Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #authenticationchip more →
Confirmed: Your iPod Shuffle Earbuds Need Proprietary Chip to Function
| posts about #authenticationchip more → |
Confirmed: Your iPod Shuffle Earbuds Need Proprietary Chip to Function |
03/16/09
03/16/09
03/16/09
Perhaps it's losing some of its potency...
03/16/09
Isn't the Display Port on the unibody MacBook and MacBook Pro a creation of Apple which they gave away for free so that it could become a standard? So who says they're charging a fee for the license to use this chip?
03/16/09
03/16/09
03/16/09
03/16/09
lmao
Shuffle this, Apple!
03/16/09
03/16/09
Confirmed: iPod shuffle blows.
03/16/09
03/16/09
03/16/09
03/16/09
03/16/09
03/16/09
03/16/09
03/16/09
Too bad our legislators don't care at all.
03/16/09
Oh wait. You're just an idiot on the internet who will spout any ol' thing that comes to mind. Logic and reason be damned.
03/16/09
My personal feeling is this: there's nothing anti-trusty about what Apple is doing, although I would say they've, rightfully, got a civil suit headed their way if they don't make it clear on the packaging (and possibly advertising materials) that the Shuffle only works with certain headphones.
03/16/09
Apple, however, is not on the best terms with the EU - especially France. In fact, the iPod/iTMS ecosystem has been repeatedly looked at by the EU as being anti-competitive.
The EU takes a harsher stance against potential monopolies than does the US - perhaps to the consumer's benefit. This, however, doesn't really rise to the actual level of an abusive practice. Back in 2005 and 2006, Apple was much more aggressive in making FairPlay incompatible with other players and in locking down the iPod. And that practice put them on the EU's radar with France threatening to take action against Apple unless Apple loosened its restrictions.
Antitrust law, in general, is far from socialist. In order to protect consumers, legal action by the government is sometimes necessary. Corporations are legal fictions whose existence is derived from the law. There is nothing inherently wrong, immoral, or antibusiness in requiring corporations to compete fairly. Antitrust protects innovation.
Right now, this is Apple's run-of-the-mill douchebaggery. It does show a rather nasty anti-consumer tendency on Apple's part though.
03/16/09
Bearing in mind that most of what I said was just an attempt at interpreting another commenter, do you have any specific criticisms?
03/16/09
You know, there are options besides "buy Apple's shit" and "legislators punish Apple for being stupid".
Like, remember that Apple is for morons with too much money, and hop a plane to Dublin for a weekend of getting pissed.
Seriously: just ignore them. Don't write new laws.
03/16/09
03/16/09
I'm really not worried about Apple cornering rich art-snob market through unfair practices; my statement was directed at the stupidity of his statement and the larger need for this sort of legislation.