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."
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.
The only thing that would make me consider an iPod would be if it worked with all the major music download services. Not through hacks or bullshit, not to be broken by iPod firmware 2.0, etc..
Their desire to lock me in to iTunes doesn't excite me anymore than the idea of a DVD player or game console that only plays stuff I bought at Wal-Mart.
I don't understand the Apple fanaticism here. It truly puzzles me. Time and time again they act like every bit the dickhead corporation that every corporation is. Apples goal is the same as MSFTs or Reals, to suck money out of my pockets.
Music is dying, iPod is helping kill it. No more standards, and I just can't wait for the future where you can only play music or video that you bought from the people that sold you the device on which you plan to play it.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
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
Actually, your comparison of Apple to MS is wrong. You should compare REAL to MS in this case. Real: "License FairPlay to us, we want to offer our files to ipod users." Apple: "Not interested, sorry" Real: "Ok, then we'll just force our way into the ipod" Hmmm, who in this scenario is just like Microsoft? Here's a tip: Order of operations dictates that you THINK, then post...
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/
One simple question: why?
There's a UK law which permits the killing of Welsh people in Chester, provided you use a bow. Many US states have similar legal skeletons lurking in the closet. So... why exactly should people who use dumb legislation get a free pass? Are their actions any more moral or justifiable?
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
You can do whatever you want with their hardware. Just don't take their patents and fuck with them.
AAC is an openspecification. If Real wanted their products on the iPod, they could have just made them DRM-less. I'm sure they have a master license for MP3 as well. If they want high quality, they could have put their products in WAV or AIFF. No one charges fees for media in those formats.
You can do whatever crazy thing you want with their software as long as its not to subvert it to break their patents. If Apple had included a DRM Encoding package with iTunes, it would be a nonissue. One of my software packages I wrote years ago for content analysis used a spell checker from a major office software company -- they tried to come down on us for this, but we simply accessed their DLL that had all these functions in it -- and told the folks buying our software, if they needed the good spell checker (as opposed to our free one built around public domain sources), they needed to install the other software on the system.
Once the other company found out about it, they backed down -- they got paid and I was using the library as it was intended.
Now, if I would have written an app to go into their app, pull out a chunk of code and data, and had it included in my app (even if I required them to purchase a copy of the aformentioned software), I would have been guilty of some crime (probably several these days).
Thats what Real has done...they aren't doing anything 'crazy' with the hardware or software, they are illegally obtaining information that should not be obtained and doing it in a manner that should not have been done, and thumbing their noses. Thats not crazy, thats criminal.
Even if you hate copyrights and patents and other intellectual properties -- you should know to follow the laws of the land you are in.
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).
But...Here is the good news. If Apple wants to get Reals crap off their players then it will have to upgrade their firmware. Now you might ask yourself, well who would be stupid enough to update their iPod if all it does is remove functionality and make it harder to interoperate with? Well thats an excellent point, which is why if Apple wants us users to upgrade then they'll have to give us something in return.
Feeling royally screwed because you bought an iPod capable of having a 12 hour battery life that only lasts 8 hours? Well now that Apple needs a way to get us to upgrade to their new software to break Real, guess what is probably going to happen.
Yeah apple can go stuff it..
I am far more disappointed of Apple, not that I have ever been fond of them..
BUT a music player should atleast run on an open platform.. imagine a world with 150 "walkman" models, all using different formats and musicshops..
The DMCA expicitly allows reverse-engineering for interoperability. That's exactly what Real did, they reversed engineered so it would be interoperable with their service.
I don't think Apple could win this fight. There's plenty case law to support Real, and the DMCA doesn't seem to trump it.
For instance, GameGear vs Nintendo back in the day. They reverse engineered the NES, came up with a cheat device. Nintendo fought tooth and nail, and lost. To this day, there are gamesharks for every console, none of which officially licensed by the console maker. All of which were reverse engineered, and perfectly legal.
Nintendo tried something similar against that little company that was putting out unlicensed NES titles, after they reverse engineered the NES' copy protection. Nintendo lost.
I hope Apple brings the fight on, and Real wins this, they are in the right. Which companies software you like better is really irrelevant in this case.
I really don't look forward to being locked in to a provider for media based on the device I buy, do you? Do you want a Sony Walkman that only plays Sony songs?
Maybe the RIAA and MPAA will get what they want, and Apple will drive the final nail into Fair Use's coffin.
Just remember, when it happens, to take Steve Jobs' dick out of your mouthes long enough to thank him for your shiney new mandated Palladium chip.
Bunch of fanboy asshats. Remeber, a year ago SCO was your "great friend of Open Source" too.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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
Actually, it's not exactly like that. I'd say it's closer to Sony saying you can't reverse engineer your PS2 to allow it to play Xbox games that you sell. Although that analogy is still severely flawed.
In any case, while I don't think Apple is entirely in the right, I do think this might be a decent test case for the DMCA - something that may actually bring the knowledge of how twisted of a law it really is to the masses. And since Real and Apple are both "big", the investors are certain to hear about it.
It almost seems to me like Jobs and the head of Real may have made a backroom agreement to test the DMCA this way. The only other way this could happen is if Real were just plain Stupid.
I know you've got major wood for apple, but in this case they're waving the DMCA around just like all the companies we hate. This isn't what they said the DMCA was for. This is stifling innovation, not protecting anyone. The article even states that apple makes essentially no money on music sales, so who cares if Real gets in on it?
This will be the second best.
Everyone supporting Apple here is supporting a small bit of fascism, and everyone opposing despite being a fan of Apple products is a person of good character.
Now please excuse me while I hire a crack team of lawyers so I can do the "cool" thing and stifle some more innovation.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Hey, genius.
The evidence doesn't really support your claims. There are many people hacking the iPod every day. There are entire sites about it.
The iPod works seemlessly with Microsoft Windows. Apple even ported their jukebox program over to it! Does that really sound like a company whose motto is "Interoperate And Die!" Jesus.
Why is it that you're lambasting Apple for this particular decision (heavy-handed though it may be), but you haven't raised your voice in protest over their lack of WMA inclusion? Oh, right...they have a vested interest in promoting their own file formats...WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE DOING RIGHT NOW!
Look...it's hard to laud Apple for this (though some people are trying). I'd much rather have had them do nothing. But really...who cares? Real was stupid to try it.
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
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.
as consumers, we've really never had to worry much about formats other than vhs or beta, cd or cassette, and paper or plastic.
but now as companies look for their niche in the media markets, they are creating proprietary devices which will only work with their licensed media.
sony is doing this, apple has done this, and there is one other who's name escapes me.
now more than ever, the end user is going to have to take a long careful look at hardware before they buy it to make sure that the media they put into it will be able to be played.
Is it 5:30 yet?
If I buy an iPod, it's mine. If I want to tear it open and take out the drive, I will. If I want to hack the software, I will. If I want to play Real music on it (though why, I don't know), I will.
It is mine. If Steve-o doesn't like it, tough shit.
Fuck apple. Fuck any damn company that wants to use the DMCA to stop competition. Fuck any damn comapny that wants to tell me what I can do with *MY* hardware!
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.
Would you want your product (IE: Music) sold as "iPod Compat" via a "hacked" piece of software when you don't even know if it is legal? I would think NOT. And Apple should point out that their way, over 100 million songs have been sold. And you would want to throw out all that to all Real to sell however many tunes it sells, plus it's subscription service?
If you look enough on the internet, you can find ways of stripping DRM from anything. AAC files, WMA, etc. That being said, of the protected AAC files I have, I have not had the urge or need to employ any such hacks. The FairPlay technology has been allowing me to listen to the music I purchased on the two computers I authorized to use the music, and my iPod.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
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.
Right... because it's Apple doing it, it's not wrong
No. Because Apple got shafted to much and repeatedly in the past that it's hard not to sympathise on their effort to keep that one bit of advance they've found for themselves.
Every time they had come up with something innovative (technically or purely esthetically), they got ripped off by cheap knock-offs.
I say it's about time for Apple to flex some legal muscles for a change and try to protect what they have.
And to those who complaint about iPods being locked to ITMS, well that's life. You can't put Honda engines in Hundai cars. That's just how it is.
Apple is pissed that it's competition wants to play by the same rules as them.
Apple has it's DRM. The very fact that they have that DRM opens a lot of doors as far as content for iTunes, RIAA members dont want the stuff downloadable if it isn't locked somehow. Ie; un-DRMed mp3s.
Real's "hack" was being able to impose the same DRM on their downloads. Apple didn't have a problem if they were offering unlocked downloads, because RIAA members wouldn't allow Real to carry their stuff, hence, Real would have no library and thus provide no competition to iTunes.
They don't like the idea that some company like Real or MSFT may one day offer a better service, with a wider library, lower rates, etc..
Real wants to play by the exact same rules as Apple, and that's something Apple won't allow.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
..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.
"This is stifling innovation, not protecting anyone."
No, Apple is trying to do just that, protect their customers! Not from competition, or from a particularly bad format. But from the experience of incompatibility.
People buy Apple products for a number of reasons, but once you remove the designers and technologists you end up with a large percentage that just want a system that works. Every Time! If apple allows 'Un Authorized" distributors, it can no longer control the user experience. Imagine:
Your father / mother buys an iPOD, downloads a number of songs from iTunes and is generally happy with the device. They turn it on and press the play button and music comes out the head phones. Now they see an add stating that Real has the same music, at a better price / a better selection / whatever. They then go and download a number of songs from Real. Now Apple updated the iPOD, adding functionality and lo and behold the music the user downloaded from Real no longer plays. Q: Who do you think they are going to call? A: Apple! Q: How will this affect the reputation of Apple? A: Badly! Q: How will this affect the reputation of Real? A: Real Who? The user will never associate the problem with the file!
So, although I do not care for the DMCA, I think Apple has every right to fight Real on this. They are protecting their brand and the people who pay a premium for the luxury of having a system that works every time they turn it on.
So should it be illegal to add a trailer hitch to a car to pull a trailer since the car didn't come with that functionality? What so special about an iPod that makes it different from a car? In a car it is illegal too remove some functionality (ie polution controls), the same logic could apply (ie remove DRM). But real networks didn't do that, what they did is not much different than say put in a larger disk! Should that be illegal? How about I upgrade an older Dell computer that had Win2k to WinXP? The computer didn't come with XP, by your logic should that be illegal? How about Linux? Or are you just trolling and really aren't that shallow in thought?
However, as I wrote above:
In this instance, if Apple does, as threatened, as I made my comments conditional upon, take action against Real (rather than simply not cooperate), then they're going one step further than simply not making it easy. They're actively trying to prevent me from using my iPod in the way I choose. 1 is bogus. Adding functionality to the iPod will not cause iPod sales to dwindle, and even if it did, their obligation to shareholders is not a carte-blanche to trample over their customers.2 is also bogus. People having problems with Real music playing on iPods will most likely call Real because they'll be using Real's solution to load music bought from Real's music store. Even if someone opts to go straight to Apple, Apple has a perfect right to direct such queries back to Real.
I don't think either are reasonable concerns.
In any case, Apple has brought these upon itself. It could have worked with Real, it chose not to. Real, quite reasonably, decided to do the work itself. Apple's updates may "break" things in future, and there may be complaints, but the only damage I can think of is to their reputation, and let's be honest, given Apple's behaviour here, they deserve any damage to their reputation that this causes
Apple's best response would be to cooperate or ignore. Suing Real is a direct attack on their customer base, and that's not acceptable.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
How many iPod users are going to say after this patch makes their iPod's CrashMatic 3000's It Real's fault, versus calling in the support lines and bitching in public about how iPods are all crappy and unstable.Apple is protecting their brand and image from potential harm caused by Real's medling.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
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.
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
Not to mention that they've been pushing the open standards issue ever since Darwin. I always thought that was a curious double-standard. When they're open (Darwin, Rendezvoux) they're REALLY open. When they're closed (Quartz, iPod) the door is glued shut.
Nope iPod is one of Apple's highest margin products. iTunes just squeaks a profit, I believe.
Apple's iPod is a device designed to play digital audio files. PERIOD.
.AAC, .MP3, .AIFF, and .WAV formats, which just happen to be digital audio files. If you want to play another format, buy another player. Apple is completely within their rights to determine what gets played on their player in *their* licensed, proprietary format.
.MP3s?"
No, it's not. It's designed to play
What no one is asking is, "If Real was so hard up for revenue, why didn't they encode their songs as
By circumventing Apple's DRM in order to get music onto the iPod, they are actually *reinforcing* the DRM. They are encouraging people to buy Real encoded files that will play only on the iPod.
I don't remember ever reading where I must only play Apple's digital audio files on my iPod. And if they actually made that part of their EULA, that's just plain ridiculous and I've no intention of paying it any mind.
Then don't go bitching to Apple when your iPod breaks. You can't have it both ways; either you play by Apple's rules and your iPod works as promised, or you can hack the hell out of it to a point where it may no longer work.
BTW, are there any other laws you don't feel like obeying? Why follow any laws at all?
. . . 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. . .
Someone's the bad guy here but it sure doesn't feel like Real for giving consumers more choice on their legally purchased hardware. Or did I miss the part where restricting how we could use our own hardware became "cool".
No, I think you missed the part where the Apple logo loaded as soon as you switched your iPod on. The *software* is what's making the hardware work. When you loaded iTunes for the first time, you agreed to Apple's EULA which allows only limited functionality of their hardware. Don't like it? Buy something else!
If you don't want to follow Apple's EULA, then why should SCO (or anyone else) have to follow the GPL? Unfortunately, if you own and use an iPod, you've already made the decision to play by Apple's rules. You can't change those rules in the middle of the game.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
That's called competition and in a capitalist economic system, it is considered good. Competition benefits consumers by lowering prices, increasing choice, and improving quality (yes there will be exceptions). As an example, without help from Japanese competition, American cars would be just as (un)reliable as they were in the late 70s and 80s - more expensive likely as well. We have better quality now thanks to competitors' products.
Apple could have been a serious contender ages ago. Nice product and all, just overpriced. I really wanted a Mac for my first computer (at least of the type that didn't hook up to a TV) in 1990/91. Impossible for me to afford the color version and let's face it, I wanted to play color video games. So, because Apple was $500 too expensive, it's a decade and half that they've lost my business. I learned DOS, then Windows, now Linux. I go fiddle with my friends Mac and it's a horrid experience (not because the UI sucks, but because I'm not used to it).
I'm completely pleased there was competition for Apple. It allowed me to get a computer with features I wanted, has saved me much money over the years (notwithstanding the MS tax), and most importantly, it enabled me to play Leisure Suit Larry in 16 colors!
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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.
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 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?
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.
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
From where I'm standing, it's the PC sheep over the wall that are getting all the abuse from cattle prods. I've never been happier with a computer than when I switched to Apple a couple of years ago. It was quite a relief from all the PC hassles, I can tell you.
Not once it leaves the store and arrives at my house it isn't.
You didn't buy the FairPlay software, you licensed it. But you're right you're free to install Linux on your iPod if you don't want to use Apple's software, but that doesn't give Real the right to violate Apple's property.
Would it be okay for Microsoft to "reverse engineer" Real rm format and cut them out of any licensing revenue from websites who use it? That's what Real's threating to do with FairPlay. (I know that doesn't interest the communists here. But for people who earn a living from IP, it matters.)
Real has a business model that isn't popular with consumers so Glasser is trying to undercut Apple -- who convinced record labels to support legal downloading. If Glasser had any balls he'd "reverse engineer" Windows Media and undercut Microsoft's licensing deals. But he's not that stupid.