We focus on this week’s tit-for-tat bickering between Microsoft, the GPL and Linus [Torvalds]; and Apple and Palm–caught tugging either end of iTunes with neither willing to let go. Can’t we all just get along?
Here’s how the audio file breaks down:
| 0:00:30 | Intro / reader comments |
|---|---|
| 0:16:58 | “Microsoft, GPL, Linus†|
| 0:44:45 | “Apple, iTunes, Palm†|
| 1:18:20 | Meta |
| 1:20:11 | (Total Time) |
Download .mp3 |
Subscribe in iTunes |
Subscribe RSS
The intro / intermission and outro music is a Commodore 64 remix “Turrican 2 – The Final Fight†by Daree Rock.
We genuinely hope that you enjoy the show, and that we’ve managed to bring up original points in our discussion. Do follow up what you picked up on in your comments!
We are always open to your feedback. Please either leave your comments on the site, or send us an email to [email protected].
love the podcast, but there’s something screwy with the way Garage Band encodes mp3s that my Motorolla ROKR cdma phone just doesn’t like, the file always comes up corrupt. I have to import the mp3 into Audacity, then export it as an mp3 again. Any chance you might use Audacity in the future to encode the podcasts?
The MP3s are VBR encoded to keep the file size small, without too much loss in quality, maybe your phone doesn’t support VBR encoded tracks?
I mostly agree with all the things you said, but as an optimist I am sure that open hardware and open software will always be available. I might get more expensive than some ad supported proprietary cloud thingie, but who cares. You cannot put a price tag on freedom.
As I understand it, Microsoft have been forced into sharing their code as they had built their own static functionality out of the open source code, in violation of whatever licence. Effectively, Microsoft were caught out stealing open source code. They had one option. This is not indicative of any change of attitude in the higher echelons of Microsoft… only forced capitulation.
Your discussion prompts a great question of what constitutes monopoly abuse? Palm are still able to use USB on a Mac, just not iTunes if Apple have their way. The argument that iTunes should work with other hardware is the same as questioning the legitimacy of tying an operating system to particular hardware.
Apple have a patent for the look and feel of iTunes. The patent was created to give them a monopoly tethered to their hardware ecosystem, iTunes created to sell iPods, pointless if they are forced to share that technology and the ecosystem created, when others want to profit from the success of another companies intellectual property, simply because they have a monopoly. If Thom believes other hardware has a right to interoperate with a monopoly software product then you must be arguing against any form of monopoly… and where is the incentive to create their own competing software then?
Whether the environment is hardware or software, a monopoly, as pointed out be Thom, is not intrinsically bad. Just because there’s a monopoly, you should not be forced to support others products. If software queries the manufacturer of the hardware device, that is absolutely the right of the software owner and defeating hacks developed to undermine that monopoly is also their right.
Kroc is quite right, Palm has created a hack to give their device extra functionality through misrepresentation, but if Apple are obliged to allow other devices to operate with iTunes, does that suggest a responsibility to support certain standards and share technical information also? Where then is the legal boundary of responsibility? Should Apple be forced to give out technical details of their iPhone build, driver specifications and requirements, so that others can put their own operating systems on there? Should they be forced to say, “Here is information to make your product work with our technology. Now go write your own software… and while you’re at it, write your own music loader for your MP3 device… I think you have no barrier to this.”
Does any company have a right to put their software on a product which is considered to have a monopoly position? Then is the vetting of applications sold on the iPhone app store also an abuse of monopoly position? Can you tell me Thom, where have Apple abused their iTunes monopoly? Just because Apple are trying to protect their monopoly?
Hmm… as Microsoft have written software to operate only within their monopoly operating system environment, within the PC ecosystem of hardware and software, should they be forced to also write their software to work on Apple and Linux? Should Direct X be ported to other operating systems so that games can be easily ported to Mac hardware or at least be forced to release the technical specifications for all their software?
Creating a barrier to global interoperability is the essence of intellectual property and monopolies.
I’ve heard that frequently in the last few weeks, but the reality is that the first iPod came out in (late) 2001, while iTunes was released in January of 2001. It would be hard for iTunes to have been created to sell a product that came out later on.
And, in fact, there was a time when iTunes did work with third-party MP3 players. E.g., I have an old Creative Nomad II kicking around somewhere, it works (or at least worked) with iTunes just fine.
Of course not – and I have yet to encounter anyone suggesting otherwise, except for slippery-slope arguments from people supporting Apple’s position.
Frankly, I think that’s a bit of a red herring. There is a significant difference between Apple refraining from going out of their way to actively break interoperability – and Apple bending over backwards to support interoperability.
Not the same thing, for the same reasons I mentioned above. The comparable situation would be (E.g.) if Microsoft were to deliberately modify their software to prevent it from running under WINE.
Edited 2009-07-28 19:48 UTC
Itunes began to be developed before Apple got its hands on it in, in about 2000, but at some point it was aligned as an interface for the iPod. Not how it started, but what it became, adding the iTunes store too.
Myself, I can’t see anything wrong with developing their software exclusively for their hardware. Anyway, imagine a far better device than an iPod or iPhone came on the market, but wasn’t able to connect to iTunes, but then Apple opened up iTunes to any device, it would seem fair to allow that new device to block iTunes and to operate only with its own software. It’s swings and roundabouts… At the moment there is more competition to compete with Apple and the iTunes store if you are locked out of iTunes.
Patents last so long and technology catches up, nothing stays the same… but if such practices stay the same, everything will be fair in time. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Yes – IIRC, iTunes was based on an app called SoundJam which Apple bought the code/rights to.
They’re certainly within their rights to lock third parties out of iTunes, but it’s the sort of thing that doesn’t particularly encourage me – as a consumer – to purchase their products.
It makes me wonder: if they were to start selling an Apple DSLR or an Apple scanner, would iPhoto suddenly lose the ability work with third-party digicams/scanners?
And, at least on OS X, it also contradicts one of their oft-cited advantages: the availability of one, built-in application that can interface with hardware from multiple vendors – as opposed to the Windows world, where each hardware vendor “rolls their own” (often with piss-poor results).
hahahaha yeah! That’s ironic. “On a Mac it just works.” Unless they don’t want it to.
The information that there’s a DRM chip in the new iPod Headphones is wrong.
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/03/16/manufacturer-confirm.html
http://www.ipodobserver.com/ipo/article/apple_no_drm_in_ipod_shuffl…
The chip is just there for use in a headphone remote control. Nothing to see here. You can use any headphones with an iPod.
That the iTunes Music Store in Europe is divided by country is not Apple’s fault. It’s the music licensing organisations in each European country, that want it that way.
Edited 2009-07-28 20:46 UTC
Yes, it’s a controller chip, and it is fully licensable. It’s not in any way “DRM”.
We will certainly have more computers with different “roles”. However these “roles” are loosely defined. Some games use consoles and some use the pc. To have one unified “entertainment” center seems great, I just don’t know if we will go towards that direction. Distributed computing will allows us to do more with less resources, but not all resources can be distributed. Harddrive space can be done pretty well, some cpu processes can be split, but things like graphic processing for games, movies, etc have to be done on the local box (or at least its usually more practical to do it that way). I just see there being a lot of duplication of roles throughout different computers, rather than distinct roles for each one. There will defitantly be for interfaces for computers, but we might just be tempted to make them all usb, and have one computer with a jumble of peripherals.
You said every other mp3 player is “just crap”. so i want to ask what is wrong with other non-ipod mp3 players quality. My player is sandisk sansa, and it seems to have better quality for cheaper price. I heard TrekStor makes a good mp3 player, and has great support for linux and ogg. Is it really that bad? It seems there are alternatives are out there.
Thoughts?
ADB was used by NeXT in their Next computers (not all, but many.) So the statement about ADB is factually incorrect – it was not just Apple only.
Thom – G in GPL is pronounced with ee like feet, not to rhyme with fate. The way you say it sounds like JPL.
That is just because of his Dutch background I guess.. (G being close to J as you described it).
Yup. I’ve said it before, but for some reason, abbreviations are very difficult (for me, at least) to ‘pronounce’ in English.
Yeah! I know what you mean! It became apparent when in Sweden this is the case – I would be like “Car – see ay ar” and the Swede would write “zea” or something equally wrong. Phonetic alphabets suck.