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.
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.
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).
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!!!!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?