Hacker News Reader

Comment by zepto | Hacker News Reader

That makes no sense at all. I can't imagine you seriously believe that they are deleting people's purchased files as a way to lock them in to a service.

View on HN

I don't understand why you don't feel that this is within the realm of possibility? Ignoring that it's Apple for a moment (because lots of people are very strongly opinionated about the company), if I had an offline file, and then wanted to ensure that my user was going to continue using my service and not take that file somewhere else, I would probably find a way to make that offline file either call home to base, or be only accessible online. It happens for a lot of stuff. Real world example? Adobe moving to the creative cloud.

Because the offline file already belonged to the user.

Adobe doesn't forcibly move a user's files into the cloud and delete the originals.

The fact that you would do this makes sense of why you think Apple would

However, it seems like it would have no effect until a user tried to leave, and make an already unhappy customer even more displeased. How can this be a good business decision?

You need to remember that audio files (and other copyrighted media) isn't like the picture of your cat you painted in Photoshop. If the rights holders to that file request a change - region licenses changing or some such - perhaps that's the reason for the format change.

We're talking about files purchased independently. Rights holders have no more right to request that they are deleted than they do to send police to take books off your bookshelves.

It's not a stretch of the imagination by any means, this and similar accusations/lawsuits have been around spanning the last decade.

It makes it more difficult for the user to leave the service, since they need to continue using Apple Music in order to stream their music, as opposed to simply launching a different music player.

That's like a bank employing pickpockets to steal people's money so that they incur more ATM fees.

Do you seriously think that could be part of Apple's strategy?

I feel this is a straw man argument.

It's not a strawman - it's an analogy. If you don't thing the analogy fits, it should be easy to make a distinction to show that.

Something like this probably doesn't happen without some things being lost in translation between departments however I think it is entirely plausible that this was done on purpose to create a higher dependency on the service. All it takes is a higher up to say "If we have the song on our service assume every mp3 on the users machine is a cache and you are free to delete it."

How could it create a higher dependency if people didn't know they were going to lose their files?

because most people would just resubscribe after they see that their music no longer plays. Most people wouldn't go through the effort or even understand what happened.

We are talking about files they owned before they subscribed. Nobody would just resubscribe.

In any case, you are accusing Apple of using a deliberately deceptive and destructive business practice to retain an insignificant number of users with a massive downside if discovered.

It's both unprecedented and implausible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com