respect. i believe they are one of the few people in the industry building usable machines, and have my loyalty more then any other it company in the industry. that being said, apple doesnt have to be a religion. steve jobs isnt jesus, and bill gates isnt satan. they are companies plain and simple, apple may have more ethics then most (buying out companies instead of stealing innovation, consistantly putting out high quality products, etc), but that doesnt mean they dont care about leaks.