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."
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
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
What stealing?? You can only steal something that is someone else's property. What did Real steal, even if you include intellectual property as things that can be stolen? Did they infringe a patent? Did they infringe copyright? They they abused a trademark from Apple?
No, they simply reverse engineered FairPlay to create a product that can interoperate with the iPod. Is that also stealing nowadays? It's like saying that those companies making clone cartridges for inkjets are stealing from the printer manufacturers... Nobody has a right to a particular amount of profit, and depriving someone of profit by offering an alternative is *not* stealing, it's called competition in a free market.
Donate free food here
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...
A serious question for you:
Why shouldn't people be able to play music files that they have purchased, on a piece of hardware that they've purchased? The files are Real, the hardware is Apple. Why isn't that "cool"?
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.
This is no more stealing than copying an MP3 is. Show me what was taken in quantifiable terms, and I'll believe you.
No, this is the reverse engineering of a product - for profit. It was legal until recently, as such things are - now get this - conductive for business competition. However, what with the DMCA, such things are made illigal to protect big-business interests.
How quickly the collective mind forgets. Not long ago there'd be not one person on slashdot which would support Apple's tactics, and now mostly everyone is falling in, "Real is evil!" What nonsense. Sure, it's criminal what they did, thanks to the DMCA, but it's no different than making an after-market part for a vehicle (steering wheel, seat, stereo, etc.) without getting explicit permission from the vehicle manufacturer - which, last I checked, is fully legal.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I just can't escape the feeling that if the name of the company involved was anything besides Apple, 99% of the community here would be decrying their anticompetitive behavior. Would you be the saying the same thing if it was Apple adding iTunes compatibility to Sony's ATRAC only proprietary Netwalkman?
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". That'd certainly be thinking differently.
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.
Somehow this is different when we hack open Microsoft gaming consoles? Down with Microsoft for creating a closed format that we cannot do what we want with! How dare they!
Apple creates a unit that is closed, refuses to allow Real to come in and have an alliance for it, and so Real hacks it to do something cool. Apple "lays the smack down" and somehow that is a good thing? Killing innovation?
Zealotry is one thing but blatant fence hopping is another.
Erm, hold on. This makes no sense. What's your argument again? That Real is being unreasonable because Apple refused to cooperate with them, and then had the audacity to winge when Real did the work necessary to implement something by themselves?
Why the f--- is REAL in the wrong there? What next? Are you going to advocate makers of webcams, MP3 players, 802.11 adapters, et al, suing Linux programmers for ignoring their refusal to cooperate and working out how to make Linux interoperate with their hardware?
Maybe Apple should start suing its own customers too, just to keep its hand in.
I bought an iPod. At this point, Apple has no business telling me what I should do with it. Apple has no business complaining about third parties wanting to offer me things that work with that iPod. Apple should butt out and mind their own business.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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
I can see how Apple would want to keep the iPod playing just their own DRM poisoned iTunes format files, but why should I care what they want? If I legally purchase a piece of hardware I have the right to do whatever I want with it. It might void my warranty, but otherwise, screw 'em if they don't like my mods. Obviously RealMedia is hoping to get money here, but again, what's wrong with that?
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
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
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 isn't about what Apple or Real can do with iPods, it's what we end users can do with our own iPods. You know, the ones we bought.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Indeed. I absolutely adore my iPod and take it with me everywhere. I do not hate Apple, unlike most of my PC-centric software engineering brethren. I feel that Apple has a niche and it fills that niche extremely well. The reason I don't own one (and probably never will) is that that niche caters to those who desire a pre-produced, non-gaming-capable tool for "productivity". Not only do I NOT want to be productive (as evidenced by the 2000$ I just dropped to get up to speed for Doom 3), but I want to have absolute control over everything by building it myself from scratch. It's just my thing.
Now that the stage has been set, I get to my point. mliu is absolutely correct. If this were any other company (especially m$), people would be going berserk. It is my hardware, and, regardless of the law, I should be able to do whatever I want to do with it as I wish to do it. If Apple wants to constantly play cat-and-mouse by changing their software to break Harmony, then fine, that is their right. But by cheering Apple on as they sue the pants of Real, you're hypocritically sacrificing your philosophical beliefs just because you like who is getting the shaft. Not very respectible at all.
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".
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.
It is cool. And I think Apple knows it. The actual issue for Apple is "Hey! You're going to take business away from iTunes if just anybody can put any music on our iPod!" Which is total bullshit. They win either way- people are still buying iPods. People are still GOING to buy iPods. I notice Apple didn't say a word when the RealPlayer started supporting their format, why was that? OH, right- because there's no $$ involved in Quicktime.
For anyone making the argument that hardware should only ever support media/software/whatever made by the same company as the hardware, would you buy a car from Chrysler if you could only get gas from Chrysler or buy a Sony DVD player and only be able to play Sony Pictures (or subsidiary houses) DVDs in it. Hell no. You can put non-Apple software on an iMac, so why should you only be able to use iTunes with an iPod?
For ONCE Real is doing something that helps consumers, something nearly every mofo on
R(k)
Then let me be the first to say: Apple is wrong on this one.
I don't know where these companies got the idea that they somehow maintain "rights" over their products after they have been sold to customers (yes, sold; "licenses" are a distubingly popular myth, but a myth nontheless).
Apple has a very peculiar history in the PC industry. Their first product, the Apple ][, was created by a guy who took whatever parts came readily to hand and hacked them together to create one of the world's first personal computers. I own a copy of the Apple ][ Reference Manual, which contains a complete source listing of the ROM, as well as a schematic of the machine -- indeed, the very embodiment of the "Hacker Ethic." Such open disclosures would give today's industry executives and lawyers fits of apoplexy. Yet, despite this open disclosure of "proprietary technology", the Apple ][ sold millions of units, and put Apple Computer on the map as the pre-eminent personal computer maker.
Then the Macintosh came out in 1984, and Apple started down the path of becoming a closed-architecture "proprietary" information hoarder. ROM listings were not available. Schematics were not available. This didn't stop people from "prying open" the Mac and learning what they could about it.
Now we have the iPod, and Apple is making the unconscionable claim that no one has the right to pry open "their" product and learn how to make it do things. That they are shocked, simply shockced, that anyone would adopt the "tactics and ethics of a hacker" to manipulate an iPod to their own ends. This from a company that was founded on the tactics and ethics of a hacker.
So, let me be the first to say: Apple, you're absolutely dead wrong about this. Real may be a bunch of assholes for other reasons, but in this case, they have done nothing wrong. Look to your own history to understand why. By making such a claim, you are repudiating your own origins and your founders -- you are, in effect, claiming your own company has no right to exist.
You owe Real an apology. You owe your founders an apology. And you owe us an apology.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I don't care a bit about the malware makers at Real, but what's uncool is people massively buying iPods instead of players that support multiple, vendor-neutral standards.
I want my player to be a big file system in a small box that supports OGG, MP3, FLAC, WAV, SPEEX, and eventually popular video formats, HTML, etc. as well. I want it to be able to record to those formats, too, off the built-in AM/FM radio and from line-in. I want it to support downloadable codec plug-ins.
If it holds "several thousand songs" and I buy that many at a dollar a piece from an online store, I want my wife to be able to play them, too, and if some other maker of these little media boxes comes out with a box that I like more, I want to be able to just drag my files out of the old box and into the new box with no loss of files or file quality.
I'd like to reward manufacturers (such as iRiver) that take this approach by giving them my business, and I wish more people did likewise to drive the competition in open media players.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Why don't they just sell non-DRM songs? That's what everyone here wants, right? "Apple is wrong for not licensing FairPlay" and "Apple is wrong for putting DRM on their songs." Funny how everyone here realizes that DRM is a necessary compromise in order for the legal online music business to take off the minute Apple does something they don't like.
The online music business is just starting out, and Apple wants to cement its place there. Real knows that its only chance at surviving the initial culling of the online music stores was to partner with Apple, and Apple knows that too. The problem is that Real is a competitor, and Apple doesn't want them to survive. Right now, iTunes and the iPod feed off each other. Let's think about what would happen if Apple licensed FairPlay to other music stores.
First of all, the small profits from the iTunes Music Store vanish. Second of all, Apple becomes responsible for making sure that future iPod firmware revisions will work correctly with everyone else's stuff. If they just say, "Screw it, we'll leave it to the licensees to check," then customers get pissed at Apple for issuing a firmware update which breaks their music purchased from other stores. Thirdly, Apple's massive marketshare in the nascent market goes starts trickling away. So can anyone tell me exactly what they stand to gain by doing this?
Now, licensing FairPlay for use by other portable players could be beneficial later on. Right now, the iPod and iTunes complement each other, but I don't think that act will keep up. The iPod is helping iTMS get off the ground and become an online music giant. Once iTMS gets on its feet, it won't really need to be an iPod-selling vehicle. Everyone and his mother wouldn't be jumping into this business if they didn't think there was a money-maker in the long-term. Once iTMS becomes a profitable entity by itself, then Apple can invite everyone who doesn't use an iPod in.
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.
Yes, and if you buy an iPod and make it so that your real files can work with it, that's fine and dandy. But you aren't Real. Especialy if Real starts advertising as "iPod compatible" you run into the problem of this being an unsupported hack, which most of the consumers won't understand.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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.
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
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?
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.