Hacker News Reader

> If I remember correctly, music on the iTunes store works similarly.

Interesting, because it definitely doesn't work that way for apps. And I checked with one of the free singles iTunes gives weekly, it does indeed warn me that I'm re-buying the stuff (but detects that I've bought it in the past), it doesn't seem to just launch a re-download.

Cements my decision to never buy any music on iTunes.

Yep, apps are different. Apps also have update downloads.

As far as buying music online, caveat emptor. Even Amazon works similarly as far as MP3 downloads go. From http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_m...

"Downloads are only available for a short time after purchase. If you saved the .amz file to your computer, you should "Open" it using the Downloader application immediately after saving it. If you wait to complete your download, it may expire and no longer be available."

> Yep, apps are different. Apps also have update downloads.

Well it's not like anybody's going to update your music files after downloads (though I could see that with books if there is a second edition fixing typos and whatnot)

But what happens when kids find that their favourite band embedded the 'Easter egg' that one of their songs played backwards tells them to worship the devil? How will the recording industry recall/patch those music files?

Very funny. This is one of the many fantastic features of DRM.

Easter egg telling you to worship the devil... Delicious irony

That's funny, the last time I bought anything on iTunes was several years ago, and I had the opposite problem. I had bought some episodes of Law and Order, and once I was done watching them I deleted them. Every time I started up iTunes it kept automatically trying to redownload the files I had deletes, which was ~1GB of data.

Maybe it was different for music, though...

But why? What's the difference to them between redownloading it on your new phone and syncing with your computer to get your books? The bandwidth costs?

And it works fine for apps. I can buy an app over the air, delete it, and redownload it for free, all without my computer ever being involved.

I look at Steam as what iTunes should be. With Steam allowing me to download my games, I doubt Apple is suffering because of download costs. I'm pretty sure it's a holdover from their DRM-laden days.

There's an FAQ somewhere on Apple's site which I ran across awhile back that said something to that effect. The deal to require customers to re-buy lost files was part of how they got all the labels to allow the store to even exist in the first place back in the day. Given that music no longer has DRM, this one remaining concession is probably going to be even harder to get dropped because it's one of the only "protections" that the music store offers to the labels now.

You are probably right about this being a concession to the music labels, but that's just music. Not everything in the iTunes store has to work that way. For instance, apps that you buy can be re-downloaded at no charge.

When it comes to apps, Apple is the publisher. They make all the rules and can do as they like.

For music and books Apple has to negotiate contracts with publishers who likely demand certain conditions in return for their content being made available on the various iTunes stores.

Considering Apple's consumer-friendly position on the repeated downloading of apps, it seems reasonable to guess that forcing consumers to pay to redownload books, music and videos is a requirement imposed on them by the content publishers.

I've long suggested that iTunes isn't a media manager as much as it is DRM Software.

Absolutely. Steam's model is great, and the ability to install a fresh new computer, whack on steam and have my whole game library available is a huge incentive for me to keep buying games this way. When I could recently install Steam on my Mac as well, and find games I already owned available cross-platform, well, it's icing on the cake.

Charging for re-downloads is just greedy, and smacks of the bad old Norton Antivirus days. The first time they pulled that on me, I decided I'd never buy one of their products again, and I didn't.

I think they are trying to make it hard for 100 people to share one iTunes account and "redownload" the purchased content onto their respective iPods.

except they have limitations on the amount of devices which can be authorized. And this is the rip mix burn company who didn't care in the past. Why would they care now, most users will just make a cd out of the music anyway to pass it to friends.

Contracts with publishers.

Is that even possible? I don't use iTunes, but I thought there was some limit on the number of devices you have registered at a time.

This is not going to work in the era of the iPad-only home. While I understand the technical reasons and humble beginnings of the iTunes store, let's face it, there are a lot of people who don't even own computers now because their iPhone and/or iPad suffices.

Really? Can you cite a source for this rather absurd claim?

Which absurd claim?

EDIT: I can't reply to the thread below so I'm putting my reply here. I have activated a half dozen iPhones on my Mac for friends that don't own computers. While it may not be the smartest thing (no backups), it is certainly doable and both the iPad and the iPhone are still very much useful without a computer.

The only unbiased, quantifiable data I can come up with is a simple Google search:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22iphone+without+computer%22

It appears that there is quite a bit of interest in using the iPhone without a computer based on the resulting articles and forum posts.

I think (I'm only guessing) he means this "[L]et's face it, there are a lot of people who don't even own computers now because their iPhone and/or iPad suffices."

To the best of my knowledge you need a computer with iTunes installed to start an iPad at all. A home without any other computer means that your iPad is a flashy paperweight. Also, it's really far too early to tell if the iPad (which is being sold in huge numbers) will replace other things or (as I think Apple hopes) supplement other devices.

Edit: Please notice I say "iPad" above. You respond by talking about the iPhone. They're not the same in this regard, I think. The iPad requires a computer with iTunes to start it initially.

All of that said, I agree that their current model really should change. (Also, the pop-up message in the blog is stunningly obnoxious in wording. It's approaching the "bomb + ok" level of bad.)

I thought you could activate an iPad with a 3G plan at an Apple store, and then you wouldn't need a computer from there on out? Or am I wrong here?

You may be right. I haven't heard that the 3G model was different, but I can't say for sure that it isn't.

That was exactly what I was getting at. It's also not a matter of "is it technically possible" but (s)he claims that it's a popular choice. I don't buy it, but would love to be proven wrong.

The absurd claim about the "iPad only home", given that the iPad requires a computer to activate and manage.

Apple has gone out of its way to make sure the iPad is treated as an additional device, not a sole device for a user. This is important because it allows (or at least helps to allow) the iPad to be judged on its own merit for its own uses, not as if it were the general-purpose computer that some (critically: not Apple) like to claim that it is, much to the iPad's detriment.

I've got a couple of non-techie friends who have pretty much stopped using their computers in favor of their iPhones. They'd cut the computer out entirely if they could.

You have to own a computer in order to use an iPhone or iPad so I really don't see your point. Owning a computer is a requirement to use both devices.

Is it? Couldn't I just use someone else's to get it all setup/registered? As far as I know there are no restrictions on the number of devices you can sync to a single computer.

You have to have access a computer to first turn on an iPad, but my grandmother has gone just fine so far using an iPad with no accompanying computer.

If you don't sync photos/music and use the iPad for watching Netflix, email, and web surfing, there's absolutely no reason to connect the iPad to a computer except for every few months when Apple pushes out an OS update.

Owning a computer is a requirement to use both devices.

It's a rather silly requirement on first boot.

I wonder if the requirement is there only because they want to make the user aware of the iTunes sync feature. At this point in the iDevice life cycle, the PC is an accessory to the device, and not the other way around. It's just a nice-to-have.

I borrowed a friend's computer to provision my iPod Touch. (I don't have Windows or Mac OS X, so I can't run iTunes.)

I can't sync music/movies/photos to the built-in apps (this wouldn't even be an issue for someone with no computer), but I can use the web browser and third-party apps just fine.