Microsoft cites Apple Macs as a defense in Xbox antitrust case

If Apple can prevent another computer maker from selling unauthorized Mac OS X machines, then Microsoft should be able to stop another accessory vendor from selling unauthorized Xbox 360 plugins loaded with video-game cheats.

That's one of the arguments the Redmond company makes in a new motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit filed in November by Datel Design & Development, a maker of attachable memory units and game controllers for the Microsoft console.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
FanboyAttack3242d ago

Good Ol' Microsoft. Why not drag everyone through the mud if things aren't looking good.

lord_of_balrogs3242d ago

Well its legal for Apple to not allow 3rd party mp3 players to sync to itunes. Until Apple gets smacked down I see no reason why MS should. I do agree that what MS is doing is wrong but until some of the other companies have to be pay for their mistakes, MS shouldn't be singled out.

Christopher3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

Datel sells data and nothing else. The comparison to Apple's filing really isn't a good one and it's annoying to see lawyers abuse this type of power knowing full well that there's a 50/50 chance that the judge will accept it out of complete technical ignorance.

The issue is that someone has found a way around Microsoft's security by selling their own save data to others. This is a security issue with Microsoft's method in not adding DRM to save files, not an issue with a person selling their own legitimately owned data.

Furthermore, in order to even use the data, you have to buy a Microsoft owned and created accessory, a memory card for your 360.

Now, I'm not one to support cheating, but at the same time I will never support a legal precedence that could do harm in so many ways with many other technological implementations. I mean, if this was passed as a precedent, imagine what Microsoft could then say to specific data one uses with the Windows OS.

Fix the problem by adding DRM to save files and tying them to a specific HDD like Sony does Microsoft, don't try and set a precedence that will screw over tons of small businesses in the future.

@lord_of_balrogs: Apple only allows mp3 players that adhere to the strict DRM policies in place, which include preventing DRM iTunes media from being used on an unlimited number of devices.

@Bigpappy: It sucks, but it's not illegal. The issue is with Microsoft's inability/lack of desire to properly digitally manage user content. They're not selling anything that's owned by Microsoft and they're not rewriting or tampering with Microsoft's code. All that's happening is that Microsoft has allowed people to freely copy save data and it can be read openly. The funny thing is that save data is flagged for specific machine IDs, so Microsoft already knows who's using save data not tied to their own machine and just need to add an intermediary step to catch this flag and invalidate the save data.

Bigpappy3242d ago

If this is true, I full back M$ to ban them from 360. M$ has the right to maintain standards on their console. If you have good standards people know what to expect from you.

ATi_Elite3242d ago

Yaaawn I'm sleepy all of a sudden.

I still don't see why Apple gets to monopolize OS X but
Windows is running on anything that resembles a computer.

It's wrong for small business to be shut out of offering an Apple Licensed OS X but on more "reasonably priced hardware"

Apple sure as heck don't manufacture all those Nehalem Cpu's in their macs or any of that other hardware. just the lousy design.

Blaze9293242d ago

I can't wait to hear the results of this. I hope Datel wins, MS is just BSing its customers with their outrageous accessory pricing.

"Microsoft writes in its filing that, in the same way, "Xbox 360 purchasers knowingly and voluntarily gave Microsoft the right to prohibit the use of unauthorized accessories," adding that "each Xbox 360 comes packaged with a software license requiring consumers to agree that the Xbox 360 software can be used only with Microsoft authorized accessories.""

Lmao I don't recall ever seeing nor agreeing to any agreement giving Microsoft the right to do this. Nor did I ever agree to it.

"The company argues that Datel's cheat-friendly products diminish the experience for other gamers on the Xbox Live online gaming system -- quoting Datel marketing materials that say its products are "preloaded with hundreds of game-busting cheats.""

That's not even Datel's accessories in question. What about wireless controllers, Hard Drives, Memory Cards, etc. Datel doesn't even have Action Replay on Xbox 360 so wtf is Microsoft talking about?

Man I hope MS looses.

beardpapa3242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

Probably a liability issue. It's easier for a company to manage if their OS sits only on one hardware platform. If Apple customers ever run into an issue, they can run to Apple for support. Apple probably doesn't want to be responsible for issues that hackintosh users may have due to Psystar.

I definitely don't see how they're "monopolizing" OSX when it doesn't even have the market share Windows has. By your statement, Microsoft shouldn't package Internet Explorer with Windows then... they should put in Firefox. And if you follow Psystar, you'd know that they weren't really selling computer hardware - they were selling the software ability to install OSX on anything.

RememberThe3573242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

The bottom line is that it is their platform and if they want to regulate it as such then it should be their right. If people don't like this practice they have other options besides the Xbox.

The stuff that they are citing is all in the user agreement that none of us actually read. We all agreed to it and the fact that you don't remember it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

Millah3242d ago

I chuckle every time someone says that Apple "monopolizes" OSX.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3242d ago
CrippleH3242d ago

MS is quite correct. It would be double standards if you let Apple slip through.

Godmars2903242d ago

There's still the point that these 3rd party hardware makers have been in business for years. MS not only cut them off, but made the product they already sold to unaware consumers useless overnight and w/o warning.

When Apple does something similar they usually go after the company before they even go into production much less to market.

commodore643242d ago (Edited 3242d ago )

@ godmars.

Dude, you are wrong.
Did you read the article?

"purchasers in a "single-brand aftermarket" (in this case the Xbox ecosystem) were made aware in advance that any aftermarket products (in this case the memory units and controllers) would need to come from or be authorized by the same company that offers the primary product (the Xbox 360)."

MS made it clear from the get-go that no 3rd party accessories were to be used by purchasers.
What exactly does MS owe to 3rd party peripheral publishers?

How exactly did MS cut 3rd party peripheral publishers off when they were not allowed in the first place?

Perhaps you should read the fable and moral tale of 'the little red hen'
It seems applicable, in this case.

Godmars2903241d ago

I'm talking about the general consumer, who's shopping IQ is equal to the lowest score divided by the number of people in the world. People aren't going to check a memory cards brand, just the price. And in most cases you're talking about something they bought months if not years ago, with MS offering warnings about it in the sub-text of a user's manual that's hardly been read.

commodore643241d ago (Edited 3241d ago )


So consumers are ignorant and third party hardware makers take advantage of this fact, with their cheap also-ran hardware add-ons.

Yet somehow, MS is branded evil for legally stopping the third party hardware makers?

Something ain't right with this picture.
Can you enlighten me?

Godmars2903241d ago

MS is in the wrong for doing what they're doing well after the fact. Basically for finding a way to get their cattle back long after they left the barn door open.

But you're right on all counts about your other two points.

Seriously, what do you call someone who buys a console up to 6-7 if not more anything but ignorant? And those are hardcore gamers. People who kept buying bad PS2s as well as 360s, the former of which didn't have the excuse of having sunk money on online related content.

And yes, 3rd party accessory makers take advantage of that stupidity. A 1/4GB memory card costs 1/4 of a 360's 60GB HDD price at one point. How do you not create a sucker one way or another in an instant like that? And then again MS now shuts that door well after the fact.

commodore643241d ago (Edited 3241d ago )

"MS is in the wrong for doing what they're doing well after the fact. Basically for finding a way to get their cattle back long after they left the barn door open."


No, dude.
That's EXACTLY where you are wrong.

MS has every right to collect its "cattle" long after they have bolted, because the cattle is still the property of MS and always has been. The cattle was branded as MS property from the outset!

Realistically, your analogy doesn't really fit anyway.
If you want to use a "cattle" analogy then at least use it in proper context, like this:

The "Cattle" that third parties are laying claim to is actually cattle that has been sneaked onto MS property illegally by third party manufacturers, so as to feed and grow fat as a parasite on MS investment.

What's more, this "parasite cattle" is eating the food of the MS "cattle" and causing the MS "Cattle" to be less profitable.

MS is now removing this cattle which had no right to be on its property. Sure, some people were ignorant that their cattle had no business being on MS property, but that is entirely beside the point.

Now you are suggesting that MS should leave the third party "cattle" on its property, simply because it has been there for a while, unnoticed?

Dude, gimme a break!

No one has ever or will ever have a legal 'right' to third party add-ons, on the 360, at ANY time.

Godmars, I would suggest you don't become a lawyer, because you have no case.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3241d ago
Finalfantasykid3242d ago

Apple is way more monopolistic that people realize. Most people just don't notice because of their relatively low market share(for OS).

sukru3242d ago

While I do like aftermarket accessories, in this special case with Datel, I completely support MS. Datel sells these products with the premise of "cheating in games", and "boosting your gamerscore".

While it's good to have cheap 2GB memory cards, it's bad for the whole gaming ecosystem if cheating is common.

And on the other hand, MS has not touched aftermarket HDDs, chargers, controllers, headsets, power adapters, etc. As long as they don't interfere with fair accessories, I'm with MS on this one.

Jihaad_cpt3242d ago

Dear Microsoft fans look up What a monopoly means, if windows wanted they could produce their own computers and and sell their software exclusively on that platform, Apple demanded a standardized platform which creates quality and less compatibility issues. Microsoft only cares about money, Where the hell do you people see a monopoly? Look it up in a dictionary. Monopoly is achieved when there are no substitutes to a product implemented when they create barriers to enterying a market, done through things that are either controlled like legislation or law or natural barriers like cost constraints or technical constraints. To sum this up Apple don't have a monopoly

Christopher3242d ago

Barriers to entering a market...

- OS used by 91% of internet using market; 98% of business market
- Office suite used by 80% of business market
- Substantial company buys out third-party software and resells it as part of OS (firewall, defender, etc.)

The problem is that there are no substitutes due to:
- Any new software product would have to work with all Windows Office products
- Any new OS would have to work with all existing drivers/software

You can't do either of the above without
- Infringing on Microsoft's IP or;
- Reformatting all applications and documents to your new format, which means any new contender in the market would need to do double work just to achieve the desire flexibility of the market.

Godmars2903242d ago

Netscape was the leading web browser of its time until MS bought and privatized several commonly used codes. After that Netscape crashed and burned almost overnight.

Cueil3242d ago

because a great deal of you still use Netscape's browser... Firefox

Godmars2903242d ago

Still took them years to recover. It also helped that MS failed to capitalize on defeating Netscape. Namely improving IE.

If anything it became worse.

fear883242d ago

Is how they go about competing. Instead of offering a better product outright, they decide to misguide consumers into the purchase.

Many people who buy a new computer will stick with the antivirus packed into the computer without adequate knowledge that there exists better alternatives that are absolutely free.

Case in point, McAfee and Norton, buy their respective marketshare and see direct return with every computer bought. However, AVG, ESET, and Comodo all compete with a better product that comes with little to no cost.

RememberThe3573242d ago

If you spent millions of dollars on developing a product you'd want to control it as well.

The fact is that people let MS have a monopoly. All these people complaining yet they all use MS products, not because they have to but because they choose to. If you don't use MS product you'd have nothing to complain about.

MS isn't my favorite company, but consumers made them what they are. If you wanna blame anyone, blame us.

dragonelite3242d ago

So what most of say is that other companies must come with a huge awareness bonus because ms knows how to market stuff.

@5.2 Wasnt netscape a browser you needed to pay for when microsoft bundle internet explorer for free(!!) with windows. What netscape should have done was market their browser instead of complaining about microsoft. Take for example firefox i dont hear them complaining no they market their browser oke it started mostly with mouth to mouth.So yeah if it wasnt for microsoft we would probably still pay for browser ontop of your internet bill.

@5.5 Its not that those product are bad or so those company just fail at marketing or making people aware of there product. You need to spend money to make money. In this case marketing money.

@5.6 your right there are enough free things you can use on your computer. They could use open office instead of microsoft office.
Or use linux instead of windows. Microsoft spend alot of money to get people on board there os. Like offering directX for game devs.

And have you seen those apple commercials seen some on youtube all they do is complain about how microsoft spends so much money on advertisement. Mostly they mac is better then pc(windows).
And Mac users are [email protected] snobs. Had to work with a group only consisting out of mac ask them if they could put docu on dropbox in word format. They just said its your problem go buy a mac if you got problems.

/ranting mode off

This is not a attack on you guys just to get that straight :p
Only the mac user base was a attack.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3242d ago
Show all comments (39)
The story is too old to be commented.