Slashdot Mirror
Apple Not Too Harmonious with Real
An anonymous reader writes "As if in answer to the question previously asked on Slashdot, CNN Money is reporting that Apple isn't all that happy that Real pried open the door to the iPod for its RealMedia files. "We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod." It should be interesting to see how this pans out in court, and if the DeCSS case serves as some sort of precedent."
This is just blatant disrespect of all sorts... Real already tried to setup an "alliance" with Apple once and was denied, and now it just goes around it in it's own world and bypasses Apple. Not cool.
Jobs needs to lay some smack down on these people or something.
With the constant Apple lovefests, the hatred of the DMCA and DRM, the dislike of Real Player, and the love of hacking.
First, the full Apple statement, since it's not referenced in the summary:
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and other laws. We strongly caution Real and their customers that when we update our iPod software from time to time it is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future iPods."
- Regarding the DMCA: you can't fault Apple for using a law on the books - passed by Congress (unanimously by the Senate), and signed into law by President Clinton - to protect its own business interests. If you don't like the DMCA, or aspects of copyright law in general, work to change the law(s), but don't fault companies or individuals for conducting themselves within the bounds of those laws while they are in force.
- What Apple says regarding breakage is true. Some might argue that any breakage would be intentional; however, you can certainly also agree that otherwise benign changes to the iPod or its firmware may indeed break Real's reverse engineering. Intentional or no, this would still leave customers who have purchased songs via Real out in the cold, which ultimately, to the average customer, reflects poorly on Apple and the iPod (moreso than on Real). Does Apple, or its customers, really want an environment where any changes to the iPod to add functionality or features can break customers' music that they've ostensibly legitimately purchased?
- The word "hackers" was successfully co-opted long, long, long ago ("a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system"), so don't fault Apple's (currently correct and appropriate) use of the word, and save us the tiresome lectures.
That said, yes, Apple could sublicense Fairplay, as they have done with Motorola. But still, it means both parties must agree, and doesn't excuse Real.
Others remember the continued arrogance and mistakes regarding OS licensing long ago. "Apple could potentially become the Microsoft of online music," they say. But this could only potentially happen by cannibalizing iPod sales. The iPod would be akin to the "PC"; the iTunes Music Store would be "Windows". (Remember: Microsoft never made computers). But for Apple, the iTunes Music Store is a break even proposition: its sole purpose from a business perspective is to drive iPod sales and adoption, and, to a lesser extent, adoption of other Apple products. Apple's iPod and hardware margins are to-die-for in the computer industry, while the iTunes Music Store, even after having sold 100 million songs, only recently made a "small profit". Additionally, Apple maintaining control over the whole process from end to end is one of the things that makes the iTunes/iPod experience so friendly and pleasing. This may no longer be true with other manufacturer's products.
I'm not arguing against for or against licensing here, only pointing out that it's more of a difficult situation than people make it out to be. The iTunes Music Store and the iPod, for Apple, are inextricably connected, at least currently. Allowing the iPod to work with other online music stores can be argued to hurt Apple's iTunes/iPod strategy, while allowing the iTunes Music Store to work with other players definitely hurts iPod sales. Sure, you can make all sorts of contrary arguments, but there are valid arguments just as contrary to those. All that said, Apple
Apple has seen sales of iPod boost its bottom line over
The article talks about Previously, iPod would only play digitally protected songs that carry restrictions and were purchased from Apple's own iTunes music store.
And Apple is complainig that sales have soared? Apple should see that more means more - more sales due to more formats being played. Now maybe apple should go back to the chain of command and figure out who stuffed in the DMCA trying to get more sales and question that person mangament ability.
The artcile continues by saying Apple has a variety of legal steps. Does this mean that once you own a piece of hardware you can't update the software? Hmm Sounds like they would like to go after the FOSS community if somoeone released an updated iPod OS. RealNetwork would put the legal team on ends if it released the updated source to the community.
It's like Real have lived under some kind of rock for the past six years. I'm sure they've employed this a few times themselves. Is there a different captain at the helm, oe with a Napoleon hat perhaps?
Of course, it could be argued that Apple is approaching a monopoly status with the iPod and should open it up. Given the dislike others have expressed with Real Networks, they must be truly wrestling with their sentiments on this one.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I thought they were the good guys?
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.
who owns the hardware? Apple or the User. No doubt that DMCA will come into play and soon. This should be interesting to see how it plays out.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Now I can spend $300 on a music player AND get to use Real's spyware laden buggy hard-to-use interface! How can I loose?
I read the internet for the articles.
If they CHOOSE to use the DMCA, then that's a choice they've made and one we can fault them for. There are laws that say my neighbors can't make loud noise at 5am. I have a choice whether I can go talk to them and get them to be quiet, or whether I can just call the police.
Tell me again how Apple is different than Microsoft? All that bs about apple being 'different', 'free' thinking, and 'open' is just a PR campaign and nothing more.
> Not cool.
Not cool by any stretch of the imagination.
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod."
I was stunned too! 0%... 5%... BUFFERING 6%... etc.
Apple is going to get some financial buffering from RealNetworks, after this is done.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT: /--consumer choice?- <-<No.. . |
A SLASHDOT FLOWCHART EXCLUSIVE
Start:
Did a corporation use Was the encryption--Y-->Did someone reverse
encryption to prevent-Y->in question engineer the system,
their customers from pathetically weak? allowing for more
fairly using purchases? |
N-------N---<------<----N----<--+----<--
| \ Y
N<------N----<---Did the corporation Did this new<--+
| react violently, <--Y-software enable
| Was the<--Y--slander hackers, fair use?
| corporation and fire off legal
| Apple(tm)(R)? threats using DMCA to suppress speech?
| | |
| Yes +No-->Oh my God those assholes! It's time we put this source
|_ | code on a T-shirt! Time to contribute to the author's
\ / legal defense fund! Time to call our senator and tell
No big deal! him to repeal the evil, flawed DMCA! Time
Time to play "Quake!!!" to practice "civil disobedience!". Time
to write "distributed peer to peer"
corporate-subversion software! Time to call for a radical reform
of copyright laws! Time to decry Palladium(tm)(R) design and
distribution as a grand scheme to put us under the lock and key
of DRM! Time to raid DVD-Jon's jail cell with Dimitri as lead
commando! Time to hack Hillary Rosen's web site and deface statues
of Jack Valenti! Quick buy another 2600 T-Shirt!
By the way, wouldn't it be great if Devo was 99c a song?
God I still remember the HACKER MANIFESTO!!!!
This is silly. Previously, the iPod would play any MP3 or AAC (or WAV, or Audible - not sure if it handled any other formats) you stuck on there, assuming that if you HAD bought it from the itunes store you had also authorized the ipod. I should know - I have yet to buy more than three songs from iTMS, yet my 30 gig iPod is all but full.
This flies in the face of science.
What would the DVD market be like, if every DVD players only worked with the manufacturer's owned (or endorsed) DVD store?
I applaude Apple for showing RIAA that there is another way to market music.
I applaude Real for taking the first step to end device lock-in. Device lock-in is bad for consumers. I do think they're going to lose against Apple, but by taking the first step, one can only hope some day iPods will no longer be exclusive to iTunes and vice versa.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Fine then, can't Apple modify it's software to mess up Real's modifications?
That way, it'll just become a compatibility war, like when Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo modify their IM software to prevent third parties from accessing their networks.
I'm sure Apple will find a way to block Real, by legal or technical means.
By the way, I have 4 mod points, I really wish I could use them on this topic, but as I'm posting... oh well.
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!
Old argument, I'm sure, but I was understanding that the 'Hacking' originated among physicists -- something along the lines of hacking away (with a metaphorical instrument, such as a hatchet or machete) at something until the facts were revealed. My father, who worked at on the Oakridge project, back in the early 40's refered to those who considered themselves 'hackers.'
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The linked article states "Previously, iPod would only play digitally protected songs that carry restrictions and were purchased from Apple's own iTunes music store."
This seems to be patently untrue, as it's hardly a state secret that the iPod can play un-DRMed songs perfectly well. I suppose I can simply be parsing the paragraph wrong, but they seem to refer to this again when they bring up the DMCA, specifically citing the provisions against "illegally copying software" (and not, as would make somewhat more sense, the reverse engineering angle).
It wouldn't be the first time a major news outlet got the technical details wrong, but this really completely misrepresents the nature of both Real's initial actions and Apple's reaction....
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
...was nothing. Ignore it. Who cares? No one is going to buy Real's crappy encoded format music. Apple looks like the bad guy by telling people what to do with hardware they purchased. Replace Real with some guy from Finland and ".rm" with ".ogg" format and see if you still agree.
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.
iPod plays Mp3s, AACs, AIFFs, and a number of other formats. They're not transcoded before the hit iPod. The iPod disk has a normal filesystem on it and all, so you can look for yourself.
Also, AAC doesn't inherently have DRM in it. Apple just wraps it in DRM for the songs they sell from their music store. I rip my music to AAC using iTunes and it is totally unencumbered by DRM.
Heck, AAC wasn't even around (at least, not the way it is now) when the iPod first came out...
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.
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/
Uh, no.
The iPod plays mp3s. It has an mp3 decoder chip. In fact, they didn't play AACs until some time after they were announced (two years?).
Converting mp3 to AAC would be destructive and silly. Where did you hear this?
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
RealNetworks Chief Strategy Officer Richard Wolpert: "We think consumer choice is going to win out over proprietary formats."
;)
And this is coming from Real! Gotta love it!
DRM vs. DRM. A pox on both their houses.
sulli
RTFJ.
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).
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.
Yeah, and boo on Compaq for reverse engineering IBM's bios instead of just licensing it, and boo on everyone who hacked TiVo and wrote books about it.
Sorry, but unless Apple is going to lease iPods they have no control over what you do to the hardware you bought from them. If I wanted to write software that turned iPod into a toaster I am within my rights to do so.
I really can't stand the double standard people have regarding Apple versus all other companies.
So much for "Think Different."
"Now Apple is stealing Open Source technology [...]"
Yeah! Just checkout the latest info on bash 3.0. It seems that "Several bug fixes for POSIX compliance came in from Apple; their assistance is appreciated." How about that? AC, being a world class shell scripter, you must surely appreciate this help.
dani++
I 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.
This is unspeakably wrong! A company spends MILLIONS, perhaps even BILLIONS to come up with their own proprietary mechanism for exchanging files between their OWN services, and some damned upstart comes along, reverse-engineers it, and has the AUDACITY to make their OWN service interoperate with it...WITHOUT PERMISSION?!?!?
All of that money that the company spent, down the drain, because some "hackers" figured out how their carefully crafted system works! This is wrong and unfair!
Our course is clear! We must NOT support the evildoers who have committed this foul act of hacking! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT!
We must NEVER use SAMBA AGAIN!!!!!
Wait...who were we talking about again?....
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
They're reverse engineering something so they can add functionality to it. Seems to me real isn't doing anything illegal here. They aren't reverse engineering and selling their own I-pods or anything, they're giving users a different way to use their I-pod's.
Personally, I wouldn't want to have an i-pod with realplayer on it. Afterall, it'd request to be connected back to the internet so it can upload my listening statistics or something.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
I 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."
If Microsoft is a monopoly, Apple is surely a failed attempt at one. Apple has a long history of intentionally breaking their products so that they will not inter-operate with other products.
Remember back when Jean-Louis Gassée held up a telephone when asked how to make Macs and PC's work together on the same network? Apple not only wasn't interested in having Macs inter-operate with PC's on a LAN, they were openly hostile to the idea.
Anyone else remember the voodoo one had to go through to get a standard SCSI hard drive or CDROM drive to work in a Mac? Remember the bullshit that Apple tried to spout when asked about this? They tried to say that SCSI was an electrical standard and not an interface standard. Yeah, right. The truth of course was that their partitioning tools and CDROM drivers were specifically written to check for a tag in the drive's firmware and fail if that tag was not found.
Any company that is going to play keep-away like that will NEVER receive a dime from me.
It's this kind of snobbish nonesense that really made me dislike Apple, regardless of what the company used to be like back in the Apple II days.
This is why I won't buy an Ipod. That and the whole bullshit issue with the batteries not being replacable. I hear they've fixed that now, but it never should have been an issue in the first place.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
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.
Typing this on my 17" Powerbook and listening to my 3G iPod...
Apple is being lame.
Why do companies fight so hard to keep from reaching more customers and giving them what they want? Apple says they want to grow market share but they aren't doing a very good job. They spend a substantial portion of their energy preventing customers from doing what they want. Not that this is uncommon. But it's still stupid.
And to all the apologists -- the DMCA is a destructive law and anyone who uses it is playing games with your freedom. Grow up: you can love the good things a company does and still hate the bad things a company does.
I love Apple's OS and hardware, and I think their business practices suck. As long as people defend them for this stuff they'll keep shooting themselves in the foot. Give Apple a little tough love, eh?
Cheers.
To use iTunes, you must accept the iTunes software license.
Therefore, to use your iPod, you must accept the iTunes software license.
That's the Catch-22.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
I'm disgusted by Apple, but not by the fascism. I'm disgusted by the lack of logic:
Apple makes a tiny profit with the iTMS. Their model is to make the serious dough selling iPods, so they actually make a profit out of online music, unlike the me-too services (BuyMusic, Walmart, Napster 2.0 etc).
So why is Apple upset at Real's rather desperate attempt to support the iPod? Where's the harm?
The only thing I can think of is that Apple is going to court to prevent any precedents being established regarding iPod reverse engineering in preparation for an iPod clone war.
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.
Dont forget those career criminals who figured out how to boot linux on an Xbox.
Bunnie Huang and the rest should definately see some jail time. Filthy criminals.
And when Microsoft said "no" to Sun and Netscape, they should have just folded up and went home. No means no, right? No, we don't want your JVM, and no, we don't want your browser.
I love the grandparents depiction of it as though Real had performed some sort of corporate rape. "No means no" indeed.
Go Real. Apple zealots are indeed annoying.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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?
Yes, I do have to stand on my head to convert purchased (DRM'd) songs to MP3, but I am not locked out. Or in. Whatever.
I can't imagine anyone being swayed into using Real's service based on this very shaky compatibility, as they've already invested in an iPod, and at that point, why risk the money purchasing songs in Real's format which may or may not work with the iPod forever? Seems to me that Real is inviting a legal battle upon themselves with very little chance of profit, and of dubious benefit to consumers.
I mean, Christ on a crutch, it's a pretty simple device... Not like every electronics company hasn't already made something similar. It shouldn't be too difficult at all to make something iPod compatible.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The DMCA makes reverse engineering for interoperability (which is exactly what real did) explicitly legal. Apple has no case under the DMCA, unless they can prove that real's software prevents their copy-protection from working.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Microsoft is supposed to be launching their own online music store soon, and preventing Real from reverse engineering their iPod will send a message to Microsoft who, if nothing is done, has no reason not to do the same thing and make the iPod play their proprietary formats with their DRM or whatever.
Apple is just covering their ass, becuase once Microsoft steps up to the plate, who knows what will happen. Especially considering new windows releases could have a built in link to microsofts online music store, not unlike how they propigated IE through the masses. Something like that has the potential to CRUSH iTunes.
Good job apple for having the foresight to see what could potentially happen and at least try doing something about it.
- Their software sucks! The whole buffering joke aside, it's performance has never been close to that of competitors offerings IMHO. Why they've always been considered such a player in the tech game is beyond me.
- Their website and countless annoying ads are very misleading. Only recently, after a couple of years of people complaining about how hard it is to find the free version of realplayer, have they made it a little easier to get at.
- Their half-assed attempts at supporting non-Windows platforms is ridicuous. Perhaps this has changed recently (I gave up on them long ago), but historically, their multi platform support seemed to amount to "We support Linux, OSX, Beos, you name it (provided you don't want the majority of the features of the Windows version, and are willing to settle for a version that's about 3 generations behind the Windows version).
I could go on, but nuff' said.Historically, their marketing efforts seemed to revolve around enticing a user to their site with promised freebees, and then once the user had exhausted their patience looking for said freebies, they seem to hope that they'll just get disgusted and buy the full version. Not cool!
And now Apple's coming down on them for making their precious ipod do something Apple didn't intend for?? You don't see them coming down on the people making addons for it (which coincidentally also make it do things Apple didn't intend), so why now Real???
I'll be honest. When/if I buy an ipod, it's frickin' mine, and I will do with it what I want. Consumers are being robbed by todays's legislative tactics (everything from the DMCA to the Homeland Security act ensures that big business's get bigger, and the little people lose out). Apple... I love you, and recently bought one of your G5's, but don't make me hate you so much that I see the Wintel platform as an equal or better solution to give my money to.
Man... Apple was originally started by hackers and here they are acting like they're so above that, and that Real's some little criminal group. Get real. If you want our money, let us actually own the hardware and do with it what we want (especially considering the cost of your products)!!
This isn't stealing, or hacking, or cracking, or anything else. It's reverse engineering, a practice that is protected under the DMCA. In the Woz/Linus/ESR sense of the word, though, this is hacking. Maybe that's what apple was complaining about.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I don't care a bit about the malware makers at Real, but what's uncool is people massively buying iPods instead of players that support multiple, vendor-neutral standards.
I want my player to be a big file system in a small box that supports OGG, MP3, FLAC, WAV, SPEEX, and eventually popular video formats, HTML, etc. as well. I want it to be able to record to those formats, too, off the built-in AM/FM radio and from line-in. I want it to support downloadable codec plug-ins.
If it holds "several thousand songs" and I buy that many at a dollar a piece from an online store, I want my wife to be able to play them, too, and if some other maker of these little media boxes comes out with a box that I like more, I want to be able to just drag my files out of the old box and into the new box with no loss of files or file quality.
I'd like to reward manufacturers (such as iRiver) that take this approach by giving them my business, and I wish more people did likewise to drive the competition in open media players.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
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.
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
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!!!!
Does anyone remember when Real sued Streambox in 1999 for reverse engineering their products? I won't feel one bit sorry for them if they lose this case...
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.
This is nothing like using TIVO service without paying for it. Lets make an analogy that this is like.
Apple is like a car company that provides cars that can only fuel up at their gas stations.
Real built a station that will also fuel your apple built car and apple is pissed.
In other words in your anology its like someone provided a competing TIVO schedule service that worked with your TIVO box so that you have the CHOICE of which or both to pay for instead of TIVO's service.
Real has done nothing wrong, just have built another system for accessing and downloading tunes to the Ipod hardware... one which is less open than Itunes it seems since I have heard nothing about it being able to download anything other than songs with Reals format. In which case it sounds more like an added functionality/plugin than anything else.
In any case the software in both cases is free, its paying for the files that costs money.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
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
Guess what, Real uses AAC same as... lets see... who else uses AAC.
Hmm. Only apple uses 128kb/s Real uses 192kb/s.
Ask me the question again?
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....
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.
Actually, from what I can tell, the music that goes into the iPod isn't RM-encoded. Instead, Real's Software encodes it into a format readable by whatever portable player it's being uploaded into, like an iPod-compatible format, Windows Media-compatible, or whatever other format the portable player uses. Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to create compatible files, and if it was, a lot of Open-Source apps could be prosecuted under the DMCA just like Real.
The only way I could see that Real could be in legal trouble here is if they use a DRM scheme like Apple's when it goes into the iPod, and you would think they would be smart enough to not do that.
Apple makes money selling iPod's, not songs on iTunes (i.e, 10 cents a song for 100M songs is only 10M in *revenue*, that probably just barely covers the cost of the store).
If they couldn't couple their song store to their players (or ones that they get royalties on), then they couldn't affort to build the online store in the first place--and who would be better off then?
They aren't a monopoly (there's competitors in online music, most music is still bought in CD shops)--but even if they were, there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly. Apple doesn't have 'exclusive' contracts with music distributers, and they don't engage in monopolistic tactics (at least not yet). The have licensed access to their store to other companies (HP) who will have compatible players out.
What Real wants is to be able to use the iTunes store without having to pay Apple a cent, and without being beholden to Apple's other restrictions that must exist (about usability of the music player and consistency of the interface). Apple is entirely within their rights to lock Real out.
Now in the future where online music is a mature industry AND if Apple becomes a 'monopoly', where a reasonable case can be made that Apple's format is the de facto standard--then Apple might be compeled to relax their licensing terms a little.
Brannon
If you were Apple, what would *you* do? I'm not sure I'd direct my company to act any differently, though I'd be pressing Real to license FairPlay for a large sum of cash.
I think the law is the problem. I get real sick of people saying "if you don't like the law change it". That's just not feasible. There are so many assaults on our freedom from every angle right now that we're powerless as individuals to stop (as a collective perhaps). The easy answer is "if you don't like the law, break it, just don't get caught".
With that said what Real should have done is anonymously release the hack on the internet, throw it out in the P2P sharing networks and let the end users take the ball and run with it, shit make it open source.
^^vv<><>BA
That makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, it makes too much sense for it to be legal these days. If Real officially "decrypted" or "reverse engineered" anything to get this hack working (like, say, a BIOS), then Apple can wave the spectre of the DMCA at them, as the article mentions. In fact, I'd say Apple has a decent shot of winning, and a great shot of using the threat of litigation to beat Real into submission.
I mean, Christ on a crutch, it's a pretty simple device... Not like every electronics company hasn't already made something similar. It shouldn't be too difficult at all to make something iPod compatible.
There you go being all logical again. You're going to have to work on that if you want to improve your grasp of the current American legal system. ;)
As a bit of an aside, how much more evidence will it take to convince Congress that no, really, the DMCA is completely anticompetitive? We have printer cartridges, DVD's, PS2 mod chips, this...what next? Is the entire concept of competition for aftermarket support a myth these days?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Nope iPod is one of Apple's highest margin products. iTunes just squeaks a profit, I believe.
I noticed this too and sent a note to cnn money about an hour ago and it appears they changed the text. It now reads:
"Real's Harmony creates an issue for Apple because previously iPod only accepted legally-downloaded songs from its own music store iTunes. Those legally-downloaded songs are encrypted, but iPod also plays un-encrypted music files that may have been illegally downloaded."
So it's still kind of oddly worded and not totally accurate (the ONLY thing it played in the beginning was unrestricted mp3's), but at least now it mentions that it plays unrestricted files as well.
Joseph?
Because everyone seems to be berating the /. community for fanboyism and protecting our beloved ipod producer when in fact everyone seems to be slamming them for it....
They should have just shut up and let real quietly fade away, they're not likely to stop sucking anytime soon so why antagonize?
Indeed, it seems to me the only reason they would do this is to get a precedent out and send a message to MS that they're going to protect their ASSets as much as they can. It's the only reasonable explanation, they have nothing to directly gain from roughing up Real.
. . . 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. . .
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.
Yes, and while we're at it, I would like a PDA that lights my cigarettes and wipes my ass for me.
/. bitch about the iPod not having x encoding format or x obscure-as-shit Operating System Compatibility, I would probably have about $40 U.S. Sir, the dead horse you are beating is little more than so much decomposed mush now. Let it go. Please.
I want it to be able to light normal filtered class A cigarettes, but also include support for 100s and unfiltered.
I want it to support 1-ply AND 2-ply toilet paper and be forward-compatible for new multiple-ply standards in the future.
I would also like it to be child and babysafe, so that if a toddler is within a certain proximity of the machine it will not light cigarettes and will only use baby wipes.
Furthermore, it must be fully compatible with my OS/2 Warp box.
And I would like a pony, but that last one is optional.
Anyone that does not acquiesce to these demands is being closed and proprietary. For shame!
Apple's possible legal action aside, the iPod is an example of product implementation where their goal was to do one thing and do it well: let people play tons of music on a well-designed, portable device. Google did the same thing with search by keeping it relatively simple.
If I had a nickel for everytime I heard someone on
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.
Not to beat a dead horse, but just wanted to add that you are kidding yourself if you think that this is about Apple being a bunch of evil, anti-consumer bastards and Real carrying the torch of freedom trying to free us from the tyranny of DRM here. Real wasn't concerned with our best interests or wishes here -- they were concerned with being able to sell songs to a larger audience, making more money and doing it as cheaply as possible (through reverse engineering). There is nothing worth applauding here folks in terms of companies caring about end-users and freedom. Get over it.
I think that all Apple can do in this case is make it blatantly obvious that if you install any 3rd party software or patches from any other company on the iPod the warranty is void and support is discontinued. I think that if you buy an iPod then you own it, but if you modify it then you're on your own. The selling point of the iPod is that it is a seamless integration with iTunes. The average user won't be able to understand that their problems were caused by Real instead of Apple if their iPod quits working. Unfortunately, this is the corporate equivalent of the "fight or flight response". Real has 1 (one) digital player that supports their format. Apple has 1 (one) that supports their format. The player that supports Real's format accounts for maybe 1-2% of the market and is dropping, Apple's player accounts for 40-60% of the market and is increasing. Real has realized that their only hope for survival is to get their format on the iPod. If Apple agreed to let them in it would be no problem. If Real figured out how to do it without screwing up the iPod, no problem. Real has essentially squatted in Apple territory and placed Apple in a bad situation. If they break Real's hack, either accidentally or intentionally, Apple looks like the bad guy to the consumer. The only other option is to support Real's hack, essentially condoning their squatter's rights. Apple absorbs all of the responsibility, while Real reaps the rewards...Option 3, which is a very Microsoft style tactic, is to sue the other guy until they give up or run out of money. Either way the problem is solved. Eventually Microsoft is going to enter this fray like a bull in a china shop and we'll all lose...
Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
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.
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.
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.
...lack of compatibility with different fileformats...
.WMA files, or Real's shitty DRM'd garbage. Most people will just shrug it off and say, "Well, I get my un-drm'd music from kazaa/emule/ftp for free anyway, so why should I care?"
It plays MP3's and that's all that most people use anyway. No large amount of people are going to be turned off to the iPod because it can't play Napster2.0 DRM'd
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
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.