5 ms·
>Updates that deleted non-Apple music files were intended to protect consumers from those system break-ins. How convenient that Apple chose a security solution
by oofabz 12y ago
>Updates that deleted non-Apple music files were intended to protect consumers from those system break-ins.
How convenient that Apple chose a security solution that just happened to give them an unfair advantage over their competition. Quite the happy coincidence there.
- intopieces 12y agoIf their intention was to stifle the competition, it seems logical that they would have prevented the device from accepting music ripped from CDs or music downloaded illegally. Alas, they did not do this, because the success of the ipod was predicated on widespread copyright infringement. Who would pay 350$+ for a music player if they had to pay for all the music too? No, this was a simple case of keeping the record companies happy with the DRM scheme. Remember, when the iPod and other players hit the market, the record companies wanted to sue them for facilitating music theft. Same thing happened with writable CDs. The consumer was not harmed.
- lmm 12y agoThe intention was to stifle the competition in the moneymaking part of the business. IIRC at one point Real were like "name your price" for a license for the DRM technology, and were told it was not for sale.
- jpttsn 12y agoYou're right that that's probably not a genuine reason. Apple likely tried to get an advantage over their competition. However I'd argue it's a fair advantage. Apple are not obliged to make competitors' DRM work with their devices.