It’s been kind of a rocky month for Apple, the iPhone, and for AT&T as a lot of people have lined up to take shots at them. Who and what for? Rapper Eminem is one of the bigger names, who joins another in misplaced copyright infringement claims, while rumors, hype, and hidden costs plague the minds (and pocketbooks) of others.
Eminem vs. Apple
Alleging that Apple was not authorized to sell Slim Shady songs on iTunes, Eminem’s music publisher, Eight Mile Style and Martin Affiliated, filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit against Apple.
But some say, and this might be your first thought as well, that Eminem’s publisher is going after the wrong company. “Eminem’s publisher is suing the wrong party,” writes TechDirt CEO Mike Masnick. “No one denies that Universal Music Group, who distributes Eminem’s music, gave Apple permission to sell his songs on iTunes. What’s in dispute is if Universal had that right in the first place.”
It sounds like they’re still mad about the rapper’s “Lose Yourself” being used in an iPod commercial, as that’s also named in the suit. But judging from the rest of the complaint, that might be a beef they need to settle with Universal as well.
Apple Inherits YouTube’s Sin
Robert Tur, the quickest to sue YouTube (faster even than Viacom) after his infamous video of the LA riots showed up there, might sue Apple now, too, for creating a technology to convert Flash video to H.264 format for iPhone play.
“Apple created a device that now traffics in bootlegged content,” Tur told CNET News.com. “Steve Jobs is a brilliant man and I’m Apple’s biggest fan. It sickens me to think that he can turn a blind eye to (copyright infringement).”
Ouch. It seems to me an argument could be made regarding interactive services as described in the Communications Decency Act that protects websites, forums, and bloggers (among others) from liability when third-parties act badly, but I’m no lawyer. Depending on who’s arguing, it could be construed as facilitating copyright infringement, but that seems like a longer shot.
iPhone Blasted For Assault of Battery
Gizmodo went the one-name route for the plaintiff, so we’ll keep it that way, as this class action lawsuit against Apple and AT&T probably won’t go anywhere, what with bad lawyer proofreading, and somewhat specious claims that will be an embarrassment later.
A man named Trujillo has filed a “dumbtastically stupid” (Gizmodo’s words) lawsuit bemoaning that the iPhone’s battery cannot be removed and will last about a year maximum. Therefore, iPhone lovers will have to buy a new one twice during their two-year contract with AT&T.
Only problem is, unless Apple’s lying, the battery is guaranteed to retain 80 percent charge after 400 charge and discharge cycles.
Have iPhone, Can’t Afford To Travel
AT&T sidestepped some bad PR by waiving the charges, just to get that out of the way. But a $3,000 international roaming bill had Dave Stolte sweating once he returned from Europe.
Though AT&T offers unlimited international data for BlackBerry users for about $70 per month, iPhone users have to get good at math to understand their billing, multiplying each kilobit by $0.005.
“Two weeks of travel with sporadic AT&T EDGE network usage off and on mixed with wifi when available… $3000.”
Convincing AT&T to let go of a debt: priceless.
Apple’s Yo-Yoing Stock
Just before the iPhone was released, a memo that appeared to be authentically internal (authentic enough to full Apple employees) saying that iPhone would be delayed dropped $4 billion of market cap in a half an hour. When Apple said it wasn’t true, the stock recovered.
Apple suffered its worst one-day point drop ever after AT&T reported lower-than-expected first-weekend iPhone activations (way lower), but recovered all losses after showing investors how much money they made last quarter.
And yesterday, Apple shares plunged by seven percent after TheStreet.com reported Apple would reduce iPhone production by half. Apple denied it as a rumor, and the market corrected.
