Slashdot Mirror
Apple Not Too Harmonious with Real
An anonymous reader writes "As if in answer to the question previously asked on Slashdot, CNN Money is reporting that Apple isn't all that happy that Real pried open the door to the iPod for its RealMedia files. "We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod." It should be interesting to see how this pans out in court, and if the DeCSS case serves as some sort of precedent."
This is just blatant disrespect of all sorts... Real already tried to setup an "alliance" with Apple once and was denied, and now it just goes around it in it's own world and bypasses Apple. Not cool.
Jobs needs to lay some smack down on these people or something.
With the constant Apple lovefests, the hatred of the DMCA and DRM, the dislike of Real Player, and the love of hacking.
First, the full Apple statement, since it's not referenced in the summary:
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and other laws. We strongly caution Real and their customers that when we update our iPod software from time to time it is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future iPods."
- Regarding the DMCA: you can't fault Apple for using a law on the books - passed by Congress (unanimously by the Senate), and signed into law by President Clinton - to protect its own business interests. If you don't like the DMCA, or aspects of copyright law in general, work to change the law(s), but don't fault companies or individuals for conducting themselves within the bounds of those laws while they are in force.
- What Apple says regarding breakage is true. Some might argue that any breakage would be intentional; however, you can certainly also agree that otherwise benign changes to the iPod or its firmware may indeed break Real's reverse engineering. Intentional or no, this would still leave customers who have purchased songs via Real out in the cold, which ultimately, to the average customer, reflects poorly on Apple and the iPod (moreso than on Real). Does Apple, or its customers, really want an environment where any changes to the iPod to add functionality or features can break customers' music that they've ostensibly legitimately purchased?
- The word "hackers" was successfully co-opted long, long, long ago ("a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system"), so don't fault Apple's (currently correct and appropriate) use of the word, and save us the tiresome lectures.
That said, yes, Apple could sublicense Fairplay, as they have done with Motorola. But still, it means both parties must agree, and doesn't excuse Real.
Others remember the continued arrogance and mistakes regarding OS licensing long ago. "Apple could potentially become the Microsoft of online music," they say. But this could only potentially happen by cannibalizing iPod sales. The iPod would be akin to the "PC"; the iTunes Music Store would be "Windows". (Remember: Microsoft never made computers). But for Apple, the iTunes Music Store is a break even proposition: its sole purpose from a business perspective is to drive iPod sales and adoption, and, to a lesser extent, adoption of other Apple products. Apple's iPod and hardware margins are to-die-for in the computer industry, while the iTunes Music Store, even after having sold 100 million songs, only recently made a "small profit". Additionally, Apple maintaining control over the whole process from end to end is one of the things that makes the iTunes/iPod experience so friendly and pleasing. This may no longer be true with other manufacturer's products.
I'm not arguing against for or against licensing here, only pointing out that it's more of a difficult situation than people make it out to be. The iTunes Music Store and the iPod, for Apple, are inextricably connected, at least currently. Allowing the iPod to work with other online music stores can be argued to hurt Apple's iTunes/iPod strategy, while allowing the iTunes Music Store to work with other players definitely hurts iPod sales. Sure, you can make all sorts of contrary arguments, but there are valid arguments just as contrary to those. All that said, Apple
Apple has seen sales of iPod boost its bottom line over
The article talks about Previously, iPod would only play digitally protected songs that carry restrictions and were purchased from Apple's own iTunes music store.
And Apple is complainig that sales have soared? Apple should see that more means more - more sales due to more formats being played. Now maybe apple should go back to the chain of command and figure out who stuffed in the DMCA trying to get more sales and question that person mangament ability.
The artcile continues by saying Apple has a variety of legal steps. Does this mean that once you own a piece of hardware you can't update the software? Hmm Sounds like they would like to go after the FOSS community if somoeone released an updated iPod OS. RealNetwork would put the legal team on ends if it released the updated source to the community.
It's like Real have lived under some kind of rock for the past six years. I'm sure they've employed this a few times themselves. Is there a different captain at the helm, oe with a Napoleon hat perhaps?
Of course, it could be argued that Apple is approaching a monopoly status with the iPod and should open it up. Given the dislike others have expressed with Real Networks, they must be truly wrestling with their sentiments on this one.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I thought they were the good guys?
Apple and Innovation only hold hands when they're the only one at the dance.
If anyone else tries to join their love-fest, the lawyers deploy in ultra-attack formation.
just two weeks ago at the 2600 hope conference in NY, Steve Wozniak was using the proper form of the word hacker and highly suggested that people should hack often and use it as a tool for learning.
what real did was to try and bypass something to profit off of it because apple wouldn't let them in on a market that apple is basically controlling right now. real is trying to steal something they don't have any rights to. this is not hacking!
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
I wonder what Woz thinks of Apple's PR use of the term "hacker"?
The point Apple is trying to make is that they admire and appreciate innovation, so long as it is their own. But don't try to do anything too crazy with their hardware or software.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker "
who owns the hardware? Apple or the User. No doubt that DMCA will come into play and soon. This should be interesting to see how it plays out.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Now I can spend $300 on a music player AND get to use Real's spyware laden buggy hard-to-use interface! How can I loose?
I read the internet for the articles.
If they CHOOSE to use the DMCA, then that's a choice they've made and one we can fault them for. There are laws that say my neighbors can't make loud noise at 5am. I have a choice whether I can go talk to them and get them to be quiet, or whether I can just call the police.
Tell me again how Apple is different than Microsoft? All that bs about apple being 'different', 'free' thinking, and 'open' is just a PR campaign and nothing more.
> Not cool.
Not cool by any stretch of the imagination.
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod."
I was stunned too! 0%... 5%... BUFFERING 6%... etc.
Apple is going to get some financial buffering from RealNetworks, after this is done.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Tactics and ethics of a hacker? My god, Orwell was right. "We are and always have been at war with East Asia."
How is this anything but the extension of Apple's product to make it more valuable? I guess I don't see how, or why, Apple would have a beef about this, particularly since Real media isn't the best quality.
Is it simply that because the laws now exist, they have to make the complaint, or they'll lose legitity? That's the most logical answer I can think of.
So much for Apple being a company which embraces the hacker mindset, eh geeks? (I'll mention that I, too, am a linux geek, so don't flame me.) This is really quite unfortunate.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
It's competition Apple, make your hardware hack-proof like everybody else has been doing for years. Or trying rather.
the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
Wow, i'm really disheartened by this. i was impressed by Real's moves to give the customer what they wanted (ie all the recent changes...less crap, easier to find free version, etc). So impressed that i was even considering taking (getting?) a position with them in Seattle doing programming. Now, i'm not feeling warm and fuzzy. i'm feeling anxious.
Real was poised, in my mind, to perhaps become a darling of FOSS if they were to open up somethings, provide some code, help, etc....but, this is just not a good move. i generally feel Apple is a Good (tm) company (for the most part) and they really don't need this from Real. They said no. No means no, it does not mean do it anyway. Technically, there have been arguments that Real is doing nothing wrong, but it feels more.....how you say....just, bad faith, bad form to me.
Sorry Real, i expected more in light of your recent good moves. *sigh* Crap.
What it will come down to is Apple figuring out if the loss of money is great with the decline in iTune sales versus the increase in iPod sales.
UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT: /--consumer choice?- <-<No.. . |
A SLASHDOT FLOWCHART EXCLUSIVE
Start:
Did a corporation use Was the encryption--Y-->Did someone reverse
encryption to prevent-Y->in question engineer the system,
their customers from pathetically weak? allowing for more
fairly using purchases? |
N-------N---<------<----N----<--+----<--
| \ Y
N<------N----<---Did the corporation Did this new<--+
| react violently, <--Y-software enable
| Was the<--Y--slander hackers, fair use?
| corporation and fire off legal
| Apple(tm)(R)? threats using DMCA to suppress speech?
| | |
| Yes +No-->Oh my God those assholes! It's time we put this source
|_ | code on a T-shirt! Time to contribute to the author's
\ / legal defense fund! Time to call our senator and tell
No big deal! him to repeal the evil, flawed DMCA! Time
Time to play "Quake!!!" to practice "civil disobedience!". Time
to write "distributed peer to peer"
corporate-subversion software! Time to call for a radical reform
of copyright laws! Time to decry Palladium(tm)(R) design and
distribution as a grand scheme to put us under the lock and key
of DRM! Time to raid DVD-Jon's jail cell with Dimitri as lead
commando! Time to hack Hillary Rosen's web site and deface statues
of Jack Valenti! Quick buy another 2600 T-Shirt!
By the way, wouldn't it be great if Devo was 99c a song?
God I still remember the HACKER MANIFESTO!!!!
Apple is smaller. That's it.
Is it just me or does everyone else feel dirty for rooting for RealNetworks? I mean, their new Helix Player is actually quite good, and this great test case of reverse-engineering in the digital media world is exactly what we need, but...will the stain ever wash clean?!? ...then again, this is probably just how Kerry voters feel *rimshot*
This is silly. Previously, the iPod would play any MP3 or AAC (or WAV, or Audible - not sure if it handled any other formats) you stuck on there, assuming that if you HAD bought it from the itunes store you had also authorized the ipod. I should know - I have yet to buy more than three songs from iTMS, yet my 30 gig iPod is all but full.
This flies in the face of science.
I hate the DMCA. I hope Apple doesn't use the DMCA to enforce their rights.
"AAC was developed by the MPEG group that includes Dolby, Fraunhofer (FhG), AT&T, Sony, and Nokia", so in order for Real to modify and alter the DRM, wouldn't they have to get license/permission from that group?
What would the DVD market be like, if every DVD players only worked with the manufacturer's owned (or endorsed) DVD store?
I applaude Apple for showing RIAA that there is another way to market music.
I applaude Real for taking the first step to end device lock-in. Device lock-in is bad for consumers. I do think they're going to lose against Apple, but by taking the first step, one can only hope some day iPods will no longer be exclusive to iTunes and vice versa.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Fine then, can't Apple modify it's software to mess up Real's modifications?
That way, it'll just become a compatibility war, like when Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo modify their IM software to prevent third parties from accessing their networks.
I'm sure Apple will find a way to block Real, by legal or technical means.
By the way, I have 4 mod points, I really wish I could use them on this topic, but as I'm posting... oh well.
Real will certainly put the relevant software on a hidden link in a page full of ads.
From the bottom of the article:
"The reason would not be because Real is a threat (they aren't), but because of the precedent it sets," he added in the e-mail. "Microsoft will be coming out with their own online music shop this fall, and they will be a threat. Better to nip such competition in the bud." (My emphasis)
God forbid that we might have competition in the marketplace!
Previously, iPod would only play digitally protected songs that carry restrictions and were purchased from Apple's own iTunes music store.
The ignorance of the media never ceases to amaze me.
Wow. Watch all the DMCA-hating, DVD-copying dittoheads suddenly come out on the side of a company using the DMCA because a competitor figured out a way to also make use of the hardware.
It makes me want to support tougher copyright protection laws and purchase the upcoming Microsoft media player. At least the people who support those things are honest.
Many people seem to be under the impression that the iPod is an mp3 player. That's not entirely true - it plays AAC files (mpeg2) not MP3 files (mpeg1layer3). The MP3 files are converted to AAC files before they hit the iPod, IIRC (I could be wrong about this)
What's the significance? AAC files have copyright protection built in, something which MP3's lack.
I read TFA, but I couldn't seem to figure out what exactly Real Networks did - did they hack the iPod firmware to actually play MP3 files, or did they figure out the copy protection Apple uses on it's AAC files. Anyone venture a guess?
Old argument, I'm sure, but I was understanding that the 'Hacking' originated among physicists -- something along the lines of hacking away (with a metaphorical instrument, such as a hatchet or machete) at something until the facts were revealed. My father, who worked at on the Oakridge project, back in the early 40's refered to those who considered themselves 'hackers.'
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The linked article states "Previously, iPod would only play digitally protected songs that carry restrictions and were purchased from Apple's own iTunes music store."
This seems to be patently untrue, as it's hardly a state secret that the iPod can play un-DRMed songs perfectly well. I suppose I can simply be parsing the paragraph wrong, but they seem to refer to this again when they bring up the DMCA, specifically citing the provisions against "illegally copying software" (and not, as would make somewhat more sense, the reverse engineering angle).
It wouldn't be the first time a major news outlet got the technical details wrong, but this really completely misrepresents the nature of both Real's initial actions and Apple's reaction....
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
...was nothing. Ignore it. Who cares? No one is going to buy Real's crappy encoded format music. Apple looks like the bad guy by telling people what to do with hardware they purchased. Replace Real with some guy from Finland and ".rm" with ".ogg" format and see if you still agree.
It doesn't matter what anyone really thinks about this, DMCA isn't going away anytime soon.
That said, seeing Real Networks get crushed would be very pleasant. They have polluted computer systems for the last 8 or so years with their lameass player. Time for it to die.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Remember Apple? Remember the SE? Remember how if you bought a PC, it wasn't as nice, but because the hardware wasn't kept in a Cathedral but rather in a Bazaar, you could hack it, configure it, trade it, build it yourself? Here's the Apple mentality that kept them from competing successfully with Microsoft all over again: We Are The Shrine Upon High, Interoperate And Die!
BSD-based or not, Apple still has the same problems with their overprotective, self-infatuated management. They've failed to take ESR's lessons to heart, and this jealous hoarding of a good idea will cause them to lose it... AGAIN.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
This means you'll need to use Harmony and then Hymn, I suppose.
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
Can anyone explain why Apple won't licence FairPlay? It's no secret that the iTunes store doesn't make much money, the iPod hardware's where it's at. So how could allowing other people's DRM'd tunes play on the iPod hurt them? It looks to me like they're just trying to own the whole digital music game from top to bottom. It wouldn't surprise me if they're shooting themselves in the foot with this. All the other mainstream download services that I've come across use WMA. If Apple licenced FairPlay they'd be in a superb position to define the "standard" digital music format. This way they're risking handing it to MS in the long run because MS are willing to let anyone use their format (for a price).
Hahah... Real Networks, complaining about Apple's DRM while they are working on their own? Nice job!
I still don't understand all of this DRM stuff... if someone wants to pirate an AAC file, or a Real Networks Helix file, all they have to do is PLAY it and record the output coming out of their soundcard. Plug a soundcard's OUT to a soundcard's IN and record a non-DRM WAV file. Who do they think they're fooling?
Visit the Game Programming Wiki!
Who is EVER happy with ...buffering... Real Networks anyways?
I don't know of one single person that actually installed Realplayer and enjoys it. Generally, it's "Ugh, how do I get rid of this annoying thing. It makes Bonzi Buddy look useful! AUuugh!"
I didn't say I liked the DMCA, nor Apple using it.
But Apple isn't a government, and the DMCA isn't on par with the the types of oppressive acts I assume you are referring to. Let's keep things in perspective...
This really makes me mad that someone would take a product another company made and reverse engineer it to run their product. Thats like reebox taking a nike shoe and just branding it with their own logo.
I could see if this was for personal use, but real is obviously trying to make money off of a product they didn't even create. Perhaps real should invest in the making of an ipod clone instead, of course it will fail, but then again they always have been failing.
Message to real: invest more money in your spyware.
irc.enterthegame.com #linux
Gotta love the hypocrisy of /.. Apple threatens to invoke the DMCA against Real, and there's applause and cheers. Creative licenses a software patent to id, and there's mass boycotts threatened.
If Apple actually does invoke the DMCA, I'm not going to buy or use any of their products for the next ten years. Do the right thing, Apple: drop the DMCA threats, license to Real, and put on a good face about the situation.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
I'm sorry, but I can't defend Apple here. They should have signed an agreement with Real months ago. At least then they could have made a deal that benefited their goals (like getting Real to use AAC). As a consumer, I like competition. If Real's store is better than Apple's (it's not), then it will drive Apple to improve. Either way Apple sells more iPods. How can we defend apple in this instance and not defend Apple regarding the HYMN-Project??
Wouldn't any security measures require that you can't break it using public information. If you can break it using public information then it's not really secure, hence Real aren't breaking any copy protection stuff.
Anyway, I like the sound of having more control over personal equipment.
Hmm Sounds like they would like to go after the FOSS community if somoeone released an updated iPod OS.
Try iPodLinux, at http://sourceforge.net/projects/ipodlinux/
All real would have to do is use un DRMed mp3s or aac.
Problem solved..
When was the last time Real did anything which *didn't* piss people off?
I have been following their curve since 1995, when their RealPlayer actually seemed like it would be a huge boon to the Web. They started out on a high note and could have been a long-time darling of the 'net community. Instead, they've chosen the dark side, and they've pretty much sucked ever since.
Boycott Real.
RealNetworks Chief Strategy Officer Richard Wolpert: "We think consumer choice is going to win out over proprietary formats."
;)
And this is coming from Real! Gotta love it!
DRM vs. DRM. A pox on both their houses.
sulli
RTFJ.
They talk about choice, but they don't want me to have the choice to play a certain class of songs on an iPod that I own? Bunch of assholes.
Apple doesn't have a clue.
I just happened to look at the box of the iPod while moving this past weekend. The box says by opening this product you agree to the software license.
So here's my question:
If you're not using the software, can apple make you agree to the software license?
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
I (streaming....) am (streaming...) upset (streaming....) with (streaming.... ) teh (streaming....) mac. (streaming.... ) Why (streaming....) can't (streaming....) we (streaming....) ride (reading system....) the (streaming....) mac (streaming... ) coat tails?
You must not be from around here, because there are a lost of us who don't use any MS products.
Hacking the X-Box is okay for fun and (sometimes profit). When Real does the same thing against Apple, people here say, "Go Apple! Sue them under the DMCA!"
That's it for for me guys. Good luck with that free software thingy.
RealNetworks is in a shithole because of their stupid tactics with companies and users. No one likes their software. Those who install RealNetworks products are either stupid or have no choice.
So much for "Think Different."
Have you heard of MP3s? I have 9GB of music on my iPod, and not a one with DRM
that is so brilliant. fucking slashbot hypocrites.
"Now Apple is stealing Open Source technology [...]"
Yeah! Just checkout the latest info on bash 3.0. It seems that "Several bug fixes for POSIX compliance came in from Apple; their assistance is appreciated." How about that? AC, being a world class shell scripter, you must surely appreciate this help.
dani++
I'll admit up-front, that I am a fan of Apple hardware and software, but I can't really agreed with their decision to confront Real on this for the following reason:
... That way, they make money off it directly (through fees from Real), indirectly (through higher iPod sales) and finally they won't have to worry about support, once they state quite clearly, they won't support other music sources.
They've said that the Apple Music Store exists to drive iPod sales. If consumers can play a wider range of music on their iPod, would they not be MORE willing to buy one?
I would say they should probably do some "back room strong-arming" to work out a deal with Real that they will allow this in some shape or form, make Real pay some sort of licensing fee, and NOT "officially support it"
I know there is an image to upkeep, but give your consumers the choice, for goodness sakes.
RealNetworks was the first company ever to file a lawsuit against someone under the DMCA -- RealNetworks v. StreamBox, a successful attempt to suppress software to record RealAudio streams. They are a DRM vendor, a proprietary platform creator, and historically a DMCA proponent. They actively contributed to the perception that reverse engineering and interoperability are improper. They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind, etc.
Apple's famed reality distortion field is out in force. People who normally believe that reverse engineering is an entirely proper competitive technique and who hate tying and private licensing when mundane companies use them in their business models now like it when Apple locks people out of their platform, because it's a magical Apple platform with elegant design and UI.
Reverse engineering is ethical and proper whether the artifact under study comes from Microsoft or Apple. Reverse engineering is right and good whether the technology being examined is ugly or pretty, boring or interesting. Reverse engineering is appropriate and virtuous whether the product you want to interoperate with comes from a market leader or a heroic underdog.
Only Steve Jobs could succeed where Jack Valenti failed in convincing us that we don't have the right to use our own property as we choose.
Stop the double standards. Stop cheering for anybody's attempts to limit interoperability. They're all wrong, and in a precedent-based legal system, they're all equally threatening to our future.
I assume that's what you are doing. Please stop using computers and the Internet, you are too stupid.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It seems to me that Apple is falling into the sam e small minded, control-freakish attitude that many companies are these days. Sure Real may have 'h@xx0r3d' the IPod. So what? It may set a presidence, but so what? If Real, and MS start modding your hardware to use their formats, the platform is being cemented that much more as the defacto standard. MS ofor example, would love OpenGL to die, so directX is the only option for developers, as it will keep people on their platform.
Wake up and smell the napalm, Apple. Real is doing you a favor. They could be helping out the competition.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Apple is just shooting itself in the foot, the face , the legs again. Only the WACKO APPLE FREAKS want to buy everything from apple. The rest of the world wants a CHOICE.
They bought Nothing Real's Shake software and instantly killed it on the Windows platform. Then they made the price Half of the linux price. Because it ran so slowwwwww on the Mac they decided to give away the render nodes (only on the mac of course), but you had to buy into the mac render farm (another sloowwwwwww moving system). Apple is not about selling software it's about selling their over priced and under performing hardware.
So I'll get my songs not from apple but anywhere else.
Screw them
Apple hasn't quite reached MS in its strictness with protecting IP, and for some reason we hold Apple to a higher standard, but at the end of the day - this is their stuff. They do have a right to keep people from reverse engineering it (I think).
It's not like firefox where it was designed for people to make it better with extensions. This is apple's own product, to be used as specified in the license agreement.
I am not absolving Apple here, clearly they have pissed off people by being sticklers. Why not recognize that its GOOD to have people modding the iPod? that can only help its sales. Why piss people off for no good reason? Dunno.
Me, I like the mozilla approach. It's the linux way of doing things. But until there is some sort of "open source iPod/iTunes" that can be freely twisted around - let's not get to bent out of shape. It's apple's stuff, they can get mad about issues like this - it's their right. That's life.
If you don't like the way apple does things, let them know about it. Tell them that you won't use an iPod or iTunes because of their crappy 'tude.
I created this account just so I could comment on this story
One of the prime casualties of the DMCA, reverse engineering, will forever weaken the progress of innovation.
Tinkerers have long disassembled 'things' to understand how they worked. This knowledge to other, sometimes better 'things'.
Now it is illegal to disassemble someone's thing (software in this case) to learn how to make it better or use it in a different manner. This means the creator of the original 'thing' is the only one that could improve said thing - or forever lose its improvement.
This is unspeakably wrong! A company spends MILLIONS, perhaps even BILLIONS to come up with their own proprietary mechanism for exchanging files between their OWN services, and some damned upstart comes along, reverse-engineers it, and has the AUDACITY to make their OWN service interoperate with it...WITHOUT PERMISSION?!?!?
All of that money that the company spent, down the drain, because some "hackers" figured out how their carefully crafted system works! This is wrong and unfair!
Our course is clear! We must NOT support the evildoers who have committed this foul act of hacking! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT!
We must NEVER use SAMBA AGAIN!!!!!
Wait...who were we talking about again?....
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
>All real would have to do is use un-DRMed mp3s or aac.
>Problem solved..
Not for the music industry, it wouldn't.
They're reverse engineering something so they can add functionality to it. Seems to me real isn't doing anything illegal here. They aren't reverse engineering and selling their own I-pods or anything, they're giving users a different way to use their I-pod's.
Personally, I wouldn't want to have an i-pod with realplayer on it. Afterall, it'd request to be connected back to the internet so it can upload my listening statistics or something.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
I wonder what the reaction to this article would have been if the device in question was from Microsoft....
I disagree, Apple fans try to put forward an image of Apple that is false. Most of their products are well engineered, but company policy is no more user friendly than Microsoft's or Sony's. And I do not understand how anyone can support their recent position, they are restricting the choices of iPod users. While they are within their rights, this is a somewhat malevolent act.
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
I think they meant ethics of a cracker. Not a hacker. Perhaps we should look it up for them?
...
According to dictionary.com:
cracker
Pronunciation Key (krkr)
n.
3. Offensive.
1. Used as a disparaging term for a poor white person of the rural, especially southeast United States.
2. Used as a disparaging term for a white person.
There. That's more like it.
Before you mod me funny, think, perhaps I was insightfully funny?
Don't forget that you can plug it in to windoze too. Wonderful.
$300 for DRM blighted music player
$200 for buggy DRM, spyware, malware blighted OS.
Real, a no cost download. What a bargain.
Just running Linux on your desktop and handhelds instead, priceless.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'd love to have a mod point right now, this was such a good point.
...Microsoft has released a similar product to Apple and crushed them before, is it?
From the article, Ernest Miller says at the end:
"Microsoft will be coming out with their own online music shop this fall, and they will be a threat. Better to nip such competition in the bud."
"Nipping competition in the bud" seems positively anti-free market to me and this legal advice seems to get to the root of the problem with all of these kinds of lawsuits. Yes? No?
can someone explain why Apple wants to limit what can be played on the iPod? Is it not the iPod that makes all the money for them? iTunes is just a gateway that's supposed to lead people to the iPod, why not have more of them?
"The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
"What Apple says regarding breakage is true" And what AIM, Yahoo, and MSN say regarding breakage must also be true, everytime they play their cat-and-mouse games with Gaim and Trillian.
"Apple maintaining control over the whole process from end to end is one of the things that makes the iTunes/iPod experience so friendly and pleasing" Why don't we let Microsoft control the whole process of internet access from end to end, to make the experience "so friendly and pleasing". Oh wait ...
I suggest the parent poster replace his whitewash with the one liner in my subject line :)
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
Who actually uses realaudio, other than sites like Amazon? I mean, is there ANYONE who keeps realaudio files on their personal machine, for example?
Real ceased to be relevant about 7 years ago. Bleh.
There seems to be some confusion over what music format the iPod can and can't play.
Can play:
AAC, either with or without DRM encoding
MP3, either CBR or VBR
WAV
AIFF
Can't play:
Real Media
WMA
any other proprietary format
Also, the iPod doesn't not convert MP3s to AAC or alter them in any way. There are a variety of shareware and freeware apps that let one copy music files off an iPod and onto a computer other than the one it is sync'd to. And unless these are already DRM'd AAC files they'll play just fine.
Seriously though, if Apple keeps this up they should be prosecuted for attempting to maintain an illegal monopoly.
Imagine, if you will, that your Chevy only ran on Chevy Gas. And every time someone else formulated a compatible gasoline, Chevy installed a new carburetor as part of a "performance upgrade" that only ran on their, new next, version gasoline. How long would that be allowed?
Historically Apple has not been friendly to competition, when it's on their turf. Remember clone Macs a few years ago? They waffled on that faster than John Kerry.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The mantra for the next iPod software release will be:
"iPod's not done until Real won't run".
There's a short discussion about it here if anyone's interested in reading a little more..
If Microsoft is a monopoly, Apple is surely a failed attempt at one. Apple has a long history of intentionally breaking their products so that they will not inter-operate with other products.
Remember back when Jean-Louis Gassée held up a telephone when asked how to make Macs and PC's work together on the same network? Apple not only wasn't interested in having Macs inter-operate with PC's on a LAN, they were openly hostile to the idea.
Anyone else remember the voodoo one had to go through to get a standard SCSI hard drive or CDROM drive to work in a Mac? Remember the bullshit that Apple tried to spout when asked about this? They tried to say that SCSI was an electrical standard and not an interface standard. Yeah, right. The truth of course was that their partitioning tools and CDROM drivers were specifically written to check for a tag in the drive's firmware and fail if that tag was not found.
Any company that is going to play keep-away like that will NEVER receive a dime from me.
It's this kind of snobbish nonesense that really made me dislike Apple, regardless of what the company used to be like back in the Apple II days.
This is why I won't buy an Ipod. That and the whole bullshit issue with the batteries not being replacable. I hear they've fixed that now, but it never should have been an issue in the first place.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
It's a hack. Next revision of the iPod, watch it break. REAL SUCKS. Period. Their stock is sucking massively and they're trying anything they can to get a leg up. Trouble is, they're just muddying the water for their clients.
Apple is trying to avoid a huge technical nightmare:
"I installed REAL software and now my iPod doesn't work" - when's the last time ANY PC manufacturer who bundles Windows helped someone install Unix?
An unjust law is an unjust law and we can fault Apple for using it. If apple existed in the 19th cen tury and used slave labor, would that still be morally acceptable because it was perfectly legal under US law?
oh no, everyone's favorite company turns out to be brownshirts.
ipod=overpriced yuppie gear.
I think the point of thier hack was to switch files bought form thier store from Real's DRM to Apples DRM. If they just provided unDRMed files I guess the music businesses would stop supplying them with music.
Ian
Wow. The level of Apple fanboyism just blows me away...
People work tirelessly to get Linux to run on the XBox, against MS's wishes, and we cheer them on.
People modify their TIVOs, in violation of both their warrantee and (probably) the DMCA, and we ask how to do it ourselves.
A disposeable digital camera hits the market, and do we feel "concern" that the poor manufacturer will get raked over the coals as soon as a way to get at the memory hits the 'net? Hell NO! We ask where we can buy a few, anticipating the eventual crack!
But Real, after trying to convince Apple to make a deal with them, manages to open up the iPod, a HARDWARE device that people BUY, to play RealMedia content on, and suddenly everyone starts crying for Apple and damning Real?
Pathetic. If you replaced "Apple/RealMedia" with "Microsoft/Ogg", we'd have taken to the streets ready to lynch Microsoft over their suppression of open audio formats.
Please, people, try to use just a little bit of introspection before jumping to Apple's defense. Even try the example I gave above - If you replace "Apple" or "Jobs" with "Microsoft" or "Gates", would you feel the same? Or perhaps even more painful to contemplate, what if Apple had hacked the Nomad, against CL's wishes, to play their DRM'd AAC files? "Bad, evil DMCA violation", or "noble and liberating support of their customer's rights to use the music they legitimately purchased"? If those don't hurt to contemplate, well... "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt".
There are a couple of important difference between Apple cracking down on its users, and Microsoft cracking down on its users.
First of all, Apple is not a convicted monopoly. The rules change siginificantly when you are a monopoly, and what might be standard business practices otherwise suddenly become unethical and illegal.
Secondly, this isn't Apple cracking down on an average joe who's releasing a free update under the GLP. This is Apple getting pissed off at Real for doing something that could potentially damage the public image of the iPod. Real, who's only motivation in doing this is to make an extra buck because their products suck so badly they only way they can hope to succeed is to piggyback off another company's success.
This isn't a case of Apple fanboys saying "It's different beacuse it's Apple!" The situation IS fundimentally different than Microsoft cracking down on a hobbyist for modifying their XBox or the like.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
I have an iPod, and have over a week's worth of music on it, all in MP3 format. Any device or program that can spit out MP3s is compatible with the iPod. There is no lock in.
First of all....
some general observations:
1) DMCA, Copyright law is all moving towards the idea that only corporations have the right to own property, but you do not.
So this means, if you buy something you do not actually own it, your just "renting" it and you pay each time you use it.
You have no rights whatsoever because it isn't yours.
If you believe in this sort of thing, then it should not come as a surprise that the iPOD you thought you owned, isn't really when you decide there is a cool hack for turning it into a PDA or whatever.
2) Patent law is now enduring some interesting changes as well. Now, not only is the corporation the only one permitted to own property, but even the ideas to MAKE products aren't even yours to keep that you may buy. Furthermore, changes to patent and copyright law are insuring that the ideas will never ever be retained by anyone except the said company. (Patent law changes are on the books for 75-100 year expiration periods. This insures companies CEO's and top brass do not have to do anything except manage the checks comming in on licensing fees etc.) It is much easier to collect a Patent royalty than it is too design a new product...
Just ask Daryl McBride, CEO of SCO.
For those in the crowd saying anyone can hold a patent, that is just lip service to the poor masses to throw them a bone.
EVERYONE here knows that whoever has the biggest legal team gets to write or rewrite patents the way they see fit. Period.
(Hint: It isn't the little guy.)
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
This could be good, if the next step is for Microsoft to do the same thing with WMA. I'd love to see Apple and Microsoft in court one day each holding the DMCA against each other's heads. "You hacked the iPod so you could install your eeeevil WMA player! Yeh, well, where's your license for CIFS in Mac OS X?"
If only it wasn't Real Networks. You know, the company with business ethics even below Microsoft. With spy/ad and malware forcefully installed on your PC forcing some "partners" to offer their media services only in realmedia formats.
I remember that at one time they had damn usable player. Then it became a memory hog. Then it became memory and CPU hog. At the time when I saw a popup offering some stupid girlie artists supersingle download I had enough and had just plain ignored any RM offering on the web since.
But regarding to apple trying to protect their fairytale copy protection scheme - whatever will be, will be. I'm planning to buy an iPod (to complement my 12" iBook) in next month and frankly I can't care less about interoperability with third party offerings.
Apple offers iTunes, they pretend to make money in it and if I can choose I choose an IT world dominated by Apple instead of Microsoft or Linux. And I will stick to this point unless something drastical will happen - like an usable linux desktop application or bugfree microsoft release.
Both are rather unlikely events within next decade...
And as per this case - break the guts out of those Real Media guys. I don't want to think that RealMedia will have ANY connection or compatibility with my iPod. Let them rot in the world where they belong - Win32 crashspace.
Typing this on my 17" Powerbook and listening to my 3G iPod...
Apple is being lame.
Why do companies fight so hard to keep from reaching more customers and giving them what they want? Apple says they want to grow market share but they aren't doing a very good job. They spend a substantial portion of their energy preventing customers from doing what they want. Not that this is uncommon. But it's still stupid.
And to all the apologists -- the DMCA is a destructive law and anyone who uses it is playing games with your freedom. Grow up: you can love the good things a company does and still hate the bad things a company does.
I love Apple's OS and hardware, and I think their business practices suck. As long as people defend them for this stuff they'll keep shooting themselves in the foot. Give Apple a little tough love, eh?
Cheers.
To use iTunes, you must accept the iTunes software license.
Therefore, to use your iPod, you must accept the iTunes software license.
That's the Catch-22.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
I'm disgusted by Apple, but not by the fascism. I'm disgusted by the lack of logic:
Apple makes a tiny profit with the iTMS. Their model is to make the serious dough selling iPods, so they actually make a profit out of online music, unlike the me-too services (BuyMusic, Walmart, Napster 2.0 etc).
So why is Apple upset at Real's rather desperate attempt to support the iPod? Where's the harm?
The only thing I can think of is that Apple is going to court to prevent any precedents being established regarding iPod reverse engineering in preparation for an iPod clone war.
So, reverse engineering a protocol so you can interoperate with another company's product, even though said company would prefer you didn't, is bad in Apple's book ...
I eagerly await the removal of Mac OS X's ability to access Windows shares.
I'm no fan of Real Networks, but it should be fun to watch them go up againt Steve Jobs' Evil Empire.
Keep Austin Weird!
The majority of people posting about this are saying that Apple is being hypocritical for not wanting people to use their Real content on the iPods. Apple is NOT saying that the end users cant do this. They are saying it is not ok for another company to skirt around the copy protection that they put on their player to make it legal to sell songs. Now, by challenging this they may actually be doing everyone a favor. This will test if the DCMA is enforcable, and likely bring up some good questions that need to be asked about the rights of companies and what they can or can not control when they have 'sold' items under it. I am no fan of this law, but what a great way to challenge it by finding out it's limitations.
Yeah, "brilliant". Fuck off.
Apple has a legal responsibility to its shareholders to protect the business interests of the company. The executives of the company can be held legally and financially responsible for not acting in the shareholder's interest if they do not do everything possible to protect their businesses' interests. That means using the laws on the books, like the DMCA, where necessary, to stop other companies from damaging the sales or image of Apple's products.
It's not Apple that's screwed up, it's the (legal|economic) system. If you're a US citizen, start writing your Congresspeople and helping the campaigns of those who would improve the system.
Free yourself. Everything else will follow.
Is anyone out there serious using Real for anything? Haven't we all gotten sick of the huge marketing machine behind everything they do. Popups everywhere, sales offers out the wazoo. You can't do anything with their software without being hassled about buying something else. They're the worst kind of Internet company.
I used to use their Jukebox software a few years ago. It was great, iTunes years before iTunes. I dumped it only because it kept hassling me to upgrade, buy RealPlayer, buy this, buy that. It was unbearably annoying, and none of it could be shut off.
Honestly, I don't think this is as terrible a thing as Apple might fear. I do agree that they need to nip it in the bud to prevent Microsoft from doing something similar. I can't see a whole lot of competition from Real (right now their acting like spoiled children), and I certainly don't plan to install it on my iPod!
while it sucks that reverse engineering is a violation of the DMCA and that Apple is considering lawsuits based on such an insipid law, i'm not terribly upset about the "may not work in the future" statement. i don't think stating that Harmony "may not work in the future" is totally out of line. there tends to be an update to the iPod software once every 3-6 months and if you are reverse engineering a closed api that changes that regularly you've got to expect it to break. that said, ya apple should proably open their api or at least license it.
what i do think this is, is a sign of the serious hurt that Real Networks is feeling. They should have been the company who invented iTunes, they should have been the company that invented the iPod, they were positioned early on to own audio on the internet and they totally botched it. i think this is a desperate move to get attention and maybe a little revenue before they slip away into their well deserved oblivion.
-- force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins ayn rand
it's already rumored Real was in talkes to liscence their technology to sneak songs onto the iPod (making money of this trick)..... if that happens then the other music stores will advertise their music as "works with Apple's iPod". if in some firmware/hardware/software revision it stops working you know Real will blame Apple for changing technology.... which they often do already.
By allowing it, that is kind of consenting to it... and doesn't that set up some degree of responsibility to make sure it works in the future?
I don't understand the response from Apple since you can play regular MP3 songs (non Apple) on the iPod.
I think the recording companies might be concerned with whatever *magic* Real is doing incase it somehow alters or removes the DRM copy protection that Real's music store uses.
Field guide to playing music on an iPod:
*Get* an MP3 from Kazza
1. play on iPod
Buy a song from Apple
1. play on iPod
Buy a (whole) CD from Best Buy
1. rip to MP3
2. play on iPod
Buy a song from Real (before Harmony), Napster, walmart, Cokemusic.com, etc.
1. burn to CD
2. rip to MP3
3. play on iPod
with what Real did. It could easily be argued that they are making the iPod a more valuable product to consumers. It plays more music now right?
Real could sell MP3's if they truly wanted cross-platform compatibility. As it is, they are selling a dirty kludge which is not accepted by apple. If you buy your tunes from real, but apple update their firmware, killing your bought tunes, who gets the flak? Is it apples fault for having a shitty player, or reals for hacking a player that they have no reason too (see above re selling MP3's). Of course apple, are bad for not selling restriction-free MP3's too, but it is their player and they can do what they want with it. They just don't want reals sucky ....bufffering..... performance associated with their cool brand. And who can blame them?
Maybe somebody else has already made this point,
but there's too many misinformed or prejudicial
post here to slog through them all.
I think Apple's stance is reasonable.
They have to defend FairPlay DRM every time or it
sets precedence and it gets more troublesome the next time
somebody messes with it.
Apple's best justification is that iTMS isn't selling it's own
content, it's belongs to the record labels and Apple has to
show best effort in not allowing piracy if it expects to
continue to do favorable trade with the labels now and
in the future. It's a business folks.
Sure, it would be nice if iTMS used non-DRM'ed files, but
wishing for that it just childish fantasy. Apple has been
generous with what they do allow: iPods support several formats,
you can share FairPlay protected files on several computers,
and burning to CD is permitted. Plus, iTMS was a reasonably
large selection, they provide a lot of added value with the
store's feature set and integration with iTunes (which, by
itself is free and has lots of features as well).
I also think that anybody out there that thinks that Real's
intent was to strike a blow for music freedom is seriously deluded.
This from the company founded by the two Steves, whose first endeavor was selling "Blue Boxes" which allowed people to make free long distance phone calls.
Rip, mix, burn. Burn, baby, burn.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Yeah, "Fuck off." As Teresa says: Shove it.
On the other side, I would think the RIAA would be a little concerned as well. Would you want your product (IE: music) to be sold via an unlicensed hack, or via the iTunes music store? I would think the latter. Maybe Apple and the RIAA will pressure Real to drop this.
And, I think it's a little funny that Real was saying not even a year ago that Apple was going to create problems for itself by keeping the iPod closed. Yet, Real now has developed a hack to get it's "product" to work with the iPod? I don't get it.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
"Hacker" is not a "technical" word, at all. It's a word. And it's been redefined. Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, and Oxford English Dictionary, the definitive reference for the English language, all agree. Like "marriage". You're not arguing that a word "marriage" can't be redefined to include gay couples, are you? (I'd think not, since you must be a flaming liberal - or flaming - if you're posting to slashdot.)
See the context. And now - imagine Real Networks appearing on user desktops again...
Sorry. You, of course, are right, but - there isn't only an issue about Apple fanboys. It's just as much about Real Networks.
And that's a bad thing. They should have ceased to exist a long long long long long time ago.
Since, what, OS 10.1 or so Apple software has been able to interopt with Microsoft Exchange servers, collect mail and browse windows networks. In other words, Macs can now compete with PCs in a workplace environment. Microsoft has not said a peep or threatened to invoke the DMCA (not that they could since interoptability is addressed by the DMCA, I suppose).
How is what Real did any different? They took a product, reverse engineered it and implemented their own technology to work with Ipods. If Real is guilty of violating the DMCA then so is Apple. Hello, Pot? Yeah, this is the Kettle Black...
That'd be fun to watch. Meanwhile, I'll be wondering if it's possible to set up a WebDAV file sharing repository that performs well enough to replace CIFS/SMB and get off of that standard entirely...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
"The reason would not be because Real is a threat (they aren't), but because of the precedent it sets," he added in the e-mail. "Microsoft will be coming out with their own online music shop this fall, and they will be a threat. Better to nip such competition in the bud."
Yeah, we don't want competition of any sort, it might make them lower the price or offer better features. So anytime there might be competition, let us just fight them in court using the DCMA, or the Patriot Act, or if that fails, lets pressure our personally paid for senator to pass a law that will allow us to crush our competition.
If firefighters fight fire and crime fighters fight crime, what do Freedom fighters fight?
Yes, I do have to stand on my head to convert purchased (DRM'd) songs to MP3, but I am not locked out. Or in. Whatever.
I can't imagine anyone being swayed into using Real's service based on this very shaky compatibility, as they've already invested in an iPod, and at that point, why risk the money purchasing songs in Real's format which may or may not work with the iPod forever? Seems to me that Real is inviting a legal battle upon themselves with very little chance of profit, and of dubious benefit to consumers.
I mean, Christ on a crutch, it's a pretty simple device... Not like every electronics company hasn't already made something similar. It shouldn't be too difficult at all to make something iPod compatible.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The DMCA makes reverse engineering for interoperability (which is exactly what real did) explicitly legal. Apple has no case under the DMCA, unless they can prove that real's software prevents their copy-protection from working.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Microsoft is supposed to be launching their own online music store soon, and preventing Real from reverse engineering their iPod will send a message to Microsoft who, if nothing is done, has no reason not to do the same thing and make the iPod play their proprietary formats with their DRM or whatever.
Apple is just covering their ass, becuase once Microsoft steps up to the plate, who knows what will happen. Especially considering new windows releases could have a built in link to microsofts online music store, not unlike how they propigated IE through the masses. Something like that has the potential to CRUSH iTunes.
Good job apple for having the foresight to see what could potentially happen and at least try doing something about it.
I've always hated the Real format because of clunky players, etc.
But I don't think there is anything wrong with what they've done.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I thought so, you little capitalists.
All those that think Real is scum regardless of what they are doing and what stocks are in your portfolio... raise your hands.
Why not slap all the 3rd party iPod utility software writers with dmca lawsuits?
Real are not removing protection from any music they're ENCODING protected music for compatibility.
Seems pretty fair to me, if Apple want to test the dmca or their one-click eula let them try.
Don't be surprised if there's a backlash by the media and by iPod owners who appreciate the benefits of competition like more choice, lower prices and higher quality encoded music.
Get used to it.
True for the reverse - it's just a matter of time before we have iTunes compatible players from China/Korea/Taiwan flooding the market.
- Their software sucks! The whole buffering joke aside, it's performance has never been close to that of competitors offerings IMHO. Why they've always been considered such a player in the tech game is beyond me.
- Their website and countless annoying ads are very misleading. Only recently, after a couple of years of people complaining about how hard it is to find the free version of realplayer, have they made it a little easier to get at.
- Their half-assed attempts at supporting non-Windows platforms is ridicuous. Perhaps this has changed recently (I gave up on them long ago), but historically, their multi platform support seemed to amount to "We support Linux, OSX, Beos, you name it (provided you don't want the majority of the features of the Windows version, and are willing to settle for a version that's about 3 generations behind the Windows version).
I could go on, but nuff' said.Historically, their marketing efforts seemed to revolve around enticing a user to their site with promised freebees, and then once the user had exhausted their patience looking for said freebies, they seem to hope that they'll just get disgusted and buy the full version. Not cool!
And now Apple's coming down on them for making their precious ipod do something Apple didn't intend for?? You don't see them coming down on the people making addons for it (which coincidentally also make it do things Apple didn't intend), so why now Real???
I'll be honest. When/if I buy an ipod, it's frickin' mine, and I will do with it what I want. Consumers are being robbed by todays's legislative tactics (everything from the DMCA to the Homeland Security act ensures that big business's get bigger, and the little people lose out). Apple... I love you, and recently bought one of your G5's, but don't make me hate you so much that I see the Wintel platform as an equal or better solution to give my money to.
Man... Apple was originally started by hackers and here they are acting like they're so above that, and that Real's some little criminal group. Get real. If you want our money, let us actually own the hardware and do with it what we want (especially considering the cost of your products)!!
This isn't stealing, or hacking, or cracking, or anything else. It's reverse engineering, a practice that is protected under the DMCA. In the Woz/Linus/ESR sense of the word, though, this is hacking. Maybe that's what apple was complaining about.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I don't care a bit about the malware makers at Real, but what's uncool is people massively buying iPods instead of players that support multiple, vendor-neutral standards.
I want my player to be a big file system in a small box that supports OGG, MP3, FLAC, WAV, SPEEX, and eventually popular video formats, HTML, etc. as well. I want it to be able to record to those formats, too, off the built-in AM/FM radio and from line-in. I want it to support downloadable codec plug-ins.
If it holds "several thousand songs" and I buy that many at a dollar a piece from an online store, I want my wife to be able to play them, too, and if some other maker of these little media boxes comes out with a box that I like more, I want to be able to just drag my files out of the old box and into the new box with no loss of files or file quality.
I'd like to reward manufacturers (such as iRiver) that take this approach by giving them my business, and I wish more people did likewise to drive the competition in open media players.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
"... A company spends MILLIONS, perhaps even BILLIONS to come up with their own proprietary mechanism...."
Didn't MS buy NetBIOS from IBM? Though they may have augmented it, I don't think they came up with their own proprietary mechanism
There sure are a lot of pro-Apple comments here, but honestly I don't think it's because of a double standard for Apple. It's because of this: we desperately want online music to succeed. On the subject of DRM, I don't like it much at all, but I am willing to put up with it because 1) being able to buy music online is great and 2) I know that I'll always be able to download some program to crack it if I need to.
*However*, I do *not* want that last point splashed across the pages of the new york times. If it's common knowledge that the DRM is not an obstacle, and if the record companies *know* that we all know it isn't an obstacle, they're not going to want to play ball anymore. And I can't buy stuff for decent prices in the iTunes music store.
So I think in this article we have a lot of people with an automatic dislike for what Real's doing, and they may not be justifying it for the right reasons. In particular, philosophically, I agree with Real's right to do what they're doing. But goddammit, STOP IT.
I'm all for Apple protecting it's patents and technology it ligitimently owns. Fine, okay, whatever...but if you build a harddrive based player that runs linux and plays open formats (MP3, AAC, AIFF, WAV), didja ever stop to think someone could write a kernel that creates an MP3 stream and writes to the RAM buffer that's already in there? It would protect Real's DRM and not break the iPod.
Of course, Real has been woefully vague on how it works, so who knows how legal it actually is...and now Apple is going "They had to take something apart!" since Real decided to show them up.
Why don't they just sell non-DRM songs? That's what everyone here wants, right? "Apple is wrong for not licensing FairPlay" and "Apple is wrong for putting DRM on their songs." Funny how everyone here realizes that DRM is a necessary compromise in order for the legal online music business to take off the minute Apple does something they don't like.
The online music business is just starting out, and Apple wants to cement its place there. Real knows that its only chance at surviving the initial culling of the online music stores was to partner with Apple, and Apple knows that too. The problem is that Real is a competitor, and Apple doesn't want them to survive. Right now, iTunes and the iPod feed off each other. Let's think about what would happen if Apple licensed FairPlay to other music stores.
First of all, the small profits from the iTunes Music Store vanish. Second of all, Apple becomes responsible for making sure that future iPod firmware revisions will work correctly with everyone else's stuff. If they just say, "Screw it, we'll leave it to the licensees to check," then customers get pissed at Apple for issuing a firmware update which breaks their music purchased from other stores. Thirdly, Apple's massive marketshare in the nascent market goes starts trickling away. So can anyone tell me exactly what they stand to gain by doing this?
Now, licensing FairPlay for use by other portable players could be beneficial later on. Right now, the iPod and iTunes complement each other, but I don't think that act will keep up. The iPod is helping iTMS get off the ground and become an online music giant. Once iTMS gets on its feet, it won't really need to be an iPod-selling vehicle. Everyone and his mother wouldn't be jumping into this business if they didn't think there was a money-maker in the long-term. Once iTMS becomes a profitable entity by itself, then Apple can invite everyone who doesn't use an iPod in.
Look. It's up to the people who own ipods to do whatever they want with them, not Apple. Real is giving iPod owners choice, while Apple wants to lock them into iTMS forever. Apple is the badguy here, not real.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
it would be like if you bought a music CD made by Sony that would only play in a sony cd player. Sounds like they are wanting to maintain a monopoly or something.
Your post would've been better if you hadn't used an insane amount of ALLCAPS. Please don't do that again, it looks dumb.
No.
IIRC, Apple generates more revenue from selling ipods than selling music on iTunes. It would seem to me that allowing competitors to hack the ipod so their formats can play on the ipod would only benefit sales of the ipod, and therefore be beneficial to Apple.
On a related note, one of the reasons I opted for Neuros over the ipod was the formats it supported by default.
The only thing I can think of is that they hope to lock people into iTunes with their ipods, and find some way to start turning more of a profit(milking the customers for more $$$ and/or cutting some costs) with actual iTunes sales once they reach some critical mass.
"real is trying to steal something they don't have any rights to"
Can you define this "something"? Seems like you are, as we say in latin "speakeus outes ofes your asseus"
Gotta love the hypocrisy of /.. Apple threatens to invoke the DMCA against Real, and there's applause and cheers. Creative licenses a software patent to id, and there's mass boycotts threatened.
... quite possibly astroturfers at that (who says Microsoft has a monopoly on sleazy tactics?).
Oh Good Lord not yet again. How many fucking times does it take to get this through peoples think, apparently more dense than degenerate matter, skulls?
Slashdot is a community of hundreds of thousands, each with their own set of opinions.
"slashdot hypocracy" is an oxymoron, and those who keep trotting this strawman out like it has some relevance to reality (virtual or otherwise) are themselves moronic.
I have been moderated into oblivion by Apple Fankiddies for daring to be critical of their management. This is hardly "slashdot", it is merely a group of rabidly pro-Apple fanchildren
So what? There are others, like myself, who vehemently disagree. There are those that admire RMS. There are those who loathe him. There are those who like patents, those like myself who think any government entitlement to a monopoly is dangerous and harmful, and those who fall in between and dislike software patents but somehow think that the chilling effects they have on the IT industry magically don't exist in other areas of intellectual endeavor, such as medicine or mechanics.
There are those who would like to repeal the copyright laws and have everything in the public domain, those who would like to reform copyright so as to not grant monopolies and stifle derivative works (a sort of "authorright") and those that vehemently believe copyright is a sacred property right not to be touched.
There are libertarians, neo-conservative fascists, communists, socialsists, Republicans, Democrats, independents, and countless others who read and post to slashdot. There are athiests, muslims, christians, wiccans, buddhists, daoists, pegans, and satanists who take part in this forum.
There is no hypocracy. There are just vocal people here who disagree with each other and are not shy about saying so. Some of them support Apple no matter what, some support Microsoft no matter what, and a whole bunch who support Linux or FreeBSD. They're arguing with each other all of the time, and none of them define some "Slashdot Ueber mentality", gestalt entity, or anything else which is even capable, by the most liberal definition of the word, of being "hypocritical."
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
..if Apple starts making noises to stifle Real.
This could allow independent artists to sell drmed music directly without the expense of Apple taking their cut plus allow artists full control over compression quality and embedded data like artwork and lyrics.
I have never used an iPod, but I assumed they could play unencumbered MP3s as well as Apple's DRM'ed iTunes songs--and that the only new thing Real did was allow the iPod to play its own DRM'd files. Is that right?
Also--doesn't the DMCA explicitly allow reverse engineering for interoperability? (Disclaimer: I think the DMCA is a very bad law, but it's also the most likely legal mallet for Apple to use against Real.)
This could allow independent artists to sell drmed music directly without the expense of Apple taking their cut plus allow artists full control over compression quality and embedded data like artwork and lyrics.
So Apple is just fine in using an unjust-law? OK, so you would support a company that in 1860 used slave labor, because slave labor was legal?
Blar.
So...you buy from Real, and convert to MP3 using one of who know how many ways. What's the big deal?
There should be a law requiring/prohibiting that (Please circle one)
Yes you can. It may not be profitable for you to do so, but Real Networks has figured out how to do it with IPods. Honda doesn't (and wouldn't) have a problem with it. As a matter of fact, the auto industry is full of small (and large) companies who have found a way to use cars outside the scope of the manufacturer's intentions. You can even take your Honda to a NON-FACTORY-AUTHORIZED mechanic to fix it if you want, or even do it yourself.
..does anyone know how to hack the Apple CD/DVD drivers? I tried an article I found online, but the data was different in ResEdit for 1.4.
SYS 64738
Does anyone remember when Real sued Streambox in 1999 for reverse engineering their products? I won't feel one bit sorry for them if they lose this case...
You don't like apple using the DMCA? And are you going to give them any (more) of your money so that they can keep on using it?
My first Apple came with a listing of the ROM code. By adopting "the tactics and ethics of a hacker" I was able to modify it to do cool stuff like printing text on the graphics screen.
Those were the days.
Using that button: not legal.
I think that once someone has fully purchased a good then the creator of that good should have no say whatsoever over what it's used for, (unless that good is some kind of thing whose primary function and purpose is to allow the creator to have say over what it's used for - and the consumer is fully aware of the device's function as such - wouldn't that be a wierd device).
secondly I think that ideas alone are valueless.
time for my rant
Without knowledge one cannot offer service
without service goods cannot be created.
This would seem to point deductively that knowledge is the only real thing of value. However, I posit this example.
Assume that if I am a doctor then the knowledge I have is percieved to have great value. However, unless I actually apply that knowledge it is worthless - example: I am involved in an auto accident. I am bleeding to death on the pavement. A doctor happens to walk by. This doctor has full knowledge of how to stop my bleeding and ease my suffereing - yet, if this doctor does not transform his knowledge into action(a service) then to me his vast knowledge is useless, worthless.
service is the only real commodity.
by my reasoning when you buy the ipod you should be able to modify it to do anything you wish. Even if that function was to be some kind of crazy hacking device with the sole purpose of taking down apple inc. Even if you post a website detailing the design and function of your device, fully disclosing what it could be used for; unless you actually use it for the stated purpose or can be shown to have full intent to use it for such ( like a gun manufacturer can make a gun designed to kill - but you cannot say the designer has intent to kill - it is just what his creation is intended to do, not what he intends to do) you should not be held responsible for any POTENTIAL wrongdoing. ITS YOUR GOODS! You should be able to modify it for any purpose.
services are the only real thing of any real value.
The sooner the world changes it's economic model to suit this truth the sooner things will start working like they are supposed to.
was that a rant or what!?
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod."
Oh, as if you're company wasn't started by somebody who used the "tactitcs and ethics of a hacker" to build the Apple I.
I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
When hacking is outlawed, only outlaws will be hacking.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
That's costomer to you mr MeNeXT (200840).
/. crowd.
The bastards have got everyone going on this consume, consume , consume, even the
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
If this turns out to be a DMCA issue, the DMCA says that it is illegal to distribute anything that can be remotely construed as a way to circumvent DRM measures. So sure, you'll be able to make your ipod play anything you want in the same way that you can legally play DVDs in linux.
This is of course if Apple does do the wrong thing and invoke the DMCA against Real.... we'll see.
I've read a couple of articles about the Real-on-iPod issue and I still have not found out whether Real did this by forging the DRM so that the file is still protected from copying but not under iTunes control (?) or if they simply removed the DRM, if they did the latter then there is no issue, but if they actually forged the proprietary DRM then there is an issue of the protection of songs available through the iTunes store, and whether record companies would cease to allow apple sell their songs through it.
What blasphemy is this? Next you'll be claiming they they didn't write Internet Explorer themselves either! Or that Bill Gates didn't write MS-DOS!
Sheesh, the nerve of some people...
(Couldn't resist, sorry...)
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Real is trying to lock consumers into their closed DRM scheme by attempting to freeride the iPod's commercial success.
Companies like Real and Apple can offer a la carte music services as long as the songs are digitally protected. How is Real going to sell songs using a reverse engineered DRM scheme? What music label is going to offer songs to Real using a DRM scheme that Real reverse engineered? The labels are awfully skittish about DRM, after all, and the threat of Real not getting it right seems pretty large to me.
Conversely, what music label is going to offer songs to Apple if Apple distributes the songs using a DRM scheme that has been reverse engineered?
This is what scares me the most: Real's "tactics and ethics of a hacker" (as Apple aptly put it) could force the labels to demand more draconian protections and stop me from enjoying music the way I currently do. I figured some kid would do it (see PlayFair) but not a high profile company like Real. It's downright irresponsible.
Real could have negotiated new licensing, like Apple did, and offered songs in unprotected formats that would have played fine on the iPod. Or Real could have tried to develop a new market and license the stuff from Apple, like Motorola did. Instead they hallucinated large profits in a la carte downloads (which there aren't), said "me too," and stuck their grubby hands in the cake at the risk of ruining it for everyone. No wonder they're so widely derided.
Doesnt this add value to the ipod, now that they are able to play more files?
I fail to see why apple would be pissed about that.
no
Oh the HORROR! Competition! Gotta nip that competition in the bud.
Well we see what this is really about. . . has nothing to do with preventing illegal theft of intellectual property. Just another cynical attempt to use bad laws to try to stifle competition. . . something which I thought is illegal in the US.
I really don't understand... Real is making content available in a format that is compatible with the iPod and is compatible with iPod DRM.
The downsides
1. Loss of licensing revenue of fairplay
2. Competition for iTunes Store
Upsides
3. Potential improved sales for the iPod
Now it's been said often enough that the prime motive of iTunes is to sell iPods, so we can more or less discount downside 2. Downside 1? I can't believe that it is *that* substantial.
Hmmm.
Guess what, Real uses AAC same as... lets see... who else uses AAC.
Hmm. Only apple uses 128kb/s Real uses 192kb/s.
Ask me the question again?
(note IANAL) Many people (including real) are expressing that they have a right to listen to whatever formats they wish on the iPod. Yet, no one was ever forced to purchase an iPod. As far as I see, the freedom to choose your selected audio formats is with the consumer before they purchase a music device. If a consumer is unhappy with their purchase, they are free to obtain a player that will utilize other music formats. my Ogg buddies love their machines knowing the functionality was more imporatant than the coolness factor, and I have my iPod due to my own journey through the MP3 player purchasing decision. Apple has spent a ton of money on R&D and adverting, and any other company is free to do the same to create and sell a product of superior value offering. for real to piggyback on Apple's success is not only an admission of the lack of success with their own downloading venuture, but their failure to as of yet provide their own superior offering. it is in this spirit that we have such an excellent race with game consoles vying to prove they are the best value for specific consumers.
It may not be such a sound move on Apples part. For a start it would inconclusively highlight to consumers the main issue with iPod... lack of compatibility with different fileformats. And also the issue of its DRM.
The other thing is that strictly speaking (if you read the original article) Real did no such hacking of the iPod. Rather enabled Real's software to use parts of iTunes if it was previously installed. And in addition took advantage of the known iPod drm mechanisms and found a way to work with them in such a way that enabled their files to play. In fact I think it would be an extremely hard case to prove that any form of copyright circumvention has taken place at all.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
So I'm going to be the first to say, hooray that other products can interact with the iPod. Now perhaps the fact that the aftmost media company in the world has gotten together a way to hack into the iPod (with their typical level of excellent programming and tasteful, functional, ad-free interface design) will motivate Apple to let the sacred cow die a little and license fairly to other, slightly less buffoonishly incompetent folks.
This is missing the point of why Real is evil, though. Real is evil because they are acting in horrible bad faith here. They came to Apple and asked to license their product. Apple, for whatever reasons, possibly that an alliance with Real would only make them look bad or possibly because The Great Steve was Feeling Peevish That Day, denied the request. Remember how it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission? Well, it only works if you don't ask permission first. Real then proceeded to take what they were denied. Even if they manage to get it by the courts, the fact is that that is still wrong.
But wait, let's take it one step further: they not only took the license they were denied, but they also are offering to sell, not give, it to anyone similarly downtrodden by the evil of Apple. They're not selling a product -- they're licensing the protocol that's not theirs. Again -- legal? Maybe. Ethical? Not so much.
Even so, I could be on their side, but then I decided to check out the licensing agreement for Harmony:
So, hypocritical, shoddy, unethical, and possibly illegal. That's great. You don't have to be a fanboy to dislike this. My bottom line: I've been hoping for the iPod to get hacked for a while, but I feel like I've been granted a twisted, evil version of my wish.
adam b.
http://www.realnetworks.com/company/press/releases /2004/harmony_statement.html
REALNETWORKS STATEMENT ABOUT HARMONY TECHNOLOGY AND CREATING CONSUMER CHOICE
SEATTLE, July 29, 2004 -- RealNetworks®, Inc. (Nasdaq: RNWK) is delighted by initial consumer and music industry support for Harmony. Compatibility, choice and quality are critically important to consumers and Harmony provides all of these to users of the iPod and over 70 other music devices including those from Creative, Rio, iRiver, and others. RealPlayer Music Store provides the highest sound quality of any download music service. That's why so many consumers have welcomed news of Harmony. Consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod.
Harmony follows in a well-established tradition of fully legal, independently developed paths to achieve compatibility. There is ample and clear precedent for this activity, for instance the first IBM compatible PCs from Compaq. Harmony creates a way to lock content from Real's music store in a way that is compatible with the iPod, Windows Media DRM devices, and Helix DRM devices. Harmony technology does not remove or disable any digital rights management system. Apple has suggested that new laws such as the DMCA are relevant to this dispute. In fact, the DMCA is not designed to prevent the creation of new methods of locking content and explicitly allows the creation of interoperable software.
We remain fully committed to Harmony and to giving millions of consumers who own portable music devices, including the Apple iPod, choice and compatibility.
hackermedia.net/droops
its a little profane, but they make some good points.
We should never forget that the first software company that the FSF and Stallman openly attacked was Apple. Long ago, and under Jobs' watch as once again, Apple sued all and sundry over the "look and feel" of their systems. Of course they're going to threaten anyone who breaks their stranglehold on the iPod. It's what Apple does - they develop monopolies and try to maintain hard them, often at the expense of their own "partners". Anybody seen a "clone Mac" lately?
Somewhere I still have an LPF button with the seven-color apple logo and a snake coming out of it, with the caption "Keep your lawyers off my computer!".
I'd say 100% of the people cheering DMCA are astroturfers from the Linux Jihad or some other such stupid organization. This story has more 400 comments and it's only two hours old.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I could be mistaken, but I thought it was the other way around - the iPod is a loss leader for iTunes. In that case, this makes perfect sense - Real is taking advantage of Apple's legwork to compete with them in the more profitable market (with Harmony).
Apple and Real should cross License each others formats and bury the hatchet. In the long run it will help the bottom line of both companies and their customers (remember them?) will be the winners. The other option, well how about one of those decals for the back of your pickup truck with Calvin pissing on an Ipod?
..I don't want any stinking choice! (Not that I should have any say in the matter..) Apple should tell me what to do with my iPod, and damn any company that lets me decide!
Seriously, when is choice ever a bad thing? Ok.. apart from "Do I watch the end of the game, or do I go to the fridge to get a beer". That's nasty.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to put Real files on your iPod, just that Apple shouldn't have to support your iPod after Real screws with it's innards.
Then again, maybe I'm just talking out of my ass.
Allowing monopolies to develop in this area is not in the public interest.
What we need is a law that requires makers of media playing equipment to release the specifications required to interface to those machines. This would in no way impact the protections of DMCA (whether good or bad) because it would only protect translations into the machine format, not out of it.
Squirrel!
I've now read through some pretty fanatical fanboy responses. People who have no grip on reality. I've read through some people who think Apple is the cause of all evil, and even a few who think that the Apple has fallen from the tree on this one entirely.
Why should Apple care that Real has released a new firmware for the iPod? Because the iPod is so successful for being intimitely intertwined with iTunes. Apple does this because the number of software releases are remarkably few -- and Apple has the rights to the code to hunt down any problems.
But they're not Apple's iPods! I bought my iPod, I should be able to do what I want! That's fantastic, enjoy. I've heard the ucLinux people have had some fun. Nobody will stop you. Real, on the other hand, is parting people (customers) from their money, and giving them a tangible product. They did not secure the rights or any agreement from Apple that they won't break the product. This means that either Apple has to fight Real's concoction or do more regression testing. There be dragons down the latter of the two if more companies than Real start releasing firmware that consumers think they can install. And what if Real and Microsoft both release their own mutually exclusive firmware? Does Apple get the phonecalls from Ma and Pa (realistically, not too many grandmas own iPods, but I know some parents who do) who want support for both file formats? This is a big financial burden for Apple with no income.
But Apple is evil for invoking the DMCA! Fight the law. The best way to do that in the US justice system is to find an example case that demonstrates it being used poorly, break it, and fight the law in the courts. You may want to get the ACLU involved. Apple has to protect their interests, and their lawyers obviously felt the DMCA was the most straightforward way to do so.
Apple reverse engineered lots of stuff! How hypocritical to bust on Real for reverse engineering! When Apple reverse engineers a protocol for communicating with an Exchange server, the protocols are mostly established, and breaking that protocol involves Microsoft breaking their own clients. In this case, Apple either loses their ability to add functionality for fear of breaking third party unendorsed firmware, or Apple has to make it clear to everybody that this is unsupported and will likely break in the future. Will it really? Who knows. I don't expect Apple to go out of their way to break it but the best thing to do is overestimate the probability just in case.
This is horrible! This is the worst thing Apple has ever done! Well, that's what lots of people said when Apple licensed the one click patent. They're not exactly a perfect company.
Apple still sells an iPod.
And if I'm stupid enough to drop it, or drop something in it, coffee or Real's player, then I'm the guy who'se out the bucks.
But Apple still sells an iPod.
People will just have to be red-faced when their iPod fills up with inaudible/unusable crap and the iPod doesn't run anymore. They'll bring it back to Apple and it will be wiped out because it not 'stock'. Apple can sell that service too.
It isn't Apple's lot to support somebody else's player so it isn't theirs to bitch about.
Just like I can't bitch to BMW about my after market add on, Apple doesn't need to hear about how stupid I might have been installing whatever.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Real has done nothing wrong, and the DMCA is an immoral law (though it doesn't even appear to apply in this case).
Sheesh. Where's the "-1, Multi-level Marketing Solicitation" mod?
Just riddle me THAT one Batman.
This tells you how dumb the DMCA law is. It will be used to protect a monopolistic activity. This is like having Ford release a car and say that you can only use Exxon gas. If someone alters their car to accept Shell or some other brand of gas that they are going to sue you. Once you purchase hardware, it should be yours to do with as you please. The same goes for software. You should be able to do anything you want with it once you've purchased it. (accept of course distribute illegal copies) Like when companies sell you a database and tell you that if you run tests on it you can't tell anyone your results. I mean WTF is that?
Just my take on the main themes of the "Apple is wrong" posts...
-- "It's competition, man"
There is nothing admirable about this kind of competition. Real has not improved the quality of any of their products, but is trying to profit from the successes of another. True competition would be producing something better than Apple that lured away iPod users on its own merits. If everyone "competed" in this way, the technological innovation we love so much would go nowhere.
-- "What about the consumer's rights? I can do whatever I want with the hardware I purchased, man!"
Indeed you can. Fly your iPod on a model-plain, feed it to your pet ferret, paint it green. Apple doesn't care. Better yet, write a program yourself (if you can) that allows you to play other file formats on your iPod and use it "personally" (don't give it away). Apple wouldn't care. Your personal rights are not being compromised here, people (other than your right to be lazy). What you are all missing is that this isn't Apple vs the little consumer, but a Corporation vs another Corporation. If the Real engineers had written the program and used it personally at home for themselves, Apple would not have had anything to say. Real is attempting to profit financially from this however. Apple's beef with Real doesn't equal a beef with consumers and their rights. If you are too lazy/unmotivated to hack the iPod yourself, you can't honestly complain that Apple is unfair in not wanting you to use what Real has made instead (and let them make money from it as well).
- "Apple owes it to its customers to free us from the shackles of DRM, man"
The level of understanding of business-practices, and the coporate world in general, held by most slashdotters is woefully low. Apple is a business. Theoretically, it doesn't inherently "owe" consumers anything, nor do we "owe" them our money. If they want to be successful however, it behooves them to make a product that satisfies customers' demands and needs. Buy all standards and measures they have done this with the iPod. And the money and time spent on making the iPod the success that it is, are probably beyond most of our appreciations. They are constantly upgrading the iPod/iTunes combo, and more supported file formats are probably not far away. But when they arrive, it won't be because we were "owed" anything. It will be because they will be able to attract more customers with such enhancements, and the effort to implement them is deemed worthwhile to them in a business sense. Asking them to "get over" the Real reverse-engineering displays nothing but an almost complete lack of understanding of how the business world works.
Take responsibility for the purchases you make, people. You knew what you were getting when you laid down money for an iPod, and you decided given its features that it was worth it. It's one thing to say "I wish Apple had cooperated in licensing with Real in the first place," or "I think Real's software/music catalog is better." But to whine because a freebie, and one that you had never given two thoughts about before, is now not going to be allowed is childish. Saying its anti-consumer is an easy excuse for your own laziness. Nothing about this prevents you from doing what you want to your hardware.
all the comments on the board are all people being upset because Apple won't let them do things they want to with the iPod. it's not about Apple letting you do what you want it's about another rival company doing what they want. i own an iPod and can now do with it as i please as long as i do it on a private stage. a company putting out software that has broken Apple's DMCA rights isn't john doe at home by any means. you can't take a popular idea make changes to it and try to resell it. unless of course you're Microsoft....
Real just responded to Apple's PR machine:
"Consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod," Real Networks said in a statement given to MacCentral.
"There is ample and clear precedent for this activity, for instance the first IBM compatible PCs from Compaq," said RealNetworks. "Harmony creates a way to lock content from Real's music store in a way that is compatible with the iPod, Windows Media DRM devices, and Helix DRM devices. Harmony technology does not remove or disable any digital rights management system. Apple has suggested that new laws such as the DMCA are relevant to this dispute. In fact, the DMCA is not designed to prevent the creation of new methods of locking content and explicitly allows the creation of interoperable software."
1) Reverse engineering to ensure compatibility is explicitly allowed by the DMCA
2) Apple's copyright protection scheme has not been removed or broken by Real's hack, so DMCA doesn't apply.
3) Real hasn't copied anything from Apple, so no copyright has been infringed.
4) The only possible action is a patent enforcement: Apple could claim that Real has used patented AAC technology without permission. Real buys a license, case closed.
= 9J =
Hey, I've got nothing against the Welsh but I'm packing my bags. Most Dangerous Game ON!
Apple is less concerned with losing sales of online music to Real. Their main concern is that the hack Real used to allow this will cause customer problems down the road. Imagine you are John Doe owner of an iPod (and are barely computer literate) and decide that you want to put some of this music you bought from Real on your iPod. Everything works fine for the first month or so. A update for your iPod comes out and you install it (because newer is always better right?). Once you finish the install, you are no longer able to play any of those songs you got from Real. Now the average user is going to blame Apple for the problem becuase the hardware must be broken. Apple does not want customers calling their support to fix something their product was not designed to do. It makes the iPod appear to be a inferior product due to people having problems playing these songs now and they tell their friends about this bad experience. This means bad word of mouth for Apple and less future sales of iPods.
Sure a few less online song sales would not be good for Apple, but the big picture for them is iPod sales, not music.
Actually, from what I can tell, the music that goes into the iPod isn't RM-encoded. Instead, Real's Software encodes it into a format readable by whatever portable player it's being uploaded into, like an iPod-compatible format, Windows Media-compatible, or whatever other format the portable player uses. Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to create compatible files, and if it was, a lot of Open-Source apps could be prosecuted under the DMCA just like Real.
The only way I could see that Real could be in legal trouble here is if they use a DRM scheme like Apple's when it goes into the iPod, and you would think they would be smart enough to not do that.
Apple makes money selling iPod's, not songs on iTunes (i.e, 10 cents a song for 100M songs is only 10M in *revenue*, that probably just barely covers the cost of the store).
If they couldn't couple their song store to their players (or ones that they get royalties on), then they couldn't affort to build the online store in the first place--and who would be better off then?
They aren't a monopoly (there's competitors in online music, most music is still bought in CD shops)--but even if they were, there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly. Apple doesn't have 'exclusive' contracts with music distributers, and they don't engage in monopolistic tactics (at least not yet). The have licensed access to their store to other companies (HP) who will have compatible players out.
What Real wants is to be able to use the iTunes store without having to pay Apple a cent, and without being beholden to Apple's other restrictions that must exist (about usability of the music player and consistency of the interface). Apple is entirely within their rights to lock Real out.
Now in the future where online music is a mature industry AND if Apple becomes a 'monopoly', where a reasonable case can be made that Apple's format is the de facto standard--then Apple might be compeled to relax their licensing terms a little.
Brannon
If you were Apple, what would *you* do? I'm not sure I'd direct my company to act any differently, though I'd be pressing Real to license FairPlay for a large sum of cash.
I think the law is the problem. I get real sick of people saying "if you don't like the law change it". That's just not feasible. There are so many assaults on our freedom from every angle right now that we're powerless as individuals to stop (as a collective perhaps). The easy answer is "if you don't like the law, break it, just don't get caught".
With that said what Real should have done is anonymously release the hack on the internet, throw it out in the P2P sharing networks and let the end users take the ball and run with it, shit make it open source.
^^vv<><>BA
I've been evangelizing Apple to anyone who is afraid to try Linux. This pretty much makes my desktop operating platform recommendations, in order or long term value to the consumer (just the four leading desktop platforms):
1. Linux
2 - 51. Linux
52 - 83. Linux or BSD
84 - 98. Linux or BSD or Apple
99 - 100. Any
Yesterday it would have been
1. Linux
2 - 52. Linux or Apple
52 - 98. Linux or Apple or BSD
99 - 100. Any
My apologies to BSD, but I've always found installing software to be too hard for desktop users.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
That makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, it makes too much sense for it to be legal these days. If Real officially "decrypted" or "reverse engineered" anything to get this hack working (like, say, a BIOS), then Apple can wave the spectre of the DMCA at them, as the article mentions. In fact, I'd say Apple has a decent shot of winning, and a great shot of using the threat of litigation to beat Real into submission.
I mean, Christ on a crutch, it's a pretty simple device... Not like every electronics company hasn't already made something similar. It shouldn't be too difficult at all to make something iPod compatible.
There you go being all logical again. You're going to have to work on that if you want to improve your grasp of the current American legal system. ;)
As a bit of an aside, how much more evidence will it take to convince Congress that no, really, the DMCA is completely anticompetitive? We have printer cartridges, DVD's, PS2 mod chips, this...what next? Is the entire concept of competition for aftermarket support a myth these days?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
The law is not wrong.
The law is the law.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Okay, so if (in theory) apple sells songs at breakeven on itunes to build brand and sell more ipods, why do they care if real sells songs and the ipod becomes a more valuable, cross-platform device?
Or is it just another case of a company being possessive just because somebody goes against what the company originally planned?
Read jack phelps dot net
Locking people into your product is just plain wrong. This is apples poor attempt to control the free market and consumer choice by keeping people who bought a iPod using their service and no competing service such as Napster to buy and play their Music. However the iPod's popularity will quickly wane as more and more products that are able to work with a variety of services hit the market thus providing fair competition and will benefit consumers and businesses alike.
Nope iPod is one of Apple's highest margin products. iTunes just squeaks a profit, I believe.
I noticed this too and sent a note to cnn money about an hour ago and it appears they changed the text. It now reads:
"Real's Harmony creates an issue for Apple because previously iPod only accepted legally-downloaded songs from its own music store iTunes. Those legally-downloaded songs are encrypted, but iPod also plays un-encrypted music files that may have been illegally downloaded."
So it's still kind of oddly worded and not totally accurate (the ONLY thing it played in the beginning was unrestricted mp3's), but at least now it mentions that it plays unrestricted files as well.
Joseph?
Because everyone seems to be berating the /. community for fanboyism and protecting our beloved ipod producer when in fact everyone seems to be slamming them for it....
They should have just shut up and let real quietly fade away, they're not likely to stop sucking anytime soon so why antagonize?
Indeed, it seems to me the only reason they would do this is to get a precedent out and send a message to MS that they're going to protect their ASSets as much as they can. It's the only reasonable explanation, they have nothing to directly gain from roughing up Real.
"Hacker" is a word, and it's been redefined. Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, and Oxford English Dictionary, the definitive reference for the English language, all agree. Like "marriage". You're not arguing that a word "marriage" can't be redefined to include gay couples, are you? (I'd think not, since you must be a flaming liberal - or flaming - if you're posting to slashdot.)
I find it amusing that apple suddenly has a problem with "hacker methods", when it was blue boxing that funded the two Steve's garage project over 20 years ago.
This seems to be completely at odds with the speech Steve Wozniak gave at The Fifth H.O.P.E.(Hackers on planet earth) conference earlier this month.
The NY times article is at: http://tinyurl.com/3wyo4
From a new york times article:
Wozniak, a founder of Apple Computer, was speaking to the choir Saturday at a conference in Midtown Manhattan, recalling an era when the word "hackers" referred to technological wizards, not rogue computer users....
Mr. Wozniak described his relationship with John T. Draper, a man who became known as "Captain Crunch" 35 years ago when he showed how a plastic whistle that came in Cap'n Crunch cereal boxes could be used to manipulate the national phone system......
Mr. Wozniak said he had not cared that the technology could save him a few dimes. Rather, he said, he found it wonderful that a simple tool, cleverly used, could control something complicated and powerful in a forbidden way.....
Like putting Realmedia files on an Ipod?
Just food for thought,
Aparently hacking is ok when it suits your company or makes you money, and it's rougue and dangerous when it threatens your business model.
Battery at Chicago2600 dot net
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
. . . but in this case they are the ethics of a white-hat hacker, and Apple is supposed to be the "cool" company that supports that kind of thing. Did you know Steve Jobs got a payraise of over 1000%? Maybe Apple isn't so cool as we thought. . .
Hmmmm.
(My wife has had a Nex IIe for a year... still works great -- never seen another one of those in the wild either though...)
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker." I'm not surprised. Real's software and business practices have been deplorable for years.
Don't update the firmware to your iPod, specially if people say that it breaks Real. That way the hacked-up-and-maybe-not-entirely-compliant-DRM that Real will have sold you will keep on working. It's better to let the customers know NOW that what they buy on rhapsody is at their own risk. No guarantees. At least Apple has the guts to say so, even though it may make them look bad. Real doesn't.
Apple has nothing to lose by having other stores, since they're not making much money out of theirs anyways. But if customers call in to complain that Joe's Music Mart Online's music with Botched-DRM 2000(tm) no longer works after an iPod firmware update, guess who the customer is mad at?
Do you have to be a fanboy to like Apple? Come on.
I put much more faith in Apple than any other company, because they are doing right by me as a customer. I never would have touched a Mac until OS X, and even then, I warily bought an iBook because I needed a laptop, and didn't need to deal with a Linux laptop -- already had a Linux desktop, and had been using it since 95 exclusively.
But you know what? I think I speak for most Apple users when I say I'm happy. All us geeks who have grown tired of the Windows BS, and who were somewhat happier with Linux, are absolutely thrilled that somebody makes great products like Apple does. Finally something that works the way a computer should -- lets us get work done when we want to, and lets us play around with the innards when we want to, too. I like to be able to use rsync to back up my data, ok?
I'm tired of fighting the fight with all those companies that just don't get it. Apple gets it.
I'm happy with their products, so I'll defend 'em. When they lose that edge and another company's products are better, I'll leave Apple for that company.
And by the way, if you don't like Apple breaking into your house and destorying your ability to do what you see fit with your iPod, DON'T DOWNLOAD THE IPOD UPDATERS. Apple isn't breaking your ipod without your permission.
> Regarding the DMCA: you can't fault Apple for using a law on the books
No fanboy, I CAN fault Apple when they act evil, same as I got pissed at Adobe when they used the DMCA to attack the research community and that time I got me off my butt and made me donate to the EFF. I won't be donating this this time because Real can afford their own lawyers for now. Repeat after me: ALL WHO DO EVIL ARE WICKED AND MUST BE PUNISHED UNTIL THEY REPENT OF THEIR WICKEDNESS. Even Apple.
Democrat delenda est
Why does Real need Apple's permission to hack iPods? The only argument that you could make against Real is to support the DMCA
They are not hacking iPods.
You can find people who are hacking iPods at ipodhacks.com, and Apple have been fine with that thusfar it seems.
Real are attempting to take revenue from Apple after Apple approached Real when they were trying to start up the Apple store, but Real told them to get screwed (they had their own ideas, involving Real's own shitty software and appauling DRM system with glorious features such as 'limited number times you can play back files' and 'limited lifetime for files').
If Apple was my company, I'd want to shaft Real now too (both to rub their noses in it, but most importnatly to kick them when they were down and eliminate marginal competition in a legal manner, using means avalible in and endorsed by the capitalist infrastructure of the country they are trading in).
This all has bupkis to do with 'what's good for us', Real is just playing the underdog card (as Apple does against it's competitors). I don't think I'd hold the same position if it was some nordic teenager they were harrasing, but it's not, it's Real, who is a competitor to Apple in quite a few areas, and it's for highly contextal reasons - and, I don't give a flying squirrel about Real. In fact, I like the streaming audio/video client but I hate their horrible music software and their Helix DRM implimentation, not to mention all the spyware they bundle with it.
The focus should be on fixing the clearly inappropriate law.
It has put companies into a bind:
If Apple don't invoke it, it's easy to say they are not protecting their own interests and so those of their shareholders. So who should they shaft? Real or their shareholders? Board members can be fined and prosectuted if the company doesn't act in the interest of it's investors (the general public in this case).
Better not to put any company in that postion and just remove the law. If you fail to do that, and simply go after companies with the pressure of 'public opinon' as your weapon, sooner or later some company is going to realise that potential dip in revenue from sales lossed is going to be less than the amount they stand to lose if a competitor gets the upper hand, then consumers are screwed when someone like Sony decides to make a test case out of it and sets their sharpest lawyers on the case to make as sure as possible they don't fail.
The publicity Real is getting from all is this worth 10 times what their legal costs will be. They probably said, "what the hey."
Little Bricklets
But where is this "Harmony" software?
I've scoured Real.com and Realnetworks.com and I can't find a trace of it... or even a mention of it.
Anyone?
Yes, and while we're at it, I would like a PDA that lights my cigarettes and wipes my ass for me.
/. bitch about the iPod not having x encoding format or x obscure-as-shit Operating System Compatibility, I would probably have about $40 U.S. Sir, the dead horse you are beating is little more than so much decomposed mush now. Let it go. Please.
I want it to be able to light normal filtered class A cigarettes, but also include support for 100s and unfiltered.
I want it to support 1-ply AND 2-ply toilet paper and be forward-compatible for new multiple-ply standards in the future.
I would also like it to be child and babysafe, so that if a toddler is within a certain proximity of the machine it will not light cigarettes and will only use baby wipes.
Furthermore, it must be fully compatible with my OS/2 Warp box.
And I would like a pony, but that last one is optional.
Anyone that does not acquiesce to these demands is being closed and proprietary. For shame!
Apple's possible legal action aside, the iPod is an example of product implementation where their goal was to do one thing and do it well: let people play tons of music on a well-designed, portable device. Google did the same thing with search by keeping it relatively simple.
If I had a nickel for everytime I heard someone on
I'm of two minds here.
On the one hand, I HATE Real for what they've done to mine and others PC's.
On the other, I disagree with the view that I can't do anything I want to do with MY iPod.
Real are obnoxious, arrogant, pouting, petulant, unscrupulous, money-grabbing, charletans, so i won't be buying anything from them, whether or not they succeed in whatever legal proceedings arise.
However, if another startup or other such competetor offers me cheaper digital music for my player because of this, I'm all for it.
In short bless you Real, may your burn forever in the bowels of danmnation itself.
May the Maths Be with you!
Wisdom Tree didn't quite break any encryption to get around the lockout chip.
They used a special cartridge with a passthrough that you would attach a real cartridge to. Then it'd use the lockout chip on that one to play.
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/07/29/rea lharmony/
... but I hope you're not offended if it voids your warranty. Also, if Apple patches the iPod OS and your blessed songs stop playing, will you blame Real (evidently the "innovators" here), or Apple? Somehow, I think you'll blame Apple, further destroying the reputation and goodwill they've gained with an outstanding product. All because you insist on using a kludge from a marginal company that brings nothing to the table except a "choice".
... Hey, worship your freedom of choice all you want, but why not go ahead and buy a cheap piece-of-junk player that already plays Ogg, etc, and stop ragging on Apple?
I could understand if Real were actually adding value here. But they have a smaller selection, a crummier DRM, poorer sound quality,
I _love_ my iHP 140 to death. Check this... I hooked it up to my *nix box, USB 2.0 external hard drive. I _repartitioned_ it. Then I set up FAT32 on part 1, and ext2 of part2, marked part 2 bootable. I put my music on the first part, and I can boot my Dell machines at work into a rescue disk on partition 2.
I should have written it off as a business expense! Hahaha...
And you know what? The Apple types get all snooty about the wheel and the controls on the iPod... well, I'm quite fond of the navigation using the three toggle switches on the remote. The "hold means back/cancel/up" thing was a really good idea. And two seperate hold switches for the remote and the unit itself... very useful.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I will actually tolerate a closed system as long as there is a good reason for keeping a closed system and I know what I am buying. No one expects the firmware on an external hard disk to be upgradable by third parties, do they? With an iPod, I can buy music accessories, etc, and be reasonably certain that they are compatible and won't break with the next upgrade. As a downside I get a bit less choice, but I knew the trade off when I started. I don't ever expect to be able to play WMA files. Apple's DRM is just barely tolerated by a lot of people because it gets out of the way, and Real letting users "choose" another DRM scheme that could cause them trouble isn't necessarily a good thing.
Users "hacking" their own products is one thing, but companies hacking those products for them without making it perfectly clear what they are doing is another. I know that we always want more choice, but some people want things to just work. If Apple releases a new iPod, will they have to wait for Real to update their drivers or have people's songs break?
P.S. The DMCA is still evil, but just because Real is allowed to doesn't mean they should. This whole business is probably moot, as who would want to buy DRMed music from Real anyway?
Jobs has said it only makes .15 - .20 usd per song in profit after fees to the labels and hardware/software/people costs.
That is a 15% to 20% profit margin and that is nothing to sneeze at.
You'd think so, but you'd be wrong. Cause companies listened, and alot of us now own iRivers or other devices which do what we want them to, and which have companies behind them which actually listen to us when we have complaints.
I have a 140 and it does everything he talked about.
has just gotten better!
If Apple had just kept their mouth shut and made sure that updates to the iPod would break Real's songs, then the consumer would quickly learn that buying a third party product involves risk. This would probably hurt Realnetworks. Of course, this would be a very unscrupulous thing to do but if done surrepitiously, only Real would look bad. Apple would only be guilty of "improving" the software and incidentally breaking Real.
I see no reason why an iPod user would want to acquire music from Harmony. The music is the exact same price as iTMS and it's Impossible to make it any cheaper without selling it at a huge loss.
It's sale is still restricted to the US and Canada, while iTMS sells to Europe and other Countries are in the Works.
Also, hacking your iPod isn't adding Haxies to MacOSX, or recompiling a custom Kernel for Linux. It's almost guaranteed to break it, Think of all the negativity Apple gets when a Haxie breaks MacOSX, or MS get when a Dodgy Driver causes Windows to Bluescreen. I'm sure it will also void your Warranty on your iPod.
Apple should be embracing music stores that have the iPod as the "recommended" players. This would've been the ideal way to keep Dell out of this market, and would've hurt Microsoft's efforts as well.
.wmv route because of their competition with Microsoft, and Real's use of mpeg4 throughout their products makes them a logical licensee for Quicktime and FairPlay. I suppose it also makes them a big competitor in this sector, but a less dangerous one than MS.
Apple had it good when Dell was selling iPods, and did even better by getting HP to do the same. But then things went worse...
- Dell started selling their own player. No doubt that MS and Dell together are a huge threat to iTMS and iPod.
- Linspire/Lindows recommends the Dell player for LSongs. Apple missed a huge opportunity on the Linux side of things. They should've worked with Linspire to make LSongs the iTunes for Linux. (Although one could argue that Linspire has a lot more motivation to work with Dell than with Apple, for reasons outside the realm of the music industry.)
- Real wanted to partner with Apple. Right now Real isn't selling hardware, only songs. They do not want to go the
Apple makes most of their money in this business off of iPod sales, so having manufacturers sell iPods, and having music stores recommending them can only be good. If every music store is recommending iPods, and most manufacturers are selling them with their PCs, then Dell and MS would have a hard time penetrating the market. The "all my friends have iPods" and "all the stores recommend iPods" barrier would be tough to break.
By trying to keep the iTMS pie for themselves, they've created a group of stores that'll gravitate towards the Dell and MS solution. This hurts the Quicktime and Macintosh brands as much as iPod and iTunes.
Of course Apple might have another route planned. They saturate the market with as many iPods as possible. Eventually everyone who wants a portable player will have one of some sort, so sales will stagnate. They make sure that the only major store selling AAC for all those iPods is iTMS (and maybe some licensed hardware partners who help sell ACC enabled players like HP). Therefore they can keep a huge portion of the market share for online music buyers, long after the players stop selling like crazy. If iTMS doesn't profit now, they can always bump up the price a little bit due to their near lock-in. They also keep a lock-in on the iPod, as all these iTMS files with FairPlay that everyone has bought will not play on competing portables.
Unfortunately the second route won't work for Apple for two reasons. One is that Dell and MS are already building many allies in this market, whereas Apple is being very selective in who they will partner with. The Windows monopoly will help MS a great deal here. The other is that the iTMS and iPod lock-in is too easy to break. FairPlay can be cracked, the iPod can be hacked to play other formats, and stores can always sell mp3s which will play on everything. Apple's fights against these developments will only serve to make them less popular, and give their competitors more allies.
The minute Apple uses the DMCA, they lose a lot of respect in some tech circles. Right now they are the only people in the music industry seem to "get it", and we love them for this. But bringing in Apple legal against Real may show how much at least one part of the company does not "get it". Unfortunately it seems Jobs has a big enough ego and enough hatred of Real to back the lawyers on this one, to whatever ends are necessary. Maybe Read deserves it too, but that doesn't stop this from hurting Apple.
I used to work in the hardware department at Sears (my first job as a teenager). Craftsman tools were mostly guaranteed for life--if you didn't do anything outrageous with them, we were supposed to just give you a free replacement with no questions asked. One guy came in with a 1/2-inch socket so mutilated that one can only imagine he had attached a six-foot long pipe to the end of his wrench, stood on the end of it, and jumped up and down with all of his 250 pounds. We called the manager over. He looked at the socket, shook his head, and gave the guy a new one anyway.
I don't know what the point of that was. Oh, yeah. Apple is teh rock!
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
I'm appalled by this statement, and that it was modded up. Tying two products together does not make one a monopoly. Having too much market share makes one a monopoly. Slashdotters still don't understand what a monopoly is, and they really should.
If chevy did what you described, everyone would switch to Ford, Saturn, Nissan, or whoever, because they don't have the car market cornered/
Any such case against apple in this instance is weak. They have 50-60% of the online music market, but they don't have the music market in general cornered by any stretch. You can still buy CDs from hundreds of different places. And you can rip those songs from the CDs and load them on your MP3 player and never even touch the iTMS. People do this quite often (I happen to be one of them).
That doesn't make this tactic any less immoral, it just means that you can't prosecute them. If in 20 years iTMS corners the market on pay for music downloads and 90% of brick and mortar stores stop selling CDs, THEN Apple has a monopoly and should be treated as such.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
People seem to be touching on the most obvious parts of the issue between Apple and Real, but i think one needs to take a step back and look at the whole picture to get a real idea of whats going on.
Apple creates iPod/iTunes, probably one of the nicest pieces of tech made in recent times, kudos to them for that. When the RIAA lashes out at the huge P2P music swapping situation, Apple sees the opportunity for an online music store that can drive iPod sales, and put some much needed cash in their pocket. Steve-O manages to negotiate some rather amazing terms from the big 5 record companies to make iTMS a reality. Noone expects the iPod to become the phenomenon it has become, and now other players are scrambling to get on the bandwagon before it leaves the station.
Apple, Microsoft, and Real have been in a media format war for a number of years now. Each of them has a personal interest in being the dominant format b/c they are betting that one day the majority of conventional media will be carried on the net and that obviously means huge licensing fees for them. Microsoft bets that its windows dominance will secure its piece of the pie. Real is so hungry and defensive of their prospective piece they are willing use some dirty tactics to keep alive, thus giving them a bad name, making them even more paranoid. Apple, having long time connections with entertainment, plays that card by making Quicktime a production standard and marketing its quality.
Now Apple has the iPod/iTMS trojan horse, a real coup in the battle for media dominance, that noone really expected. Not only is Apple leading the online music market and in a position to get the best content from the Big-5 and indies in europe, but each iPod they sell ensures a Quicktime installation. They have a relatively loose DRM on their music which allows decent usage by consumers while keeping the very Paranoid RIAA happy, a key to the content Apple is selling. MS and Real are fully aware of these facts and are rather unhappy, that Apple has managed to not only create a viable market and secure the keys to that market for themselves, but also shoehorn Quicktime into the whole thing under their noses. Apple playing goody-two shoes with the entertainment industry this way is a real threat to their designs on the online video/film/tv industry that are betting will soon follow, now that music has shown itself as being viable.
So Real, desperate as it is, decided to jump on Apples bandwagon, cause they sure as hell arent getting in bed with MS, their loathed enemy. They ask Apple to license FairPlay to them, and Apple, knowing Real is not of any great significance anymore, ignores them. Why would they license their DRM, it could potentially add more Real Players on computers, which goes against their plans anyway. Real then does something increadibly stupid and threatens to get in bed with MS if Apple doesnt license Fairplay, and totally but Real on Apple's shitlist permanently.
Realizing their blunder, and not willing to face extinction, they decide to get really sneaky. They know Fairplay is a pretty loose DRM and easy enough to circumvent because Independent programmers had already done so. So they reverse engineer Fairplay without Apple's knowledge and announce Harmony, their last best chance to stay a player. They also ride the consumer choice ticket in their announcement, hoping to gain supporters from consumer groups and anti-corporation types, despite the fact that if they had the chance they would crush other formats in a hearbeat to secure themselves. But this isnt enough for Real...and this leads to blunder number 2. The fact that they reverse engineered FairPlay is probably not so important to Apple, the fact that they mean to license Harmony IS.
Now one could argue that thats not such a bad thing, that means that Real and its licensees can put out iPod compatible music, and Apple is just being closed and rotten for responding they way they have. But there is alot more at stake than music selection, and consumer ch
Not to beat a dead horse, but just wanted to add that you are kidding yourself if you think that this is about Apple being a bunch of evil, anti-consumer bastards and Real carrying the torch of freedom trying to free us from the tyranny of DRM here. Real wasn't concerned with our best interests or wishes here -- they were concerned with being able to sell songs to a larger audience, making more money and doing it as cheaply as possible (through reverse engineering). There is nothing worth applauding here folks in terms of companies caring about end-users and freedom. Get over it.
I think that all Apple can do in this case is make it blatantly obvious that if you install any 3rd party software or patches from any other company on the iPod the warranty is void and support is discontinued. I think that if you buy an iPod then you own it, but if you modify it then you're on your own. The selling point of the iPod is that it is a seamless integration with iTunes. The average user won't be able to understand that their problems were caused by Real instead of Apple if their iPod quits working. Unfortunately, this is the corporate equivalent of the "fight or flight response". Real has 1 (one) digital player that supports their format. Apple has 1 (one) that supports their format. The player that supports Real's format accounts for maybe 1-2% of the market and is dropping, Apple's player accounts for 40-60% of the market and is increasing. Real has realized that their only hope for survival is to get their format on the iPod. If Apple agreed to let them in it would be no problem. If Real figured out how to do it without screwing up the iPod, no problem. Real has essentially squatted in Apple territory and placed Apple in a bad situation. If they break Real's hack, either accidentally or intentionally, Apple looks like the bad guy to the consumer. The only other option is to support Real's hack, essentially condoning their squatter's rights. Apple absorbs all of the responsibility, while Real reaps the rewards...Option 3, which is a very Microsoft style tactic, is to sue the other guy until they give up or run out of money. Either way the problem is solved. Eventually Microsoft is going to enter this fray like a bull in a china shop and we'll all lose...
Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
That is not profit. That is revenue. Subtract the operating costs from that 15-20%.
Ah the crowd at slashdot is different from the average consumers. While we applaud innovation and hacks here the average consumers does not.
What real did here is not just open up access to the ipod they are creating an inconsistent behavior for usage of the ipod. Imagine my grandma buying an ipod for use with the songs she bought from real, It could be confusing she calls apple tech support and she is left in tech support limbo . This would only hurt the ipod's reputation as a elegant easy to use audio player.
So if I steal your computer, and then send you some flowers to distract you from your stolen computer, does that make it all better?
Apple has always fought to protect their monopoly. Is anyone really surprised here that their using the DMCA now to keep their iTMS, iPod monopoly in place?
you buy and break it.
it's your loss.
you understand this I'm sure, it's a fair enough situation.
It's your Hardware after all.
you buy
another company breaks it.
it's still your loss. (after all you installed)
but is that really fair?
What they really said was, "The iPod will only play songs you download from iTMS. Also, the iPod will play songs you download from (almost) anywhere else."
Ok I just woke up and my brain hasn't warmed up yet. I thought you could transfer just any music to the iPod (no, I don't have one yet), well, any music that isn't encumbered by non-Apple DRM. I'd think the best way for Real to enable their music purchases on an iPod would be to turn the file into a naked MP3/AAC but that's probably illegal for Real to do.
So now what is this Harmony software and how does it work ? Does it fake an Apple digital signature, or does it even upload directly to the iPod bypassing any Apple security features ? Both of these scenarios would mean that Apple's IP is at stake, just like DeCSS was born out of Xing's crappy DVD software. Someone could reverse eng Harmony and render Apple's DRM obsolete, so it is quite natural that they will defend themselves.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Why can't you put Honda engines in Hundai cars? I mean, they might not fit very well or whatever, but if someone made the neccessary adapters/modifications to put one in I'm pretty sure it would be legal. I know car-ethusiast types sometimes put engines from different car models into thier cars.
"hey did not try licence the technology from apple, they hacked it."
This is incorrect. Real did try to license it from Apple, but Apple declined.
Since I've knocked out the central underpinning to your argument, surely you'll admit that you're wrong on this and that Apple is also wrong?
have companies behind them which actually listen to us when we have complaints.
Funny thing is, Apple has listened to our complaints. It just so happens that we don't have very many. And in case you were curious, I doubt the lack of compatibility with Real's files was a complaint Apple heard very often.
But we sure complained about battery life, didn't we? Lo and behold they fixed it.. along with dropping the price and throwing it various other features that may or may not have been asked for.
Why you think Apple isn't listening is beyond me.
Moof.
"Apple derives value from producing a complete system. "
Great. They have a business model. As a customer, I'm not obligated to follow their model. I'm only obligated to pay them money to buy their product. At that point, its mine to do with as I like.
As a competitor, Real is not obligated to follow their model; they have the right to attempt to sell things to people with iPod.
Get over the apple fanaticism already. Its clouding your judgement.
Until you can produce some proof that opening it up will sell iPods, your argument is speculation. For all you know, the dilemma of choice, having too many options, could make it less attractive and drive down sales. What, you say? I would argue that one of the reasons the iPod has been so successful is precisely because it is not a swiss-army knife type of gadget. It does one thing very, very well, and doesn't try (very hard) to do anything else. The experience from purchasing to listening music is simple and well-thought out. Other options diminish the value of the integration.
:)
If Real starting licensing their scheme to others, as they've hinted that they would, you have immediate evidence of revenue Apple should be earning that is going to another company.
Also, don't forget that if someone else's software works poorly with the iPod, it tarnishes the image of seamless integration that Apple strives to maintain. There are other posts here explaining that position more thoroughly.
There is no tautology, and this is a very complicated situation indeed. If the iPod sales drop, either my original argument or yours could form the basis of a lawsuit by the shareholders. In fact, situations where executives of a company have been sued by two different groups of shareholders for not taking opposite courses of action have occurred. Usually one is dropped as having no merit, and those people all go join the other suit.
It doesn't really matter to me, personally, since I'm not an executive at Apple. But don't you think that if anyone should open up the iPod, it should be Apple, not Real?
Free yourself. Everything else will follow.
When I read stuff like this, I'm reminded of the nonsense that fanboys spew about Sega/Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft and their game systems. Like somehow there are good guys and bad guys.
Dude, do you know the difference between Apple and Microsoft? About 84%.
Huh?
That's the difference between their market shares. You look amazed. You think that Apple is in it for the "cool" factor.
Jimmy, you're really confused. And that confusion is making you talk nonsense. In your world view, apple, was kind, gentle, nice, and reall hip. They didn't exactly embrace open standards, but they weren't afraid of it. Heck, did they use BSD to build OSX?
So you see something that the LH side of your brain says "this is wrong, apple is wrong here", but your RH brain says "Oh Jimmy, this is apple, they're cool, and hip, and so Real is really at fault".
Repeat to yourself, apple is the same as everybody else; they just make prettier computers. It doesn't make them more moral, just, or nice. It just means they make computers you like.
Actually, they don't talk about choice. You're puting words in their mouth. Perhaps the iPod isn't what you think it is. It's a device sold by a company to make a profit. Like any other consumer device put out by a company looking to make money, it doesn't say 'choices' it says 'buy me.'
If you're going to ignore it because it doesn't say 'choices,' you'll probably be ignoring a whole lot of products, but that's your choice.
Moof.
It becomes wrong when Apple places their interests above those of their customers.
If Apple refuses to license Real's media format their customers lose. In licensing Real's media format Apple would have to pay licensing fees. They would also be boosting Real's media format at the expense of their own. In this scenario the costs to Apple are quite high, and their decision not to license seems fair.
If Apple refuses include a license-free (to them) implementation of Real's format they have crossed the line. Their customers still do not have access to Real's music library, and Apple could've provided it for a reasonable cost. I am assuming their would be additional support costs.
If Apple blocks a third party from releasing a patch that allows Real's format to work there really is no excuse. Their customers would've benefited, and there is no cost to them.
I don't doubt that Real would try to stop alternative players, but I don't think anyone considers Real a company to emulate. I see Apple's behaviour as equivalent to "Linux" or Microsoft going after Wine for allowing Windows programs to run on Linux
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod..."
Uhm, if it weren't for the "tactics and ethics" of two hackers Apple wouldn't exist today.
asshats, with very pretty toys, but asshats none the less.
CIA Industries - Running the world for fun and profit
Unless your iPod is different than mine, they don't play WAVs - only AAC, MP3, and ALE.
I've got more mod points and GMail invi
I sorta doubt that Apple will go to court over this one, and if they do, it won't be DMCA related.
.rm song? When was the last time you BOUGHT an .rm song?
It's not like Real is gonna patch the iPod BEFORE they're shipped. It needs to be a conscious effort on the user's side, and really, when was the last time you met/heard of a die-hard Real fan that was bitching about not being able to use the Real format on the iPod?
I personally think Apple should clam up and just let Real do it's shenanigans. There's no real harm. (Pun not intended.) If anything, Apple should just say "yeah, go ahead, but hey... your software's crap! So no complaining when things start crashing!" I own an iPod. I love it, and I would never patch my iPod. I also own a Mac, and love it. The reason I love it is because it integrates so damn well, and works the way I expect it to work. Even if I had a choice to run Windows on my PowerBook, or MacOS X on an x86 platform, I wouldn't. Choice is good, but seriously, I have no reason to want to try these things. Apple has done a good job at creating great hardware/software products that just WORK, and this is probably why most people aren't really complaining about the closedness of it all.
One other thing is that Apple hardware doesn't die as easily as PC hardware or cheapo MP3 players. I think that's another satisfaction point that justifies the high price. Really, Apple could make more (short term) money by making cheaper machines with cheaper parts. But soon people would catch on, and they would move away from the Mac. Apple knows this, and just makes good hardware/software. My iPod has really, really taken a good beating over the last couple years, and it still just goes. And it plays MP3 and AAC. I use it on the train, which has plenty of background noise. With ear-buds (in a train or outdoors), I swear there's no difference between an MP3 and a CD. If I'm at home, I'd just listen to the CD. (Because I OWN MY OWN CD'S!!)
'Nuff ranting, and back to Real. Weren't these guys pucking up to Apple a while back trying to get their format integrated into QT? Didn't Apple basically say "WTF!? You surely came out of the blue! Benefit on our side? Let's think for a moment. Hmmm. Nope. Go fuck yourself." And I agree. Bloatware, adware aside, Real sucks really, really bad. It was great for pre-broadband era. QT sucked in the pre-broadband era. However, it's a general design difference. QT kicks ass with high-bandwidth. Real sucks. And the music format? Seriously. When was the last time you ripped a CD to real format? When was the last time you downloaded an
Who cares if Real decides to hack RealMedia support onto the iPod? You have to be pretty stupid to pay for RealMedia content, considering the extremely lossy compression and unbearable video/audio artifacts even in their "high-quality" streams. You'd have to be even stupider to void the warranty on an expensive piece of hardware simply in order to play crappy, expensive media.
IMHO, anyone who wants to install the patch on their iPod can go ahead and do so. Your warranty is void, good riddance. Enjoy your $300 brick.
Microsoft gave iRiver players away after a WMP product demo not too long ago. I fiddled with it for a few hours, decided it was a total piece of junk and threw it in the trash.
But there again I'm the kind of guy who will pay extra for a TV with a better picture than a cheaper model that has a crappy picture but has more inputs, outputs and a bigger remote with more buttons.
Apple being pissed at Real has little to do with the iPod or iTunes. What this is really about is Quicktime. Quicktime is the reason Steve Jobs laughed at Glaser for wanting to license FairPlay. Quicktime is required to use iTunes and to play their protected AAC files. Allowing Real to use their AAC implementation will make iTunes and thus Quicktime entirely unneeded to own an iPod.
Apple is in competition with Real. The Quicktime format and exclusive codecs (Sorenson et al) is in competition with Real and Microsoft and their formats and exclusive codecs. Until the iTunes for Windows Quicktime was largely in decline on Windows. With fewer Quicktime users there's less demand for Quicktime formated content. Without Quicktime formated content Apple and their user base end up at the mercy of Real and Microsoft in the media realm. Microsoft has already essentially crippled WMP for the Mac, its only a matter of time before it is canceled entirely.
If Quicktime on Windows were to die the Quicktime user base would shrink precipitously. It would no longer be viable for media companies to use the format so they'd switch entirely to Real or Microsoft owned formats. Microsoft would surly kill WMP for the Mac at that point leaving Mac users unable to access vast amounts of online content. Without the ability to create widely accessible content on Macs (Windows Media) people would stop buying them for content creation. Eventually people would stop buying them entirely since they wouldn't be able to view anything but old Quicktime files.
Using the DMCA is a bit absurd in this case all else being said. Apple doesn't have any say in how exactly I use my iPod once I take it home after paying umpteen hundreds of dollars for it. If I want to go home and install Linux on it that is my prerogative. I can understand them not wanting RealMedia files on the iPod but they're going about this is a very bad way.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Yeah right, and day turned into night because you told it to. Obviously, no one would expect a portable product to improve it's battery life with new product revisions. And dropping the price/increasing the HD size of a computing device? What a novel concept. They certainly needed you to help them dream that one up.
Fantastic! So if there's a player out there that uses the formats that you want then the problem is solved. No need for you guys to keep whining on about the iPod needing to support them too.
Notice I didn't say anything that was done was "novel" or particularly impressive. You've totally missed the point like I would expect any average slashdotter to.
Moof.
which reminds my of how pathetic I thought the rerelease of the commercial was. What it really said was "We said we would revolutionize the world, destroy the groupthink of the IBM mentality, but what we really meant is that 20 years later we would be hawking nothing more than this little music player you clip to your belt." If you're going to talking trash you need to back it up and Apple sure hasn't lived up to its mouth. I could think of nothing more belittling to Apple's reputation yet they did it themselves.
You know what cracks me up the most about your battery example. They fixed it, with software. And refused to release the firmware fix, instead, they bundled it in a new player.
That's why I think they aren't listening, because they sell you free fixes, and every add on possible... that idea is funny to me.
I don't know why anyone whould buy anything from Real. People don't want their products, and they're giving it away.
One thing I'd like to say (other than "Spellchecker!" I mean, you didn't misspell 'hypocrisy' just once, but three times, and that's after copying it correctly from the grandparent!) is that not only does the grandparent grossly oversimplify Slashdot, it also oversimplifies the issues.
Apple is a corporation that does a lot of things; some seem good (to me), some not so good. Characterising them as 'good' is naive and pretty meaningless. Ditto the other entities in the case. Real may have done lots of things that annoyed lots of folk here, but that doesn't necessarily extend to everything they've done, much less everything they might to in future. (For example, Real 10 being based on the AAC standard...)
It might make for nice cute shorthands and terse posts, but it doesn't help anyone understand the issues or make intelligent discussion.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Yeah, yeah, we've heard all about what you want from an iPod ad naseum. It gets boring, but whatever.
.well, actually it's ridiculous. . .is that you think that people wanting something different than what you want is somehow wrong, or as you put it, "uncool". That people have the nerve to actually purchase what they want rather than what you think is best for them!
What is curious. .
Different people have different needs. If your needs are satisfied by the iRiver, fine, wonderful, go buy one. Asking others to subsidize your purchase or to reward a company that offers features that they don't want or need is absurd, not to mention self-serving. This doesn't drive competition.
It's really not cool dictating to others what they should buy based on your wants and needs. Maybe you're the coolest guy in the world in other things, but here you are definitely not cool.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Microsoft or Real would both go after anyone who opened up their device to a third party format, Apple is no different. Look at Sony and the Playstation and all the other legal action against any company that tries to get some unintented format or functionality to run on a competitor's device.
The real problem for Apple is that it has a history of having to compete against ALL other companies who actively gang up to take it down. When Real licences Harmony to Microsoft and Microsoft throws 10 bazillon dollars into selling WMA songs that play on the iPod, what chance does Apple have to stem the tide? Real is just playing a card as a middleman, a tick on the side of a cow that forces it to swing it's tail, hopefully killing the other ticks it doesn't like. We all know that Real is not going to win the download or the portable music player game. They're just pre-emptively selling out to Microsoft.
Let me know the next time you have a seance where you channel Steve Jobs. I've got some questions for him and he's not returning any of my calls.
On second thought, maybe I shouldn't put too much trust in your psychic abilities. After all, your prediction about Apple Zealots modding you down has been so far proven incorrect. As of this writing, the mods seem to have just ignored you.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Like the grandparent post, I think that ultimately Apple's case is pretty weak, unless Real actually cracked anything. And even there, Apple's case is not so clear cut, because there are exceptions for software interoperablility.
Still, I understand why Apple is taking the stance it is taking. From the company's perspective, they've got to preserve the thing they got going on. What if they let it go and then MS buys Real? (and a million other what ifs). Anyway, we'll see what Apple actually does to answer this challenge from Real. So far all they've done is a little legal saber rattling.
But ultimately, you're correct. Under the U.S. legal system, especially today with the big media companies writing the legislation, there's no telling how this might shake out.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Real is evil, period. While Apple is wrong for their stance on the DMCA and hacking rhetoric, Real is an evil company like a horde expanding its reach onto soverign soil. Real's player and format is a bloated, spyware filled and commercialized junk heap and I think Apple's reaction would be different if this were about another file format (like ogg, etc.). It's all because Real is looking to cash in on Apple's player and innovative music concept by riding on the coat-tails of the Ipod without having to spend a penny on R&D or consumer marketing.
This isn't about offering "free choice", it's about making money without having to spend as much. More power to them, we need competition, but the entire concept to me is just brute force like.
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
I recently read somewhere that MS's success was a fluke; they lucked out because IBM bent over at precisely the right moment.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
There seems to be an awful lot of misparsing of this sentence. Try this version:
Previously, iPod would not play any digitally protected songs that carry restrictions which were not purchased from Apple's own iTunes music store.
I would expect any corporation in the United States would likely react similarly in a simlar situation. It's a function of the rules of the system, not of the participants in the system. Any hyprocrisy you see is purely imagined, since corporations are dedicated to protecting the interests of the shareholders, and it doesn't matter at all what I think of their behavior.
In a similar situation, Microsoft would have the same responsibility, and would likely invoke the DCMA and any other applicable laws. And they would have every right to do so under current law. How it would play out in the courts would likely be very different, however, since Microsoft has been legally declared a monopoly.
Trust me, I'm not your problem. You're focused on the people exploiting the system. Try fixing the system instead.
Free yourself. Everything else will follow.
Around where I live in Morris County, New Jersey there are lots of lakes with beaches, all private. There is a lake in Randolph with a beach that is private and only members can swim at. There is Lake Silverspring another lake that is private you have to be a paying member. Minehill beach is also private.
With lakeside beaches in America the analogy is even worse than people calling the cops on their neighbors to resolve disputes they might solve without cops. You cannot even go to these beaches unless you reside nearby and are a member. The reason? They all have lifeguards, so lazy Americans can have their kids babysat. So because so many want want lifeguards to "protect the children" so many of the beaches are the lakes of America are private and require you to be a local resident and paying member.
Connect the dots, its quite simple. In theory: 1) Real implements iPod support, Apple lets it go. 2) Microsoft implements iPod support (WMA->MP4 translator) with their music store. 3) WMA now plays on iPod 4) iTunes dies because Windows already comes with iPod software. 5) AAC dies along with iTunes 6) Microsoft now has control of the audio market 7) Microsoft cuts AAC support in update, iPod is toast. If Apple allows Real to get away with this, it leaves the door wide open for Microsoft. They know Real can't make a dent in iTunes, even with this. However, Microsoft is a huge concern. If they got iPod syncing running, they could include it with Windows, thus killing off iTunes and giving them free reign of the audio format world.
Didn't he already do that? "after fees to the labels and hardware/software/people costs"
Lalala
Please see my response to the person above. Thanks!
(briefly: "The ability to play another online music store's DRMed files can only be good for iPod sales because it gives potential buyers s bigger incentive to purchase the product." is a speculative assumption, based on a single sample: you. The iPod's ability to play other music store's files might affect your decision to buy an iPod, but the effect of this ability on other people's decision to buy an iPod is not necessarily identical.)
Free yourself. Everything else will follow.
Yes, companies want to make more money. Yes, greed is what keeps capitalism working.
/. always cries foul when done by Microsoft. E.g., I don't think many on /. cheered about MS deliberately making Netscape crash, back in the days of browser wars. E.g., I don't think anyone cheered way back when MS deliberately made Windows 3.x crash on DR DOS. Etc.
However, just like gasoline and fire, we're talking a destructive force which needs to be channelled to work _for_ us, not let it run amok _against_ us. Corporate greed is only good and fine as long as it's channelled to serve the good of society. (E.g., the prospect of making a fortune seems to be a damn good motivation to research and produce cheaper or better goods.)
But there's a time and place to draw the line. The time when it acts against the consumer.
There is stuff which is plain old evil, even if done for corporate profit. E.g., spamming by fax is illegal, even though some companies were making a profit out of it. E.g., even the USA eventually recognized that, even though someone's making a profit out of it, most people would rather not be harrassed by telemarketting. Etc.
Back to Appl3e, in this case it is nothing more than an appalling attempt to lock people into a proprietary one-vendor scheme. It is nothing short of blatant anti-competitive behaviour.
It's something that
It was the same thing: a shameless attempt to lock out competition, and lock you into having one single choice.
Yes, those were done for corporate profit too. No, it didn't make them excusable.
So why is it excusable when done by Apple? Seems to me like Apple is doing the wrong thing here, and that's that.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If I could buy any mp3 player and run the iPod software on it, and iPod software held an effective monopoly on mp3 player operating software, then you're analogy would hold. But, the software in question is available on only one device from one vendor, and there is no competing software for the device.
And, there no restrictions that lock a user in to listening to music purchased from Apple. Any music in mp3 or AAC format can be played on the iPod. If Real wanted, they could have made their music available in a supported format and show up automatically in iTunes. Other software does this already (like LimeWire, for example). This is about another company modifying the software on the device to allow playing an unsupported format, not about screwing the consumer over. It's no surprise that the final sentence in Apple's statement is, essentially, "don't be surprised if unsupported modifications to your iPod conflict with supported updates".
Anyway, this brings up an interesting question: how come someone hasn't hacked the iPod to get, say, the Linux kernel to run on the hardware and replaced the included software with an open source version? Then it would be truly open, and you could have support for any format your heart desires, as long as it was within the hardware's limits.
Free yourself. Everything else will follow.
Apple is partnered with Microsoft in pushing their Office products, and Internet Explorer when Microsoft actually updated the damn thing. For a while IE on the Mac was possibly the best looking and most standards-compliant browser around.
Apple and Microsoft also signed a cross-patenting agreement so they wouldn't get into stupid patent fights like Adobe and Macromedia seem to get into every 6 months or so. While I don't know if Apple was given/licensed the necessary information to work with Exchange et all, remember that Microsoft has a vested interest in Not Appearing to Be a Monopoly. That and they make a ton of money on Mac Office.
Yeah, this is the Kettle Black...
Or maybe you just don't know what the hell you're talking about. Microsoft and Apple have a prexisting business relationship. Apple and Real do not. While the "ethics of a hacker" comment was a lame comment for Apple to make, hypocrites they are not.
that idea is funny to me
*yawn* Such is business. You make choices and some choices will piss people off. What a shame. You can't make everybody happy, but you can at least make most people happy. You unhappy people are a minority and you're not going to get anywhere else by moping on slashdot. Go play with your iRiver. Not that there's anything wrong with an iRiver or anything else. Get whatever you want. In the end, nobody cares what you chose. *yawn* Some people buy apples and some people buy oranges. But in the end they're both fruit. Or something.
Moof.
"This is about another company modifying the software on the device to allow playing an unsupported format, not about screwing the consumer over."
Real did _not_ modify Apple's software. Real only figured out how to save a file in Apple's proprietary DRM-ed format. They're only saving a DRM-ed file in a format that the iPod can read. That's all.
That was Real's heinous crime: writing a utility to convert between two file formats. That's all.
It's like Microsoft using DMCA to stop OpenOffice from saving Word or Excel files. It's _that_ idiotic and anti-competitive.
Only suddenly that counts as good and fine, because it's from Apple.
And how the fsck is it good for the consumer? Real allows you to play more downloaded songs on the iPod. Apple wants you locked into only what Apple itself offered. How the heck isn't it screwing the consumer over? Geesh.
"And, there no restrictions that lock a user in to listening to music purchased from Apple. Any music in mp3 or AAC format can be played on the iPod. If Real wanted, they could have made their music available in a supported format"
Again, you're wrong. The iPod only supports Apple's own proprietary DRM scheme.
And again, _all_ that Read did was save a file in, yes, the kind of DRM-ed AAC format that the iPod supports. Yes, they did exactly what you preach. And Apple is waving the DMCA to stop them from doing that. How do you defend that?
And please don't give me the "so offer the files without DRM". You know that isn't an option. Most music labels only allow downloads if they're DRM-ed. Sure, you could always use a warezed MP3 on the iPod. But _legal_ download usually _must_ be DRM-ed.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I thought the Slashdot crowd would see through the Real handwaving and doublespeak. I guess the old anti-Apple prejudice is just too strong.
Real CREATED this problem THEMSELVES by backing the wrong horse: Microsoft DRM. Now that Apple looks to be winning the race, they want to switch. Apple says no thanks, that's not how we do things. Real says fuck you, we'll make it so our crappy, overly-restricted DRM works on your customers' players. Apple should be happy about this? After creating minimally-restrictive, easily-circumvented DRM and selling it to the labels, you want them just to say "Great, happy for you to pollute our customers' user experience with your crap"?
The clues are even in the language. Real talks about "consumer choice winning over proprietary formats". That's already happened. Real and Microsoft are the ones selling a proprietary format, not Apple, and consumers have already made their choice: Apple. Anyone with half a brain can see through this crap. The pity is I thought there were more people with half a brain on slashdot.
This is not about Apple telling you what to do with your iPod. You can already put anything you want onto the iPod except WAVs and Microsoft's DRM crap. If you for some insane reason want to do that, figure out how to do it and go right ahead. No-one will stop you. But there's a slight difference between doing that, and trying to mislead iPod owners into thinking that somehow you are doing them a favour, when all you really want is to take advantage of the iPod market success to sell your crappy product that no-one wants. Don't expect Apple to lie back and take it.
indeed. i'm not sure that's what jobs said but i am too tired to look it up
Did you actually have a point at all?
What does Real's app do? If it simply transcodes a Real file into an MP3 as it transfers to the iPod, then there's no hacking going on. This way the user keeps the DRM-protected Real file on their desktop, and has a "untransferrable" (strictly speaking not true, but true as the iPod is shipped) copy on their iPod.
How does Real's application make it so that the iPod accepts and plays the Real file??
Thank you
I have a few GBs of non-protected MP3s and ACCs on my iPod, and I play them all the time.
I do not own any Apple kit; and, if this legal action goes ahead, I don't think I ever will.
The iPod is a "walled garden" - where the pretty flowers and nice bushes are there mostly to distract your attention from the razor wire and armed guards. The iPod will play unencumbered song files without question, but will refuse to play DRM-encumbered AAC files unless those files were obtained via iTMS. Now, it seems to me that what Real have basically done is forged Apple's electronic signature (or, maybe, just one particular loop or squiggle that the iPod was looking for) to cause it to think that Real's DRM-encumbered music files were supplied by iTMS and therefore fit to play on an iPod.
Now, I don't like Real one bit. I firmly believe that anyone who offers media files for download should be obliged to provide sufficient details to enable a competent person to decode them. After all, it is widely documented how to build a radio receiver, analogue record player, CD player, tape recorder &c. Real goes right against this. Call me a zealot, but I find no shame in supporting Open Standards -- nor in violently opposing closed standards. I certainly don't believe it is at all legitimate to sell a person something and then try to keep secrets about that thing from its new rightful owner. I can see some vestige of legitimacy in binding the owner to keep those secrets, but it is a simple common law property right that one is automatically privy to any secret contained in any article that one owns, by sole virtue of ownership.
But I can't hold Apple blameless either. I don't agree with DRM, at least not in the way that it is being abused here. For one thing, it does not work -- it has already been demonstrated that the "protection" offered by Apple's misleadingly-named "FairPlay" scheme is somewhere between questionable and worthless. It does not prevent unauthorised copying -- unsurprisingly, since that is physically impossible. Nor does it improve the fidelity of reproduction or lessen the downloading time. It adds to the cost with no real benefit, and ought to be a candidate for extinction.
And if I have purchased an article -- such as an iPod -- with my own money, that I earned through my own hard work, by hand or by brain, then it is not for anyone to tell me what I can do with my own property. Obviously, there are valid exceptions -- just because I own a knife, does not give me the right to stab people with it -- but, in the case of a person transferring music not purchased from iTMS onto an iPod, Apple is not harmed any more than they would be harmed by that person not owning an iPod. Indeed, if -- as many have suggested -- iTMS is a loss-making operation, subsidised by the sales of iPod hardware, then it would actually be beneficial for Apple that people are not buying music from iTMS!
Apple have brought this situation entirely upon themselves. I hope they take Real to court, because I don't like Real -- and I also hope they lose, because I believe that is what they deserve. In fact, it's better than they deserve. Back when I was in Primary School, there was a newly-started home computer company, founded by two self-proclaimed "hackers", who used to supply complete circuit diagrams and ROM disassembly listings with the machines they sold. The name of that company was Apple. It is quite clear that the Apple of today has abandoned everything that the Apple of yesteryear stood for.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
You can't compare Apple's proprietary iPod to Google. As far as I know, Google has _always_ run on any web browser. They've never tried to limit your searches to a particular browser, and I don't think they prevent sites from being in the index if they want to be.
Not that the iPod needs to support format x out of the box; I don't blame Apex that my DVD player doesn't support DIVX (even though some new ones do). I don't expect them to release a firmware upgrade to add a new format. But I also expect them to leave users alone if we want to modify the player in ANY way. If I want to bother reverse engineering my DVD player, I should have every right to do that. And I should have the right to disclose and/or use my observations (so long as doing so doesn't infringe on any current patents).
I never really liked Real, and Apple certainly doesn't need to tell them how to make a compatible system. But Apple _shouldn't_ have any right to prevent them from reverse engineering the format.
finally! now I know where all that paste came from that I ate in kindergarten!
:(
won't somebody please think of the children!
Who in the right mind would use Real's application in the first place?
-K
It's a painfully obvious comment, but it doesn't look like anyone has made it yet. Steve Wozniak, THE founder of Apple just spoke at the HOPE hackers conference about how he's been a hacker all his life. WTF Apple, why is this so "shocking"?
I want a pony too, but only if it's Open Source.
I am amazed at the number of /. readers who actually like apple a s a company. Its been no secret that apple is a rapacious , smalltime player who preys on geeks who want to be distinguished.
if apple was the # 1 pc maker, there would be no internet. It would be some shitty proprietary server called i-net, or soemthing equally stupid. and you can bet they would charge for use, and censor everything on it.
as far as Ipod goes this story is really a moot argument. 1 there have been hacks to the ipod software for a long time, a googl search will give you tns of modding sites an programs that get rid of apples weird copy protection stuff, that was built in since the first gen unit.
2 most new mp3 players are not as constricted as 'pods. they are usb 2, and the pc sees it as a hard drive. you just drag and drop songs, data, etc on there an go. 3 this is what most ppl with an mp3 player expect. these expecations are also unlikely to change. i wud say at least 90% of ppl who own any sort of mp3 player bought the player so that they could listen to their growing, multi gig free music collections they have from just clicking a finger.
4 these kinds of ppl are not used to and utterly reject any closed format. there is even a site called ipodhacks.com. this is to say that ipod was not a "closed" or "secure format" for more than a few weeks after it was launched. many companies sell 3rd party interface software that makes of an easy file x fer, and gets rid of all of the rotten apple crippleware.
5 now this story is MOOT becaus of a simple logical argument. Much good and free stuff already exists for apple, real is another shitty company with tons of spayware, etc.No matter what happens to real, it will make no difference to ipod users because they alreay have tons of better alternatives.
Even though i really hate apple (memories of jobs dumping tens of thousands pc's into a landfill site, instead donating them to schools etc, shows a company that would rather throw their product in the garbage instead of giving anyone a good deal on it). In spite of this I own an Ipod, and do what i like with it, always have, always will....
For Apple,
the iPod is an example of product that can to do one thing and do it well:
PROFIT !!!
The thing that this girl thinks is neat about the iRiver is that the player doesn't balk when you partition the disc in the first place! It just uses the first FAT32 partition it can find, or if the disc isn't partitioned, pretends it's like a big removable floppy.
Hence the iRiver is _flexible_, which is why I like it.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
What a ridiculous assumption!!! (not on the part of the parent post)
'May have been illegally downloaded'??? I have nearly 5000 songs that I ripped from CDs that I LEGALLY OWN!!! What kind of journalists are they hiring at CNN?
Someone may want to let them know that there was legitimate digital music before the advent of online music sellers... sheesh...
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
Did Apple go straight to court? No! They said, "Stop it. We don't want you doing this. It's probably illegal anyways. Keep at it, and we WILL call the cops."
If that's not fair warning, what exactly is? You may have the luxury of going, "S'all good." when your neighbor has loud music on in the morning, but what about the people who have work in the morning?
Don't confuse the issue by saying that Apple is being overly litigious. No one is in court yet.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense