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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
DRM vs. DRM. A pox on both their houses.
sulli
RTFJ.
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
How is this anything but the extension of Apple's product to make it more valuable?
Hey, I'm sure Apple would be thrilled...if they had an open plugin format and Real's patch didn't involve breaking their code to do this. But Apple's locked down the iPod a lot, to prevent their liability lest some hopeful soul make the ultimate copyright infringement tool and install it on an iPod. They've also locked it down to ensure that their consumer device doesn't have shoddy software.
Apple's now faced with having to support people who've installed this patch and fucked their iPod. They're faced with angry calls when their next update breaks the patch. And they're faced with the possibility that Real might fuck with the device's functionality in other ways -- like, say, reporting usage statistics?
Apple has been calm about hacking when it was not invasive. They don't mind people parsing their formats and indeed build their databases from XML files, so anybody can use them. This is the reason they're so protective of their binaries...the only reason to patch them is to do something they can't support, and they certainly don't want to fight a bunch of warranty battles so RealNetwork can look like it's still important.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
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.
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
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.
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."
I like it
However, I think the important factor in this case isn't that "the corporation was Apple" but "the evil hackers" were Real.
Real has managed to tick off people so much in the past that they just can't let go of it, and anything that punishes them - right or wrong - MUST be good because "Real sucks".
Kinda like all the people who were cheering about the browser plugin patent suit against Microsoft. Much as I despise Microsoft corporation, I thought that for once they were in the right (even if only by coincidence) there.
Same here - I dislike Real's past (and present?) habits of hiding the 'free' players on their sites, their nagware, the software's instability...but in this case I think they're in the right - they've apparently "clean-room" reverse-engineered Apple's format to expand interoperability. Their motive may not be pure, but that's irrelevent here.
Apple's "Hackers are evil" implication kinda sets back my opinion of them as a company who'd learned to play nice with others.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
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".
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
"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?
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.
It's actually very logical. Apple derives value from producing a complete system. If Apple opened the iPod to, say, Windows Media, they would be relying on (and having to support) Microsoft's DRM technology. Same with Real- Apple has to worry about calls from customers who wonder why their Real files won't play on the iPod. If Apple makes a firmware change, they have to test against Real's (undocumented) hack. Remember, (l)users don't always make a distinction between vendors, they just want their $XXX gizmo to work, dammit! If I buy Real files that work today on my iPod but not tomorrow after an Apple software update, whose fault is it? Should Apple be required to maintain and pay for compatibility?
The other issue, of course, is that if Apple adopts (or permits) other DRM technology, they lose value/exclusivity/licensing opportunities for AAC/Fairplay. It's the same principal as calling for a native Windows API (like Wine or Crossover Office) built into OS X. It's technically feasable to build VirtualPC functionality into OS X, but then third-party developers would abandon Mac software development completely in favor of one (Windows) codebase that would run anywhere. Apple would cede control of third-party development to Microsoft and be screwed. If Apple allows third-party DRM to work, nobody licenses Fairplay and Apple always has to incorporate Windows Media changes.
Finally, there is a simple and legal way for any vendor to sell audio which can be directly used on an iPod. Numerous formats are supported by the iPod/iTunes/QuickTime platform, including MP3, WAV, AIFF, Audible, Apple Lossless, and AAC. Nothing (except the greedy record labels) is preventing Real from selling music in a supported format. After all, you don't hear Apple complaining about allofmp3.com do you?
- 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)!!
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
It doesn't matter whether Apple is thrilled or not. Once someone buys an iPod, it's theirs, not Apple's. Apple is not responsible if someone breaks their iPod with unofficial hacks and doesn't have to support them either. Apple doesn't have much liability in the first place (unless the Induce Act passes) because they aren't responsible for their customers' actions.
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
Once I purchase a bit of hardware, I own it. I can do anything I want to it, (in the case of iPod) run any damn software I want on it, and the manufacturer has no say in what I do. Apple would be perfectly justified in telling customers that modifying the iPod to play Real content will completely void the warranty, and to refuse to provide any support, but that should be all they can do.
"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.
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.
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.