5 ms·

Isn't it a bit much to say that Apple has sided against the consumer? They certainly didn't do that with publishers when they wouldn't give up subscriber data a

Isn't it a bit much to say that Apple has sided against the consumer? They certainly didn't do that with publishers when they wouldn't give up subscriber data and they didn't show it with their constant battles with the music industry and NBC. Regarding music discovery on iTunes, it has always been the case that if you want good music you're going to have to look for it. Popular music has always been the easiest to find, be it on iTunes or your local record store. My main concern is that iOS forces you to buy music only from iTunes. As for the patent, Apple patents anything. It doesn't mean it'll ever see the light of day. Some other ridiculous Apple patents: Apple patent application reveals ad-supported OS, desktop Armageddon http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/apple-patent-application-reveals-ad-supported-os-armageddon/ http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/apple-patent-application-... Timely Apple Patent Introduces iMac-Like Docking Station http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2008/01/timely-apple-patent-introduces-imac-like-docking-station.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2008/01/timely-a... Apple patent shifts controls to rear of iPod http://www.slashgear.com/apple-patent-shifts-controls-to-rear-of-ipod-105191/ http://www.slashgear.com/apple-patent-shifts-controls-to-rea...

cageface 15y ago
I don't think Apple is actively anti-consumer but it's clear to me where their primary loyalties lie. As for music, there are a half-dozen better curated specialty music stores I patronize that provide a far, far better customer experience than iTunes (check boomkat and hyperion records for example), but perhaps I'm willing to work harder to find new and interesting music than the average buyer. And sure everybody is filing all kinds of spurious patents right now but it's hard to imagine how this one could be used defensively.
- protomyth 15y ago
  Apple's loyalty is to Steve Jobs and his is to his vision. Consumers or publishers are just players in the vision.
- technoslut 15y ago
  Thank you for the recommendations because I never knew of them. I may be a music connoisseur but I don't know all the spots to go which was my point. All I had the time for was checking out GorillavsBear, Stereogum and checking out reviews on Pitchfork and Spin. I really don't know what these patents were intended for. Apple has had a history of using a patent for a completely different scenario than what is described. It may be the tech behind it that was important and not the described use.
billybob 15y ago
Whether they'll do it isn't the point. If a patent is, by its nature, meant to restrict user and citizen freedom, why have it? If your neighbor collects guns, that may be no cause for alarm; hunting is a legitimate activity. But if your neighbor stockpiles napalm, his saying "I wouldn't use it" isn't very reassuring. It has no purpose but to burn you to death. The only charitable reading I can see of this patent is that Apple patented it to keep its evil competitors from using this. But that's highly dubious. If that's what they wanted to do, they could have openly said so and immediately donated the patent to the EFF or someone like that.
- roc 15y ago
  Apple has a lot of legitimate IP business. They have in-house IP counsel. They retain outside IP counsel. It's inevitable that this group and process has grown into a bureaucratic fiefdom that exists to secure patents and trademarks for their own purposes, regardless of their applicability to Apple's business or plans. That they pursued such a patent and retained it is evidence of little more than the existence of a report somewhere that conflates the quantity of patents to the effectiveness of the group. I mean, what's really easier to believe? That a corporate group is following the trajectory of every studied social construct of man [1]. Or that the only consumer-focused computer maker is conspiring to shaft their paying customers in deference to a (comparatively tiny) industry they've long treated with borderline-contempt? [1] becoming focused on its own interests at the expense of those it was created to further
- true_religion 15y ago
  Since we're going the route of analogies. I'm sure that the Canada is not alarmed that the US is stockpiling napalm amongst other things. Whilst, it has no legitimate purpose except to burn people to death---Canada is not the enemy of the USA, and thus feels that it has nothing to fear from its neighbor stockpiling weapons. Weapons are meant to be used against an enemy. If your neighbor isn't the sort to begin wars of conquest, then what do you really have to fear?

cageface 15y ago

I don't think Apple is actively anti-consumer but it's clear to me where their primary loyalties lie. As for music, there are a half-dozen better curated specialty music stores I patronize that provide a far, far better customer experience than iTunes (check boomkat and hyperion records for example), but perhaps I'm willing to work harder to find new and interesting music than the average buyer. And sure everybody is filing all kinds of spurious patents right now but it's hard to imagine how this one could be used defensively.

protomyth 15y ago
Apple's loyalty is to Steve Jobs and his is to his vision. Consumers or publishers are just players in the vision.
technoslut 15y ago
Thank you for the recommendations because I never knew of them. I may be a music connoisseur but I don't know all the spots to go which was my point. All I had the time for was checking out GorillavsBear, Stereogum and checking out reviews on Pitchfork and Spin. I really don't know what these patents were intended for. Apple has had a history of using a patent for a completely different scenario than what is described. It may be the tech behind it that was important and not the described use.

billybob 15y ago

Whether they'll do it isn't the point. If a patent is, by its nature, meant to restrict user and citizen freedom, why have it? If your neighbor collects guns, that may be no cause for alarm; hunting is a legitimate activity. But if your neighbor stockpiles napalm, his saying "I wouldn't use it" isn't very reassuring. It has no purpose but to burn you to death. The only charitable reading I can see of this patent is that Apple patented it to keep its evil competitors from using this. But that's highly dubious. If that's what they wanted to do, they could have openly said so and immediately donated the patent to the EFF or someone like that.

roc 15y ago
Apple has a lot of legitimate IP business. They have in-house IP counsel. They retain outside IP counsel. It's inevitable that this group and process has grown into a bureaucratic fiefdom that exists to secure patents and trademarks for their own purposes, regardless of their applicability to Apple's business or plans. That they pursued such a patent and retained it is evidence of little more than the existence of a report somewhere that conflates the quantity of patents to the effectiveness of the group. I mean, what's really easier to believe? That a corporate group is following the trajectory of every studied social construct of man [1]. Or that the only consumer-focused computer maker is conspiring to shaft their paying customers in deference to a (comparatively tiny) industry they've long treated with borderline-contempt? [1] becoming focused on its own interests at the expense of those it was created to further
true_religion 15y ago
Since we're going the route of analogies. I'm sure that the Canada is not alarmed that the US is stockpiling napalm amongst other things. Whilst, it has no legitimate purpose except to burn people to death---Canada is not the enemy of the USA, and thus feels that it has nothing to fear from its neighbor stockpiling weapons. Weapons are meant to be used against an enemy. If your neighbor isn't the sort to begin wars of conquest, then what do you really have to fear?