Forums | MacLife

Gipetto wrote:

iThinkIam wrote:

Gipetto wrote:

Whoa! Is this what you think the courts are for? If you want company A's product to work with company B's product, even though they're competitive, you sue company A? Wow, punish the people who make a good product with forced extra work in supporting other company's obviously less attractive product? Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anything. A consumer has the duty to look at everything around him and judge for himself what the best product for him is. This guy's case is obviously not an iPod 'cause iPods are tied to iTunes. Why is that so hard to let be? And I'm not staunchly defending Apple, I've got plenty of gripes against them, but I don't like the idea that a consumer can sue a company because the product doesn't do what they want it to, but does everything its advertised to do.

bullsmurf.

I agree with Chahorsikywaziwhozit... you, and everybody who thinks like you, is out on a weird limb with a very odd view of how things should work.

And, that case simply says that the judge sees merit in exploring the case, not that he agrees or disagrees in any way.

Ah, so "according to you and people like you" there is something wrong with me wanting to be able to plug my Sony S3 or an iriver clix 2 into iTunes.

Well sure, if you say so it must be true.  I guess I should just buy an iPod and STFU or be more like "you and people like you."

Or not.

What that means is that we all look at products on the market and say "I wish it could do that" but we have no merit to sue them to get that functionality. Yeah, I'd love my car to be compatible with Ford parts so I could get some of them cheaper, but they're not, so I'm stuck buying more expensive parts. No amount of lawsuits will fix that.

Nice try, and I have not advocated for legal action.

A USB plug-in is not analogous to physical hardware.  Apple could create a generic USB driver that simply would not transfer protected files to 3rd party compliant devices.

iThinkIam wrote:

Gipetto wrote:

iThinkIam wrote:

Ah, so "according to you and people like you" there is something wrong with me wanting to be able to plug my Sony S3 or an iriver clix 2 into iTunes.

Well sure, if you say so it must be true.  I guess I should just buy an iPod and STFU or be more like "you and people like you."

Or not.

What that means is that we all look at products on the market and say "I wish it could do that" but we have no merit to sue them to get that functionality. Yeah, I'd love my car to be compatible with Ford parts so I could get some of them cheaper, but they're not, so I'm stuck buying more expensive parts. No amount of lawsuits will fix that.

Nice try, and I have not advocated for legal action.

A USB plug-in is not analogous to physical hardware.  Apple could create a generic USB driver that simply would not transfer protected files to 3rd party compliant devices.

Then try not to use legal action like the one quoted to try and further your point.

Could, yes, but we all know why not.

Or that it breaks the iPod monopoly with iTunes.  Yes, I do know why they do it.

Point, set, match.

...and quit misusing the word "monopoly," it doesn't make any sense.  What are they "monopolizing?"  The MP3 player market?  The MP3-management software market? 

Certainly not.

iThinkIam wrote:

Or that it breaks the iPod monopoly with iTunes.  Yes, I do know why they do it.

Point, set, match.

Go back to school.  It's no more of a monopoly than not being able to use Ford parts or computer diagnostics on a Volkswagen.

Point, set, match my ass.  Merely repeating the same stupid nonsense over and over doesn't make it any more true than the first time you said it.

So why hasn't someone filled this obviously gaping hole that has caused so much monopoly induced uproar?

I would think that if there was that much demand to sync PlayerX with iTunes that a plugin, or even a stand alone sync application, could be written fairly easily by an experienced programmer, especially one who works for PlayerX.

That still does nothing about Fairplay, but, then, I don't expect them to do anything about that.

Last edited by Gipetto (2007-12-04 10:58 am)

FairPlay will die when the AAs let it die and not one millisecond before.

Gipetto wrote:

So why hasn't someone filled this obviously gaping hole that has caused so much monopoly induced uproar?

I would think that if there was that much demand to sync PlayerX with iTunes that a plugin, or even a stand alone sync application, could be written fairly easily by an experienced programmer, especially one who works for PlayerX.

It depends, did apple provide an API to make plugging in accessible to a developer?

sure you could probably hack the application but that might not be a practical solution to send to a customer.

Standalone application might be a possibility.

I don't like iTunes enough to ever see myself trying to plug anything into it so i haven't looked at the possibility but I know from writing plugins for other software that unless they specifically produce a way to plug in to the software then its a real toss up on if you can get a reliable solution going.

iThinkIam wrote:

Or that it breaks the iPod monopoly with iTunes.  Yes, I do know why they do it.

Point, set, match.

And it surprises you that a for-profit-corporation legally acts in their own best interest?  I'll give you the point-set-match on that observation, Adam Smith, (excepting of course the misuse of the term "monopoly" again.)