"When news broke late Sunday that Apple has plans to create the next-
generation music album, some in the record industry were steamed.
The Financial Times reported that Apple was working on a plan code-
named "Cocktail" that involves the creation of "new type of
interactive album material, including photos, lyric sheets and liner
notes that allow users to click through to items that they find most
interesting." That's nearly identical to a plan that executives from
some of the four largest music labels pitched Apple about "
Yet another Apple "innovation" stolen from others
The FT article mentions nothing about Apple attempting to claim credit.
It claims, in fact, Apple and the labels have been working together on
"Apple is working with the four largest record labels to stimulate
digital sales of albums by bundling a new interactive booklet, sleeve
notes and other interactive features with music downloads, in a move it
hopes will change buying trends on its online iTunes store."
It's also a little hard to understand how Apple is supposed to be
usurping credit when they have made no official announcement about this
Much like the recent incoherent comments by Microsoft's COO about the
laptop hunter ads, this looks like an attempt to create drama where none
(Oh, and I love the music industry source who claims that by choosing
not to create an "open" DRM standard -- in order to drive the music
industry toward dropping DRM -- Apple adopted a "walled garden
approach". Does this guy really not understand what Apple was up to?)
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
"Apple is working on a project code-named "Cocktail," a collaboration between the Cupertino company
and record labels, namely EMI, Sony Music, Warner Music and Universal Music Group,
So tommie, what "big music companies" are left to object to Cocktail?
It wouldn't surprise me. Apple has "innovated" ideas from
other companies for years even decades.
Now, as if on cue, we'll hear the childish argument from
the usual suspects that, "But Microsoft did it too!"
I know that your day is very busy, but you might just want to read the
entire article instead of the heavily abridged version TT provided.
Seems as if Apple, instead of 'stealing' this is actually working with
the labels to create it in a collaborative manner.
So yet again you are full of it. 1/2 truths are really just 1/2 lies
also, you know!
One thing that I think that Apple needs to do in the next generation of
iTunes is to add the capability for the user to upload jpegs of scanned album
covers so that they can be added to their library in cases where they have
ripped CDs for which the cover art is not available online. In my collection,
about half of the CDs I've ripped don't have the artwork available (and I
don't buy music from Apple). If I could upload scanned images from my own
CDs, I could complete the artwork collection instead of half the CDs having
blank covers. Strange oversight on Apple's part.
Really? Thanks. Seems to me that I tried that though.....
> In article <0001HW.C6934812...@news.giganews.com>,
OK. Thanks. It just isn't very intuitive about how to do it. Just selecting
the generic album cover and dragging the new cover picture file to it doesn't
work. You have click the right icon (a carat) in the row of icons at the
bottom left-hand side of the iTunes Window and then start playing the
selection thatb you wish to add artwork to. Then drag the artwork to the 'Now
Playing' window that appears when the carat is clicked. Why they did it this
way, I have no idea. But it does work.
If for some reason you can't get it to work, we can try and work it
out. I've done it enough times :)
(Copy the art to the clipboard, select all the songs from an album in
iTunes, hit command-I, click on the square art box then paste the art
No, this is how the "help" file tells you to do it.
> Yet another Apple "innovation" stolen from others
In 1982, Compaq (with help from MicroSoft no doubt) stole the BIOS ROM
from the IBM 5150 PC as the basis of their own "PC Clone" and start the
M$ OS "Empire".
Yes that's right Tommy, your PeeCees BIOS has software that was stolen
Here's the first machine to use the stolen ROM code.
So don't give me that shit about Apple stealing ideas, because it's so
pot, kettle, black.
compaq's implementation of the bios was not stolen, and was not
presented as unique or innovative- it was good ol' fashioned (and
legal) reverse engineering. that compaq portable was pretty sweet
though- first computer i used (my dad would borrow one from work to
work at home). i had me a sweeet lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet to track my
baseball cards and their values. :D
Not entirely true:
"In March 2007, Paul Dixon writes:
As an old Compaq employee, it was interesting to read the sections on
Compaq computers, but I have a couple of comments.
I have frequently read the story of how Compaq supposedly created a 100%
compatible BIOS, but this is not really correct. It is true that Compaq
had programmers who had seen the IBM BIOS listings, and many who had
This was always ascertained in interviews by somewhat cunning means.
Programmers who had read the BIOS were known as dirty and others were
known as clean. Dirty programmers were banned from working on the BIOS,
but could work on the other big project which was BASIC.
Functionality of the IBM BIOS was not determined by looking at IBM code
- this was banned. In fact, functionality was determined by a process
known as "black boxing", which involved treating the BIOS as a black box
and feeding every possible input to it and recoding the output.
For example, the keyboard driver was written by Steve Flannigan who had
written the code for Silent 700 terminals at TI. He produced what
appeared to be a fully compatible set of routines, but was told by
someone that his code was only 50% of the size of IBM's. Compaq never
found out why IBM's code was so much bigger, and no incompatibilities
were ever attributed to this section of the BIOS, but hours were spent
in trying to find additional functionality. "
If he was told his code was half the size, then it wasn't a completely
clean reverse engineering job.
A small point, though, I agree. Essentially, they did a clean reverse
Vancouver, British Columbia
so what are you saying is "not entirely true" about my post?
Yes it is.
> If he was told his code was half the size, then it wasn't a completely
> clean reverse engineering job.
If it passed the test, it was good lawsuit insurance. And if it wasn't a
direct replacement then it would have come to light, because Compaq was
known widely as more IBM compatible than IBM. They took the market with
their 386 models before IBM came out with them and IIRC cheaper prices.
scratch that- you're saying that because they had smaller code, it
wasn't clean reverse engineering? that makes no sense whatsoever.
Because he was *told* his code was smaller means that he was in
communication with someone who knew something of IBM's keyboard driver
code. Hence, the clean room concept was violated.
Engineer: "Here's my code. I think I'm done"
Other party: "Hmmmm.... Your code is much smaller than IBM's code."
If you have a person who's seen the code dropping hints like that, it's
probably not "completely" clean but is probably legally close enough.
i'm not convinced that just knowing the size of the code violates
clean room design in any meaningful sense (i.e. would it hold up in
court?), but that's irrelevant, as neither the article nor i claimed
they used clean room / chinese wall; you can pretty easily have an
examiner of a black box system be the implementor without violating
any copyrights, and it'd be a clean
> Engineer: "Here's my code. I think I'm done"
> Other party: "Hmmmm.... Your code is much smaller than IBM's code."
how would that make the reverse engineering not legal?- the size of
the code isn't protected information.
I find good sources are Amazon and even Wikipedia.
Tommy and Slade pull a MuahMan and don't read past the intro. News at 11.
I see you snipped the next few words, "a music industry source who requested
anonymity." Singular. One person. Wow. And did you think no one in this
group would read it? Just because you didn't doesn't mean that we won't!
Since I found out how to place my own cover artwork, I have found that as
well. Type a title into Google, and then look at the Image results. Pick a
likely suspect and then hit the "go to original" URL. Works great. Sometimes
it's Wikipedia, sometimes it's Amazon and for Soundtracks, I find Silva
Screen Classics a good source of Album cover artwork.