Slashdot Mirror
Real Responds to Apple's Hacking Claims
ack154 writes "An article on VNUNet gives a sharp response from Real regarding Apple's recent claims of Real using "hacker tactics" to allow music from the Real store to play on the iPod. Real states: 'Compatibility, choice and quality are critically important to consumers and Harmony provides all of these to users of the iPod and over 70 other music devices including those from Creative, Rio, iRiver and others.' The article goes on to outline what they say is a 'clear precedent' for what they have done. And in case you were under a rock it all seemed to start here earlier this week."
I've been watching this whole thing unfold for some time now and paid attention to the overtures Real was making to Apple some time ago. Basically issue here is that the folks who designed the iPod and the iTunes music store really cared about the music, whereas Real is concerned with making money by delivering media rather than caring anything about the media per se. Let me repeat that for the folks at Real........It's about the music.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
To make the, "How do you like them Apples?" crack...
Sure. Reverse-engineering is a hacker tactic.
So?
That doesn't make it illegal. Rather it is specifically allowed by law.
(Yes that even means the DMCA, for interoperability purposes.)
What a stupid attempt at guilt-by-association.
Compatibility? Did you say choice for consumers?
.rm format so I can use any player to play it?
How about opening the
Personally, I don't know what kind of crazy person would actually want RealMedia on any of their devices.
Everybody who's willing to defend Apple in this case, ask yourself, were you also willing to defend Lexmark when they sued an after-market toner maker? This case doesn't seem all that dissimilar to me.
Apples business model has never been to sell a digital music player. It has been to sell a service and make its money there. I personally think that Real is on its last leg and this is basically a grasp for air from a dying business.
Apple will now play the "update and break real" game that other companies do when they feel their products are not being used how they intended.
AC
Most defiantly not FP
Since there isn't any explaination of exactly what they do we can't say for sure that they cracked the iPod to get their songs to play, but, Apple makes the product and who is Real to say that they must support Real files as well?
If they have reverse engineered the Fairplay DRM, or used the PlayFair code to somehow encode their files as legit FairPlay DRM'd files then there's probably(most definately) something wrong(legally) with what they have done.
Compatibility, choice and quality are critically important to consumers...
In regards to real player these attributes are best defined as:
Compatibility: Real files only play in real player
Choice: Choose between real player basic (spyware laden) or real player premium (less spyware laden)
Quality: Only the highest quality spyware included in RealPlayer
Who are the consumers going to be pissed off at when their Real-purchased music quits working on an updated iPod?
Wake up.
This from Real, the company who, not even 5 years ago, had a player so bogged down with spyware and other junk that it had become a four-letter word to practically the entire tech community? Real, the company whose player had auto-starts and other background automation that was nigh impossible to disable?
I think they need to examine their own products before they accuse Apple of denying choice and quality to the customer, in so many words.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
My guess is that round three will be a software update to the apple ipod which disables the 'functionality' that real player has created.
if we stripped the DRM out of their music files so we can play them on whatever player we like.
...by selling un-DRM'ed MP3 files. It's just that simple.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Wasn't DeCSS all about choice to use DVD on Linux and they got badly beaten anyways? ... probably just my overactive imagination again >_
I don't really care about the choice anyways, they can always do what they want, I will never use anything from Real... but if they get away with it, it will be yet another proof that there are two levels of laws.
Apple is stretching by threating to use the DMCA. Since this only works with Real's service, there's no copyright infringement going on, so copyright law should not apply. The intent of the DMCA was to protect copyright holders, not the middlemen.
This is very different than DeCSS, where there was obvious infringing uses.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Thats my 2 cents.
While I can see how Apple might be pissed about Real "breaking" their protection schemes, I can't help but think that this is actually good for the iPod. I mean, doesn't this expand the potential user market for the iPod? Sure, it cuts into people using the iTMS, but I thought the whole point was that iTMS supported iPod sales; not the other way around. What am I missing here?
I just don't see too many people running out to purchase iPods so they can use Real's online music store vs. Apple's. I love my iPod, and I bought it because I would not have to convert my entire library (48GB) to a different format to maximize usage. Hell, my iPod isn't even filled to capacity (yet)!
No matter what Real does I feel that most people are aware of their love affair with spyware. So one could assume that most people would pass on purchasing a song from RealNetworks to use on their iPod.
So will the EFF step in, like they did for DVD Jon? Speaking of whom, he dealt with Apple DRM a long while back, so Real haven't done anything new in reverse engineering it.
I just want MP3s and an MP3 player - I don't want DRM and I won't by anything with DRM in it. Both Real and Apple can sod off for all I care.
----
Let's see, we've got a music service that no one uses and a spyware-ridden player that users detest. Let's make a desperate grab at the most popular player on the market so as to save our sorry, mismanaged asses from bankruptcy.
./ will be on our side, because we'll talk about open and compatible formats, even though neither we nor Apple have one.
Oh and BTW, everyone on
Great business plan guys! Give Robby G a raise.
Is this rock and roll, or a form of state control?
5 YEARS ago? How much has changed in the world of digital music in 5 years?! Real is no angel, but let's not ignore the fact that they HAVE listened and their current player is much better then their old offerings.
It seems there is quite a lot of confusion about what Read exactly did. Some people are under the impression that Real is installing custom firmware on the iPod. According to a poster who claims to be an engineer from Real, they did not change anything on the iPod or in iTunes. All they did was maskerading the files from their own music store (which are 192kbps AAC with their own DRM) as Fairplay AAC files.
Does this mean that if Real wins their case, we have a HUGE loophole in the DMCA, whereby we'd be allowed to reverse engineer DRM, if the content is re-encoded with your own DRM ? - I wonder how the RIAA and MPAA will feel about this. Sucks to be them I guess!
And this blurb would be wrong. The iPod and iTunes both still support un DRM'd Music. Ihave over 5 gigs of un DRM'd MP3's on my PowerBook with no issues.
Gorkman
While i haven't actually followed all of the comments that have been posted ever since this situation began, i find it odd that so many seem to be coming to real's defense. Many have been spouting crap about the user being able to do whatever they want with the equipment they purchased but this situation is not so easy in my opinion. If you as the END USER buy your ipod and want to throw it on the ground or open it up or play vinyls on it, i could care less quite frankly. But here is a case of a COMPANY who HAS NOT purchased the product but instead developed a way to try and ride on the success of it WITHOUT the permission of the COMPANY who DEVELOPED it and STILL sells as one of their primary sources of income. I would have no problem if Apple had permitted Real to do this but as i see it, Real is in the wrong because they are trying to ride someone else's wave. Some of you may not realize this but this has the potential of removing revenue from Apple's store, Apple who actually spend the big bucks developing both the player and the store. I think it is bad that real just try and cut in because they think they can.
And to those saying it is all about the users and more options well newsflash, to them it is all about the money because without the money, there is no store, real or Apple. No store and then there are LESS options for the user.
My 2 cents.
I though the Real codec was only allowed to be in applications which support Real only.
e.g. It plays only Real or it doesn't play Real at all.
so how can they allow iPods to play Real files when the iPod also plays other codecs?
take that Apple. you just got SERVED.
seriously though. Real makes a good point: they aren't disabling apple's copyright protection of the music. If anything, they are adding newly protectable content.
booya!
Never thought id back Real in anything but the whole thing is a joke and Apple is taking the piss with their "Hacker tactics" bullshit, what does that even mean? Im pretty sure Real didn't *hack* into Apple servers and screw them over, so they must be talking about the other type of hacking - ie reverse engineering, finding out how things work, experimenting and exploring etc. That's not illegal or immoral and its the only way science and technology can move forward so what are they saying? burn the witches? ban innovation? fuck them. If they want to talk about dodgy business tactics then fine, that would at least sound a bit more realistic, but both companies have no ethics so im happy to sit and watch them fight it out.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The defenders of the "sell hardware at a loss, make money on services" argument make the false assumption that companies have some type of inherent right to profit. This practice is a gamble taken by a company that sometimes works (GameCube), other times it doesn't (iOpener). It the responsibity of the company to protect their platform, it's not the fault of others when their weak security scheme (which they designed and implemented) is cracked.
Dear Steve:
We don't need your crappy 'operating system' and its 3 paying customers. Take your 70 applicaiton programs, each of which have about 2% market share, and go commit ritual sucide by getting in bed with the music industry.
Your friend,
The silent majority
I thought this had been reported often enough by now.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
that real would refer to the IBM compatibles from compaq. What they did not bother to mention the amount of hardware conflicts, and all the other hassles that it created. It took a while to straighten thing out. But look at windows now. A desperate atempt to create a same computing experience across a huge variety of different hardware. Apple Macs not really better but it provides a consistent and predictable behaviour which i believe is only achievable tru maintaining control over both hardware and software
/. and are experts they just want something to work. Not spend time figuring out how it works.
We have to remember not all ipod owners frequent
Ipod and apple name and reputation is at stake here and Real is going under anyway, so its like a i'm dragging u down to hell with me situation here.
Shame on you real!
True, and you have a good point. Kinda hard, though, for them to get up on a soapbox about it when they...well...did what they did not too long ago.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
Perhap's Paul Graham's oft-consulted 'super smart hacker friends' could shed some light on the subject...
5 years ago when they went after StreamBox.
But Apple thought it would be better if the iPod could do less. So their engineers pulled a bunch of all-nighters to make sure that the iPod couldn't play just any music a customer might have laying around. They called this DRM.
Sure, because we all agree that the iPod would be better without an easy, integrated way for people to legally obtain the music they want to listen to.
Is this rock and roll, or a form of state control?
So apple don't like other people using their hardware as they don't make a profit of the iTune sale.
If apple hate it so much keep changing the iPod so that harmony doesn't work and risk pissing off their users as the thing has to be updated monthly to work on iTunes.
Alternatively apple could just go ok so we have competition and provide a good reason for people to use iTunes over Real. (It's not like it's hard to find one... I mean real is annoying bloated crapware anyway).
Sorry but Apple are the "Bad Guys" here. There is no excuse for this, it's called competition, live with it. HP/epson/lexmark/microsoft/yahoo can't do this and get away with it, so why should Apple.
Has everybody suddenly been drugged by apple love or something?
Feel free to insert the obligatory BUFF...ER....IN.........G joke
My main question is this: Why does this bother Apple? Everything I remember reading said that Apple was either making very little or potentially losing money on the iTunes music store, rather using it as a means to sell more iPods. If this is the case, you'd think that Apple would be thrilled that someone else was giving consumers a reason to buy one of their products...
I'd _love_ Apple to hit Real with DMCA related lawsuit. Not because I think what Real is doing isn't great (unlike most of their other activities), or that DMCA is a "Good Thing" (tm), but on the contrary -- until commercial companies themselves start getting hit with too-relaxed DMCA definitions (as opposed to individuals), their lobbying efforts will likely keep the law on the books. If the content industry big shots start getting tangled in zillions of IP/copyright related lawsuits, perhaps the laws will be moderated to the point they make some sort of sense...
- To err is human; but to really screw up, you need a computer
I posted this on the last apple/real thread, but i don't think it was ever read. (note IANAL) Many people (including real) are expressing that they have a right to listen to whatever formats they wish on the iPod. Yet, no one was ever forced to purchase an iPod. As far as I see, the freedom to choose your selected audio formats is with the consumer before they purchase a music device. If a consumer is unhappy with their purchase, they are free to obtain a player that will utilize other music formats. my Ogg buddies love their machines knowing the functionality was more imporatant than the coolness factor, and I have my iPod due to my own journey through the MP3 player purchasing decision. Apple has spent a ton of money on R&D and adverting, and any other company is free to do the same to create and sell a product of superior value offering. for real to piggyback on Apple's success is not only an admission of the lack of success with their own downloading venuture, but their failure to as of yet provide their own superior offering. it is in this spirit that we have such an excellent race with game consoles vying to prove they are the best value for specific consumers.
And, if you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit that there would not be a Real music store today if there hadn't been a (successful) iTMS.
Similiar Apple has no business controlling what others do with their hardware. If people want to replace the software on it so it can be used with another service then that is their right. Just like ford can't say anything about you converting a petrol powered car to a gas powered car apple should keep it mouth shut. Anyone defending apple is a sucker for advertising. Just because Apple had that 1985 ad doesn't mean it is really a freedom company. Carefully read Mac owners posts and you will see that Apple is just an MS without the money but a "cooler" image.
Just replace apple with MS and see if you think the same about the story.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Dear Apple:
We don't need your crappy 'computers' and its 3 paying customers. Take your 70 supported devices, each of which have about 0.3% market share, as well as your small 3% computer market share, and go play in a food processor.
Your friend,
Steve
P.S. No one gives two shits about the G5's either!
reference Batman
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Apple is pissed for several reasons. First and foremost because the iPod isn't just a music player, it's a bundled music solution, since techies love that word. You get a fantastic sexy little jukebox and the elegance of having it work with iTunes, nearly transparently.
I doubt it's "competition" Apple is all that concerned about since Real wont steal too many customers on their own. It's bundling. What do you think Microsoft will pressure PC companies into shipping instead of iTunes? Yeah, something that claims "compatibility" with all systems.
Apple wants everyone to experience the elegance of the integration with iTunes and the iPod. They want you to synch your music with iTunes, and buy your music with iTunes. Then being so impressed with how nice and impressed how everything works go out and buy a Mac. Think Trojan Horse, only it's a mid-to-long term strategy for Apple.
Apple is also undoubtedly concerned about having to support Real's song delivery system since people having trouble getting music onto their iPods will blame Apple. Real's notoriously secretive UI-unfriendly software will undoubtedly
I agree with Apple opening up the iPod. But I also believe the style in which Real did this was totally disgusting. I had little respect for Real before this, and even less afterwards. No matter how much they claim the moral ground this is an act of desperation. An act that while is a movement in the right direction for the industry was riddled with pettiness and beligerence. And is clearly being done to save a company that created it's own destruction with it's inferior software and horrible policies towards it's users.
Something intelligent here.
My favorite thing the Real guy said was while he was mentioni[Buffering.....0%]
[Buffering.....7%]
[Buffering.....11%]
[Buffering.....32%]
[Buffering.....7%]
[Buffering.....40%]
Ah forget it.
The word 'Real' has always had for letters, as far as I've ever been aware.
Personally I don't mind Real doing this, it's an interesting approach - but it would seem to me this would leave themselves open to people using Hymn to strip the DRM from the files!
So after this, will we start seeing Real attacking Hymn? That would be sort of amusing...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Works for me. Sure it's a workaround, but nice just the same.
People seem to take anything some company's lawyer says at face value, without considering that it may not be true. Companys say all kinds of things about what is legal or illegal in regards to thier products. Almost any company will tell you that reverse enginering thier products is illegial. That does not make it true. One of my favorites is in the PS2 manual which states something like "You may not analyze your Playstation 2(TM)". As if thier permission or lack thereof has any bearing on the issue.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
The chances of pulling off a reverse engineering project without encountering long, expensive and often successful claims from the target IP owner are next to nil. There are many, many risks associated with clean-room techniques. For example, when the company undertaking the clean room project develops specs for the product being reverse engineered, how much access to the target product is too much? When those specs are handed off to the clean room team, how close are the specs to actual access to the target product? Is anyone in the clean room lying about their background? To be perfectly safe, I would imagine that the clean room team would have to be composed of people who don't own an iPod, and have never used or touched an iPod. Try proving that in today's world. Real says they did it by the book, but there are tons of ways to prove them wrong.
Beat me to it, AC. That they locked RM is the thing that irritated me the most about Real and why I have long since dumped them. Make no mistake at what they said: Consumers should be given a choice, not people. Consumers are required to buy something to be consumers, people do not. What's going on is that they want rights for their business to not be reduced, only people's rights; thus, a captured market with no recourse but to be dependant on the businesses. If we're going to live in a DMCA world, then Real should have its butt raided by the FBI.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
plus i think i'm not alone in being more willing to give money to apple than real via the magickal intarweb ... apple makes the thing i'm using (ipod) and real is this guy in the back of the room selling songs from under his coat...
Apple should just go and add .rm compability to the Quick Time player. When Real complains, they could just say, "Hey, we used reverse engineering".
Apple doesn't make money on iTunes because it's being overcharged for the material it sells by the rights holders. Because Apple needs to get revenue from somewhere, it has a system to lock users into the hardware from which it makes its chunk of the profit.
That's two lock-ins the consumer has to pay for.
Except there's no "has to" about it. The iPod is just a fashion accessory, so the only people who get burned by this are the people who set themselves up for it. It's hardly suprising that Real wants to get into a market where people are queuing up to pay over the odds for stuff they probably already own.
Let's face it, you don't buy a $1000 computer, a $300 ipod and pay $1 a track if your primary interest is in listening to music.
"If they have reverse engineered the Fairplay DRM, or used the PlayFair code to somehow encode their files as legit FairPlay DRM'd files then there's probably(most definately) something wrong(legally) with what they have done."
Lets break it down for you:
1) If they have reverse engineered Fairplay DRM - Guess what! That's fine. Reverse engineering for interoperability is fine according to the DMCA.
2) [if they] used the PlayFair code - assuming facts not in evidence
3) to somehow encode their files as legit FairPlay DRM'd files - If you read (doubtful), you'd realize that Real uses DRM on their files. More interestingly, Real's files use the AAC format. Just like Apple
4) then there's probably(most definately) something wrong(legally) with what they have done. - You are not a lawyer, you are not a judge, you are not a law maker. You apparently need to be beaten with a clue stick because you're talking out of your ass.
Stop it already.
Lexmark could charge you more for the printer, and let you use third party cartidges, if you like. Apple could charge more for the iPod and let you use Real format. Is that what you really want?
I was reading Apple's reply in the Wall St. Journal this morning, and Apple mentioned just making the software not play those files by default. However, this would excite the open source community in my mind to "hacking the iPod" for themselves.
GroupShares Inc.
-------
artlu.net
who modded that up? I hardly know where to begin. If Real stripped all of the DRM from iTunes store files then Apple would have every right to use the DMCA to take them to the cleaners. what fantasy world are you living in?
While their recent changes are definitely good, I think it is going to be a long time before the community at large ever trusts them again. Just because an offender claims to have reformed does not mean they won't go right back as soon as people start trusting them again.
seSales, Point of Sale software for OS X.
Real is probably in a lot of trouble here since they obviously reverse engineered some code from the iPod for their benefit without Apple's permission. I would hate to be a lawyer for Real at this point because it's basically like saying, "Yes we did violate the Terms and Conditions of the iPod, but we had a good reason to" - this generally doesn't stand up too well in court!
The DMCA can be applied if Real circumvented Apple's copyright protection mechanisms - regardless of whether it was for interoperability. It is a violation of the DMCA to not only do it yourself, but then also to distribute the means to do it e.g. the DeCSS case with Jon Johansen.
A few of you may remember the article The Way the Music Died in which I wrote that our company cStream (http://www.cstream.com was allowing people to stream full previews of songs while purchasing songs of higher quality in MP3 format.
Personally, whenever I buy a song on iTunes or BuyMusic I burn it to a CD and then rip it into MP3 format. Then I don't have to worry about losing the license to the file if I decide to purchase a new music player or a new computer.
The DMCA was there to scare people like you and me away but I'm glad that Real shows us ways to circumvent things legally! :) Now FOSS needs to take a look at what has been done and see if we can't do the same! :)
...crack... I get it!!! HAHAHAHA! Hacker... crack... HEEHEEEHHEEEE.... too funny.
Rob Glaser is an asshole.
Goodbye Real, time to die.
Thanks to you I got marked as a troll you anonymous ass.
Is Steve Jobs going gto do something important with his life, or is he going to play at being big brother?
They've not hacked anything. They're just encoding their music so the iPod will accept and play it. Thus they have hacked nothing.
Apple's whole problem is that the iPod boosts sales for iTunes and they will probably fight hard to maintain the hold on it. Not to knock on the service but many other services have better interfaces than iTunes does. Napster being one of the best IMO. Now that 2nd generation music services are starting to pop up Apple is probably feeling the screws turning on it and in the american business tratidion lately they'd rather litigate than innovate.
well if it was my content that was trollish, i would have been marked troll.
"Sure, because we all agree that the iPod would be better without an easy, integrated way for people to legally obtain the music they want to listen to."
Do you think iTMS is why people are buying iPods? What a tool.
A 40G ipod can store about 30,000 iTMS tunes. How many people have spent $30K in ITMS?
How many people have it filled up mostly with mp3's?
Stop pretending iTMS is important. Only to appletards. Most people have never heard of iTMS. People use it because they want to swap MP3's. Period.
"you don't buy a $1000 computer"
Wait, I thought we were talking about Apple...
ITunes was at first not profitable. It has since become a huge source of revenue according to apple.
For instance it generated 99 million dollars of revenue within the first 6 months of opening. The IPod is simpley the vessel to get people locked into ITunes.
That is the path Jobs is taking with the digital music boom.
Even though the revenue it generates and the profit are drastically different numbers and it is hard to tell how much actual profit was made as Apple wrote off all the costs to it in the first year, thus making it appear as if it suffered a loss, next year the financial statement will better reflect the true income generator that ITtunes is.
Do your research.
AC
The number of posts that state "OMG, REAL HAS SPYWARE IS EVIL coupled with "OMG, APPLE MAKES FRUITY CONSUMER APPLIANCES AND IS AWESOME" is really disgusting. For Pete's sake, people. Take an objective look at the situation.
Real has done a lot of crappy things over the years. Apple has done plenty of good things over the years. That does not mean that Apple is automagically right, and Real is wrong. I've come to expect a pretty significant bias in regards to the average SlashDotter, but this is waaaay beyond that.
--LordPixie
All this is, again, good publicity for apple.
Remember that apple's goal is to make money while selling ipods, not music. So this is one more bad reason to buy one ( an ipod )...
It wouldn't be astonishing if real can easily keep its software compatible, as far as it does not open a security hole
The bad news is that the money will allow apple to sell even more computers to the dumbest users ( e.g. graphists )
First off, Apple not wanting competition has nothing to do with their objection to Real doing this. Real is not competing, they are riding on the coattails of another company's success. If Real was competing, they'd be selling a portable player that played MP3 and Real Media files. Any competition was over when the prospective customer for that player chose an iPod instead.
Secondly, Apple makes a pittance from iTMS sales. iPod sales are where the money is. "But wait," you say, "Then wouldn't Apple be all for anything that might sell more iPods?" No, and here's why:
Apple's user experience is due to them controlling "the whole widget," as they say-- hardware and software. If Real wedges some of their own software into the iPod, that could cause problems for Apple.
Do you think Real will go out of their way to inform iPod-owning customers of their music store that their iPod implementation is nothing but a hack, liable to be broken (either purposely or accidentally) at any time by future iPod upgrades from Apple? Doubtful.
Who's going to look bad if Apple had no qualms with Real's hack and then a future iPod firmware revision broke it? Apple, not Real.
Who's to say Real's hack won't end up frying some percentage of the iPods on which it is installed? Will Real be paying to get those repaired? Nope. Will Apple bear the brunt of a shitstorm from pissed-off people who fried their iPod and were rightly refused free warranty service by Apple because they broke the terms of their warranty/EULA? Yup.
To sum up, Real would be reaping all the rewards of this unauthorized "joint venture," and Apple would be taking all the risks. Any increase in iPod sales as a result of Real's hack opening up the iPod could be very quickly offset by negative publicity, if the the Real hack proved problematic. All it takes is a couple assholes with a grudge and a blog, and next thing you know big media spins it into some kind of defect in the iPod that is Apple's fault.
For Christ's sake, the iPod has been out for almost three years now and a CNN article from two days ago implies that it ONLY plays songs purchased from the iTMS. These people are more concerned with getting the article out than getting the details right.
Real is nothing but a bunch of parasites who make crappy software, I'm all for Apple fighting them over this.
~Philly
Well when you start a sentence with the phrase 'plus i' one would assume that it was the same poster.
How about you stop playing anonymous now?
"but Apple has every right to block this in the next iPod software update"
No they don't. Its my iPod. I'll decide who has the right to load songs onto it.
"Real is crossing into territory that doesn't belong to them"
Yeah, and so is Apple. Its my iPod. I bought it. I can do what I want with it, including using Real's software if it suits me.
Stop defending Apple so hard; you're sounding pathetic.
Quality: Only the highest quality spyware included in RealPlayer
Real Player doesn't include spyware as in bundling something like Gator. Real Player IS spyware.
"We have to remember not all ipod owners frequent /. and are experts they just want something to work."
So stick to iTMS. For people who have the LH side of their brain hooked up, we'd like a second choice, because 128kb AAC sucks. Real offers 192kb AAC, which sounds SIGNIFICANTLY better.
You're poorly thought out. I suspect computers confuse you.
Interestingly, two of these three words were used to make the name Compaq. A company that 22 years ago reverse engineered IBMs BIOS to give us the clones we all enjoy today. I shudder to think where we would be if the DMCA existed in 1982. Seems to me 'hacker tactics' got us where we are now. So in a way, I support Real's position.
Cue [Buffering...] jokes.
Just as I find the election so amusing for offering the public the choice of one millionaire over the other for some trivial differences largely boiling down to which hole you like it stuck in and who you like sticking it there, this whole Apple/Real iPod fracas is equally amsuing.
Anti-Real/Pro-Apple zealots are probably slightly more amusing than the Pro-Real/Pro-Open zealots, since it's not clear what they're supporting other than Apple's right to an unfettered monopoly over the entire life cycle of a product, and people who might be in favor of real's hack can make a plausable argument that more openness on the iPod platform is a good thing.
Beyond that, it's just a fight between two millionaires...
Real took publically accessible information or did a clean room reverse engineering of the iTunes authentication and DRM. That is 100% legal under all laws because they did it 1) to allow for interoperability and 2) they are not circumventing the Fairplay copyprotection, they are actually adding it to the Real files.
Apple can complain all they want, but unless Real violated a patent on the Fairplay DRM software or actually stole copyrighted code to implement their version of the Fairplay DRM, Apple can go fuck itself.
Just to be clear, I have 2 iPods (a 3G and a 4G) and am a periodic customer of iTunes. Anything I buy, I immediately remove the DRM using Playfair. I will never comply with any law which seeks to restrict my fair use rights, especially the DMCA. Yep. I'm a violater. In more ways than one. But I buy all my copyrighted stuff. Once.
However, do you really think any iTunes customers give a crap if people can also use other, non iTunes, music stores? If you wanna use Real's service on your iPod, enjoy!
RealNetworks CEO Rob Glaser said- "Apple's (market) share will go down if they continue to do this [keep other proprietary DRM out]. The only way to presently put songs on an iPod is to (buy) them from iTunes." The tables have turned- and RealNetworks NEEDS the iPod to increase their market-share. Before the iPod was released- Real was quite tight with their proprietary DRM. They've never allowed Apple support their DRM in Quicktime.
So Apple can't use Real but Real can use Apple. Why should Apple be required to support RealNetwork? That doesn't make any business sense.
...Apple isn't telling you anything. They're managing the companies that are trying to be third party suppliers, just like Lexmark did. Only the mobile carriers are handling this as a direct legal obligation on you. There's nothing stopping you from buying Real media for your iPod today, except that Apple will break it next firmware distro.
You're real.
=)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
"Apple has spent a ton of money on R&D and adverting, "
Apple's problem, not mine. Its my player, I'll listen to whatever music I like.
Why does that bother you?
The problem is this: Ford doesn't have a stake in the future of your vehicle other than selling you a new one. (maybe if you had a service agreement like an extended warranty, but anyway)
Apple is protecting themselves from the bad press that will surely ensue when they release the next update of the iPod software that removes the rm mod, not solely because they don't like it, but because they don't support it (nor should they).
As long as Apple has some responsibility to keep providing software for their hardware (firmware updates), they have a say in how people use their hardware (though they may be ignored by the individual). Individuals that would proverbially hack their xbox here aren't the concern--it's the masses that are the concern.
The question is how they react when some software writes AAC files with Helix DRM withhout paying license fees to Real.
Where does everyone get this idea that you can only play DRM'd files bought from iTMS on the iPod?
You can buy an iPod and just rip your own stuff. That's what I do and it works great. I'm in Canada, so no iTMS for me, but it really hasn't bothered my music listening habits. I buy the CDs I want, then keep 'em in a wallet as high-res backups, and use the iPod for everything. It's No Big Deal. No store, no DRM, nothing. Hell, you can even turn off the store icon in iTunes so you never have to sully your eyes with that godless RIAA-0wned enterprise.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
The DMCA allows an exception "solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other that this section" 17 U.S.C 1201(f)(3). (emphasis mine)
The judge in the SCC/Lexmark case read this very narrowly and said that since the algorithm came on a chip, it was non-exempt hardware instead of software. This case isn't allowing software/software interoperability (like Wine offers), but it's data/software interoperability. Big difference; if the DMCA allowed that, then DVD-playing would be legal (same interoperability, except in reverse)
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
for pulling for Real on this one...
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
The IPod is hardware. I own it. It's not a licensed product, even if you accepted that notion in relation to songs. Once they sell me the unit, Apple has absolutely no rights to determine how I will use it, legally or morally.
Jesus, you'd probably be telling people it's illegal to put aftermarket rims on their car because they didn't have written permission from the OEM. Buying the merchandise entails a transfer of all rights to use. If I want to use my IPod as a hammer, it doesn't matter how much of a snit it puts Apple in.
Isn't that hacking?
I disagree with you. Once I fork over the cash and complete the transaction for my iPod, I can do whatever I want with it. If I want to hack it and put (God forbid) Real encoded songs on it, I can do that since I paid for it! Saturn can no more tell me that I have to use Saturn gas, or Saturn rims on my car, than Apple can tell me what I can do with my iPod.
Cracking the iPod open and extending the playback options for Real's downloadable music store is what this is all about. It's called backing the winning horse.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
I thourghly enjoyed reading your post from the spacious cabin of my private jet. If you have any other business tips, or for that matter have written any programs more complex than 'hello world' written in Perl 4.0, I'd be interested in seeing them.
You see, I'm it a bit of a bind -- I've been heating my many homes by burning $100 bills. This has worked well so far, but I'm worried that I might eventually have to switch over to $20 bills. Since my company has only invented the personal computer, popularized the dominant windows-mouse-icons-pointer user interface, and was the first to create a legal, workable music download system with buy-in from the major labels, independent labels, and the credit card companies, we're pretty much a dismal failure by any reasonable defiinition of the term.
Sure, when I returned to the company I hired in lots of Unix developers, switched over to gcc, hired some of the best BSD and BeOS people, but that was just spinning my wheels. Yeah, we did pay off all our debt and have $4B in the back, but that was probably just luck.
So what I need are some really cutting edge ideas, prefereably from a 14 year old reading slashdot over a 56kbps connection from his parent's basement. So if you could let me know where you live, I'll fly over in my personal jet pack and have a listen. From what I understand, the only way to save my company is to switch our software over to a GPL'd re-implementation of the Unix kernel and use a re-implementation of Windows98 for a user interface. I also understand that I should just punt on the whole "major label buy-in" thing and eliminate the weak DRM that they required. Instead we'll sell high-school garage band recordings encoded with a compression scheme that claims to be totally free even though they're likely infrining on some exsiting patents and will likely be sued into non-existance sometime soon. Oh, and I'll also make the music player larger so that it accomidates eight of those replaceable, disposable, D-cells.
Anyway, my jet is on final approach to my private island, so I have to go. I'll talk to you later once I'm plugged into the OC48 connection next to my couch. Keep working on those good ideas -- I might just have to make you CEO when I retire.
Thanks in advance for your wisdom and guidance.
Steve
Here's John Gruber's amusing take on the situation.
Wow, people are bashing Apple fanboys for defending Apple, and attacking Apple for invoking DMCA which they haven't yet. Apple will just modify the iPod's Firmware to break harmony'd songs. Then maybe harmony will try some more. Who cares? Let's get vocal if Apple actually invokes the bullshit DMCA, taking Real to court.
Arguably, since Real isn't licensing FairPlay, I would point the finger at them.
Let's play hypothetical: Apple comes out with iPod mini 2.0 with a 6 GB drive and loads of new touches and features in the firmware. Joe Windows-User has bought more than few albums on Real's store and is interested in upgrading from his old Rio player. He knows his songs from Real are "compatible" with the iPod, so he goes and buys himself a mini 2.0. He goes home, hooks up the iPod and goes to install his songs - and they don't work.
Where does he go for support? Apple never worked with Real to make those songs work, thus Apple won't care. Will Real just sit and point the finger at Apple for "disabling" the iPod, even though Apple may not have purposefully done anything to disable Real's music? Will they change Harmony to work with the new iPod and then allow their users to download new copies of the songs with the new Harmony code in them to make sure they work?
It strikes me that Real has to count on their buyers never upgrading their iPods, or using them with anything other than Real's jukebox app, for this to work with no issues.
As a support professional, I would be telling my boss to stop this before things get too messy. I'm not pro-DRM, and I don't agree with Apple's "hacker" statement or invocation of the DMCA, but I can see some practical issues here that always arise from making a machine do something the vendor didn't intend and I wouldn't want to take the phone calls on the support lines once the fit hits the shan...
is someone to reverse-engineer DirectX to run on Linux.
Leave it to Apple to complain when the functionality and usefulness of its product is expanded at no cost to them. Darn these increased sales! Make it stop!
Mainly beacuse you don't have to get it right on your first try. Eat it, see what you think you taste, then experiment. In the end you might end up with something that isn't made the same way precisely, but tastes the same. It also doesn't necessiarly have to be 100% exact.
I really like the dijon horseradish sauce that Subway has for sandwiches, and I wanted it for home. Now the name give a big hint how to make it, but just putting mustard and horseradish on a sandwich didn't taste at all the same. Tasting it again, I guessed that the other ingredient was mayonase. So I tried blending all three. That proved to be closer. After messing with the ratios, I had something that was pretty close.
Now that's a simple example, of course, but that's how you do it. It's usually not a total mystery what went in to a dish, so you start with what you know and then analyze and tweak. If you are eating pasta you can tell what the noodles are made out of, if they used tomatos in the sauce, etc.
Apple only cares about selling iPods. They don't make money off of ITMS (yet), so fundamentally they should not have any problems with Real putting compatible files on the iPod. However, after Real asked to make the iPod compatible with Real's files, Apple said no, and Real basically threatened them. Now, they come out with this, and it is a bit of a "you told us no, but we're going to do it anyway without your permission" mentality. I'm sure that this attitude is what is irking Apple, and if Real had gone through proper channels and not told Apple about this via press release, things would be different. This just screams of Real and Apple both being stubborn and are using the threat of lawsuits to spread FUD about each other.
today is spelling optional day.
Lots of people from all sides of the arguments yelled and accused each other names. And you know what? So fat, Apple hasn't taken any action beyond issuing the press release and yet people already called them evil. Why don't we wait and see before passing judgements? Offering your opinion of what Apple should do is fine, but accusing them of practices before anything was done is silly.
Personally, I am glad Apple took such a long time to issue any PR and refused to react in a knee-jerk manner. I see that as a proof that they really are considering the positive and negative aspects of the issue (and possibly poring over the law books).
I see the positive of this as forcing the license issue to a head. iTMS already has a huge marketshare, maybe it's time to license compatibility with iPods. Also, because, baring any successful lawsuit, Real will license HT and the only thing Apple can do to counter it is to license theirs. However, I also see a negative of this: who gets the blame when your iPod refused to play your Real music which is not Apple-sanctioned in the future? Average Joes probably just blame the player instead of the Real format.
So, for you who insisted on looking at this only from one perspective, you may do well looking at it from another.
i'm all for compatibility.
if ipod were a dvd player, would apple be the only one allowed to sell dvd's?
the way i look at it, this will only bring in more ipod sales. i dont think their music store might suffer too bad - i know i use it. however, there are times when i can't find a track on itunes and will give napster a shot.. sometimes napster has a track itunes doesn't, sometimes the otherway around. in the end its all about giving your ipod users the best possible ipod experience.
http://www.awwsheezy.com
Apple can simply pound Real to death with FUD...
Lawsuits, Real-Killing Software Updates, etc...
Sometimes you don't have to beat them, in order to win, you just have to drag them down...(as long as you can avoid SLAPP laws).
A change in the iTunes / iPod license agreement could simply state putting non-Apple software on the iPod or using iTunes for anything but an iPod is a void of the license, voids the warranty, requires payment in the form of the first male born child, etc...
What is getting lost in all of this is the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment right of saying anything you want to say is under attack by copyright laws.
Be it music or computer code, the copyright and patent happy people of the world are undermining American Freedom (TM).
True Americans (TM) will be required to register
to read a Book(C), watch a Movie(C) or listen to any Sound(C).
It's getting to the point of if your credit card is turned down, they will rip out your sensory organs!
Last time I checked my Sony CD player could play music that I bought from companies other than Sony. Why not the iPod?
No, they didn't. You have to use their actual Real player to play any Real format. Helix by itself is just a stock media player that doesn't know about Real's proprietary stuff.
It's like Microsoft open sourced Windows but the OSS version will only run OSS applications, not anything Win32. It's Real using the community to develop a media player for OSS platforms.
You might like or dislike that, but as for them opening up their formats, that's BS.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I can see why Real are pulling stunts like this - they are left with a proprietary format which isn't supported by any hardware players. IPods play back AAC & MP3's. Most other players I've seen play MP3 and either OGG or WMA, and all online shops (except Real's) sell songs in either MP3, WMA or AAC.
Real must be feeling left behind due to their stupid licensing policy that means you have to use their crappy desktop player to play their content.
And I really hope they get slapped for this. I'm not an iPod fanboy, but it's Apple that will get the bad press when their next software upgrade stops Real files from playing. If you were an Apple engineer, how thrilled would you be having to check that any upgrades didn't break the RealCrap?
Hacking/Reverser Engineering has been around ever since mankind learned by imitating each other. It is a good thing, it shouldn't be demonized. Don't know how long the engineering mentality was around, but I was born wanting to know not just "how things work", but "how they did that". One of the primary purposes of the patent system is to help other people come up with new and different ways to skin old cats.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Is that before DCMA and before hackers was the law on Trade Secrets.
What prevents you from "reverse engineering" the 11 secret herbs and spices used in the KFC coating? What prevents you from using the Coke recipe to do your own knockoff?
Trade secret law. And Glaser and Real are toast because of it.
Once you're branded a thief by a court of law, I wouldn't expect many record companies to cozy up to him.
I think what the fuss is really about is that Real wanted and alliance with Apple, without being very friendly about it by threatening to seek to team up with Microsoft if Apple refused, and Apple refused them anyway. Now Real has forced the issue. It seems that the CEO of Real Networks, Rob Glaser, is being very abrasive in his business dealings. Real has already been criticised for some of their questionable practices by consumers and doesn't seem to be a reputable company to be involved with.
If Real can crack the iPod, then someone should be able to make tools for converting unprotected .rm formats to .mp3 because that doesn't circumvent any copy protection and shouldn't be subject to the DMCA according to Real's argument. Does anybody know of any?
unless you mean natural gas, lol
Hate to break it to you, but no store-brand anything is reverse engineered by the store. It's almost always a competetors version of some product (or even the market leader's), just with a different label on it. They save on shipping and packaging, get lucrative agreements with vendors, and the store makes up for decreased margins with volume.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Real's media player is shit. Why anyone uses that crap is beyond me. They can keep their player and the sound and play them on a "Creative" or some other lame ass player. Nazz
Ironic thing is, Steve Wozniak would probably get a kick out of this, and if he were still working at Apple, would probably put the kibosh on all this lawyer BS.
"Hacker tactics" are what put Apple on the map, not intellectual property maximalism (i.e., greed). I guess Apple really has made the crossover into "big company status".
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Dear Steve -- Thank for your tedious and unfunny reply. However, you might want to have the irony sensors in your jet tuned. Keep up the good work driving the Macintosh into marketshare irrelvancy and enjoy your temporary lead in digital walkmen.
this is ridiculous, and sets a bad precedent. does that mean that in the not too distant future, us poor consumers will say have to acquire various brands or TV's, DVD readers, CD readers, ebook readers, or whatever just to be able to play brand specific licensed contents? (i know this is a lame example) the more things change, the more they remain the same. Apple will never learn from it's past mistakes i guess. They just want everything, and i am glad that they did not achieve that goal, otherwise you will have a choice of Apple or Apple. meanwhile, somewhere north of where Apple is, someone is learning all the tricks of the trade which Apple has formulated and is in the process of casting into stone. when this is done, the deep pockets will talk, and your choice of gateways, with all the incuberances which Apple has cast into stone, will be Gate or Gate. given the above,i just don't understand why people in their right mind buy iPods, and content from their eshop, just buy the cd, rip it, and stick it into any damn device you please, as long as you do not share it, this is fair use, i hope?? if that is not the case, then by all means never buy any of that, just grab any you can get your hands on, and spread the wealth, and make sure that all those suckers don't get any benefit from it. And hopefully this will adjust their attitudes to the end users. hth
They are just using the trick playfair (now hymn) used... figure out how to ask the iPod for your user keys, try all of them until one decrypts the priv atom in a m4p file, and decrypt the data stream with the key therein. It's just standard AES (128-bit Rijandel). The trick was figuring out how keys are managed. And lucky for Real, all that groundwork was already done for them. Then they could just pull your user keys from your iPod and encrypt your downloads with those on THEIR music site. Easy peasy.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Is all this verbal sparring a fight for the hearts and minds of consumers, or is this just the preface to a court battle?
Reading between the lines in Apple's release (assuming that's still legal these days!), it would seem they're more inclined to break Harmony's compatibility in the future, rather than sue.
I agree that customers should have the choice to put what they want on their iPod. There, I said it.
However, as an iPod owner, I would never even consider working with Real in any way. Not because I'm an Apple Zelot or anything, but because Real has done nothing but destroy any notion that they're 'working FOR the customer' over the years.
When I used to use their software, it just floored me how they could get away with such sleezeball market driven tactics. I purchased a RealPass once for some sporting event a while back. All of a sudden, I had Real bookmarks in IE and had all my media files opening up in Real. While watching the game, I had banners on the top flashing and bobbing around. "Would you like to order a RealPass for next game? We know you do. Do it.. do it now." The streaming of the game was horrible, the advertisements were infuriating, and the game was ruined. Did I mention the advertisements?
Real left such a horrible taste in my mouth that I don't use it anymore. Plain and simple. And yes, now songs from the Real store can go on an iPod. Horay for everything! But I certainly won't give it a look. I didn't use the Real store before Harmony, and I won't use it after. Not because I'm "YAY YAYYAYAY APPLE YAAAAYAYA!!", but because after my experiences with Real, I choose to use something else.
The average user has purchased their iPod because it works seemlessly with iTunes. If someone says "hey, run this program and you'll be able to also use Real Player to access your iPod." they will probably try it. Apple can not prevent people from doing this, legally or otherwise. But they can stipulate in their support agreement/warranty that if you do something like that the warranty is void. Apple's image is not just a product like Dell's products. It is goes well beyond the product itself and includes the interface, the appearance, the interaction with other products, and the simplistic operation that your grandma can figure out. They are selling an experience as well as a product. You can feel free to install all of the hacks you want onto your iPod. There is nothing Apple can do about that, and probably nothing they will do about that. But if you do that, you are on your own. Most Linux users and even most PC users are accustomed to that feeling of being alone with their computer. They know that everyday they may be out on a limb with no one to help them but themselves. Heck, most Linux users actually enjoy reinstalling their OS because they tend to be computer enthusiasts and enjoy the challenge. Apple product users are not like that. Other people make fun of them because they crave the nurturing which Apple provides, but it is a legitimate niche Apple has filled. Apple knows their niche, they know their customers, and they know that if Real squats on their territory, in order to preserve their reputation they will have to embrace and support Real's hack of their product. They absorb the work and reap none of the rewards. Can't say that I blame them for being a bit upset, but I think their only option is to repackage the product so that the user has no choice but to see a disclaimer telling them that if they use anything besides iTunes with their iPod the warranty is void and they are on their own.
Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
Someone forgot to tell the lawyers at Nolo that there's no Trade Secret law.
Patents and Trade secrets
There is actually a big difference between John DeCSS hacking the dvd format to have it run in linux and Real taking an ipod device and reverse engineering it. First, John DeCSS wasn't in it for money it was a hobbyist movement to get DVD's working in linux. Real is taking a device apple has created and reverse engineered it to allow Real to make money off of it. They don't own the rights to the product to make these changes, or allow such changes. Second, a dvd is a format that really should run on anything, freely. The ipod is a device that one company alone should have control over, the creator.
If real wanted to get involved in the booming online music industry, perhaps they should have created their own audio player like napster did.
irc.enterthegame.com #linux
Real you! :D
It's the same ridiculous bullshit you dumb Apple fanboys are always spouting. Everything Apple does is good, everything anyone else does is suspect.
Apple products are generally pretty good; I like them. Apple as a company is ethically neutral, ie. amoral, or possibly even immoral as it seems many companies are. In fact, that is probably an apt description, as they are doing something wrong and probably just don't care. It's just all about money in the end.
Why do you folks look at legal wranglings from Apple differently than those from everyone else? Answer: because you are pathetic "Ooh, shiny!" type people, and can't disassociate your love of Apple products from Apple the company.
Christ on a crutch... Apple is just another company trying to make money. They don't give two shits about you. Buying products from them is purely a business transaction. Sheesh!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I don't know what all the hoopla is about anyway. There are only two formats I use and they are MP3, and iTune/iPod lossless formatted. I've heard Real's player, and their formats, and frankly, they suck. They suck bad.
Most anyone who gets a decent pair of headphones, or a good amp and speakers, and listens to them will discover that they really do suck. For a voice book or something like that, I suppose they're acceptable. But when I can play that same book in iTunes or on the iPod, why bother with Real???!!!
Why would you want to listen to iTunes stuff on Real Networks player is beyond me??!!!
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
buffering...buffering...buffering..."Fuck Apple."
" That they locked RM is the thing that irritated me the most about Real and why I have long since dumped them."
Ouch. That must have taken a serious bite out of your porn stash.
"Derp de derp."
I doubt that Apple is truly concerned about Real. The bigger threat, and an obvious one, is Microsoft using Real's actions as a justification for an MS hack of the iPod. MS will not allow Apple to dominate the portable music space without putting up a tremendous fight.
Consider this - in the next release of Windows (whenever the hell that will be), MS includes a small utility that lets you take your Windows Media files and place them on the iPod. MS has a great deal more clout with the RIAA / MPAA than Apple does, and is in a much better position to negotiate contracts. After exclusively securing lots of artists and albums, MS then integrates a "Microsoft Music Store" product into Windows (probably with a link on the desktop) - and thus the end of the iTunes music store, and the door is now open for an MS-inspired iPod competitor. After all, if you can purchase music from MS and it runs on the iPod, why not purchase a cheaper music player from MS?
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
The only reason I was thinking of trying Helix player was that I thought it could play Real Media files. Now I know not to bother. Thanks!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
... you can always fill this out and take a look at it yourself. Of course, you can't distribute or sell a product with that technology seperate from "Helix DNA" unless you work something out with them.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
That is such juvenile reasoning. Of course there's no reason Apple can't do that. They already are doing that! What they aren't(and shouldn't be) granted is the force of law to support their business model. There's no reason someone shouldn't be able to do anything they want with a product they purchased, and hence, own.
There are devices for companies to use to guard innovations: patents, copyright, trademark(which are all highly abused today, but I digress...), and if their products are truly worthy of "protection" ("protection" is the same as taking away freedom from everyone else, don't forget that), then patents can be acquired to protect their investments.
There is nothing exceptionally innovative about the iTMS and iPod. Indeed, others have had similar products for ages. Apple's success is due largely to their "Oooh! Shiny!" factor, and their acquiring a "reasonable" deal with the music industry.
It is not the responsibility of government to support flawed business models. End of story. To do so is to trade the freedom of the people for money, which is not the democratic thing to do by any stretch of the imagination. Think a little harder before applying the threat of force using the law. Lack of thinking is creating a fascist atmosphere in this country.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
You have a right to do whatever you want to your iPod. Then again, you know that when you do something you're not suppose to do you can't call up Apple and expect them to help you when things don't work.
But Real is intentially misleading the public into believing that their file format will work on iPods 100% of the time. So iPod users will start downloading Real's files not knowing in the future that these songs may not play. But these iPod owners won't be calling Real when those songs don't work. They'll be calling Apple.
If anything, Apple is all about the user experience. And in this case having Real potentially screw up the music experience of *iPod* customers is probably pissing Apple off to no end.
Little Bricklets
This is like watching two skunks spraying each other..
I've been trying to understand myself why Apple would make such a stink about this and what they have to benefit from putting REAL under fire for DMCA violations.
:)
My thoughts - this isn't about selling songs it's a matter of codec -vs- codec. The ITMS is Apple's first major attempt at saturating the internet with the quicktime codec. It is my opinion that they see this opportunity as a way to put real to bed and position quicktime as a bigger player. If they choose to update the iPod firmware to prevent converted REAL files from playing that may in turn leverage REAL customers away from Rhapsody and over to the ITMS thus growing their user base and making quicktime & (AAC) a more popular format.
Apple clearly has the upperhand in this dispute as the iPod is practically a household name now and REAL is furious because of their vulnerable position.
Also note that after REAL begged, Apple gave REAL the green light to use AAC in their player and did they return the favor? NO they didn't, who's playing fair here is the REAL question...
This doesn't break DRM it simply (as I understand it)
converts music from one DRM standard to another.
The music is never in plain view...
All it would take is evidence of a very high likelyhood that one of the engineers had access to the device to begin to chip away at Real's claim.
You have the right to do whatever you want with your iPod unless it's illegal (e.g., fraud, etc.) Apple's only legal restrictions with respect to YOU apply to the firmware/software license, not the device itself. The fact that they are using the law to prevent a third party from supplying you with crap you may or may not want doesn't change your legal obligations to Apple.
>Similiar Apple has no business controlling what others do with
>their hardware.
listen pal. apple can do whatever the hell they want, they made the hardware. you bought it, if you have a problem with how they work, buy somemthing else. it only makes more trouble for Apple having to deal with people purposely using their hardware for something not suggested. you expect them to hold you hand while you screw them over?
I'm wondering how much overtime the Quicktime team will be putting in to make a codec for all of the RM protected media files. Then QT could save them to disk, allow encoding, transcoding, etc. Apple then sells the encoder for a lower cost than Real, or just gives it away.
The QT team has created or written a tremendous number of codecs now, think: animation, video, cimepak, DV, Pixlet, etc. They have, or with $4.5B in the bank, can hire the best of the best in the fields to reverse engineer and recode. I'd say two weeks to a working internal prototype, one month until they have a rev 1.0 product.
If Real tried to sue, they and Apple could just come to a mutual agreement to stop cloning each other's technology. If not, Apple could certainly argue in court that Real themselves publicly stated that such actions were vital to the marketplace: case closed.
Real's primary (only) source of income is the Real encoder and the Real player. If Real really wants to play this "compatibility" and "open" game, they had best look under their feet to check what ground they are standing on before they walk too much farther down this path. Turnabout is fair play, and it would only be fair for Apple to put Real in their own position.
Yea... I think in this case Apple shouldn't use the courts, they should definitely fight fire with fire.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Apple doesn't have to sell you music for $.99 They could raise the price to make up for the sales lost to Real. And of course, Real would *never* raise its prices in response.
I'm afraid this isn't at all "about the music."
Online music delivery is in its infancy. Many labels and artists are still wary about it (though for different reasons). What will change their minds? Success in the marketplace. What will help increase online sales? Flexibility for consumers. How do we get that? By tearing down arrogant proprietary technology that puts consumers second and corporations first.
Apple has put a chastity belt on the iPod. Its tactics reveal that Apple is much less "about the music" than it is about tying iTunes and iPod revenue together, while going to silly lengths to frustrate natural consumer desires. Behind Apple's jealous back, the music labels are sure to be looking at other suitors.
Meanwhile, it's neither in the interests of the music biz (which wants to maximize sales) nor of consumers (who want to maximize choice, savings through competition, and compatibility across music stores and players) for Apple to act so petulantly.
That is such juvenile reasoning. Of course there's no reason Apple can't do that. They already are doing that! What they aren't(and shouldn't be) granted is the force of law to support their business model. There's no reason someone shouldn't be able to do anything they want with a product they purchased, and hence, own.
Absolutely. While I'm a supporter of Apple's products, I'm annoyed to see so many people here willing to abandon their property rights because it's Apple instead of Microsoft or Lexmark or Cuecat.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Actually, what irritated me was a lot of independant music and video was released in RM and I couldn't convert it to MP3 or video so I could play it on other devices. There is a lot of good material that has been lost in the world all because of the feared evils of copying.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
Only they use the hymn hack to ENCRYPT their unencrypted AAC, as opposed to the other way around... wait... yes ... I said that right. Thus the AAC becomes fairplay, and it works on the iPod while simultaneously appeasing the RIAA or whoever is worried about P2P and other scary ideas.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
as this is post is well into the 100's of posts i doubt it will be read but becasue i'm pig headed here goes anyway: Several months ago (not sure when) Real said that they where going to change their ways, and adopt a google-ish point of view: 'try to do no evil.' To this they have helped out the helix project, released real 10 codecs, and re-tooled their webpage to make finding and downloading their free player eaiser (guys you still need to work on that one). And now they are tryign to make thier format play on every player out there. This is the wisest move possible for a company trying to make money. This way they do not need to dump money into hardware design and manufacturing, for their own portable player. Also if you had a format that could be played on all portable players and therefor be easily "traded" between these players (as players will eventually get wifi or bluetooth or whatever soon to allow for song trading with the need of a desktop or laptop). This will help to insure that your format is the one choosen by the public. For i would not trade a song with some who used songs i could not play on my device. So they are beign very smart, and at teh same time giveing us choices but not shoving siad choice down our throats. i say bravo to them, but thi does not make up for the evils of your past Real, and the question remains can a leapard really change it's spots?
Oh. Well it means a huge bite out of my porn stash for me. :)
"Derp de derp."
It has been widely publicized that Apple does not profit much from the iTunes Music Store and it is more of an enabler to selling iPods with a hefty profit margin. If this really is the case, isn't it a good thing that the iPod can use more formats? I'm sure Apple is just using this press to make noise for itself but they seem to be contradicting themselves in grand public fashion. (This from an iPod, powerbook and iMac toting, .Mac, iTMS using Apple lover)
--Let's hack root on 127.0.0.1 --panZ
Ummm, I thought it was the other way around. Apple (and everyone trying to sell music online) gets reamed by the music labels. That's why Walmart's version of itunes can't do much to beat their prices. Apple basically set up iTunes as an enabler to selling the iPod. All the profit is in the iPod. Which then makes it sorta screwy why Apple would care where people get their music!? Since they pretty much pass that buck per song straight thru to the labels, it would be easy to dump that hassle onto Real and just sell hardware (that can't be copied/stolen like software.)
Real are bitching that apple is using the DMCA to stop them hacking the ipod to play their crappie DRM ridden format when if any one tried to mess with their DRM the DMCA is the very first thing they'd turn to stop them. I mean if Real managed to win some sort of court case against apple wouldn't that just set a precedent which could be used against them at a later date?
_________________________________________________
Not all Apple owners have bought into that silly worship. You're describing the fundamentalists among us--the Apple Taliban. You know: There is no God but Apple, and Steve is his prophet!
Now, as an iBook and iMac owner, I love using OS X. I find myself telling friends to buy Macs, particularly when I see them frustrated by their PCs.
But I'm hardly going to wallow in love for a freaking corporation, and especially not one that is wielding the DMCA like the sword of Damocles. Apple's belligerence this week is costing it credibility; the corporate pot-belly is coming into view under the lean, mean black turtleneck. For anyone who owns or might own an iPod the sensible position here is consumer choice first, corporate interests second. Therefore I support any effort--ironically, even that of a slimy, DMCA-loving company like Real--to fight control of what we do with the hardware we buy. Go, Real; pull your head out, Steve.
i dont get how there's even an issue, if apple made their ipods to be itune only and someone comes along with a product that is compatible, how is this any different than when another company makes generic controllers for the xbox, ps2, etc.. or when someone sells non "apple" memory for cheaper? or when i buy generic soap that says "compare to dial" or 'compare to x brand" just rambling ...
It is interesting that one of the founders of Apple Computers, Steve Jobs aka 'Hans' sold blue boxes to university students in 1972 through 1974. He once called the Vatican impersonating Henry Kissinger, asking to speak with the Pope. He lost nerve and hung up, after being told that the Pope was sleeping and needed to be woken up.
d ia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs and2 7/bac k2.htm.
More on this relationship on Jobs and hacking can be found at: http://memex.org/meme2-07.html,
http://en.wikipe
http://www.gcn.com/archives/gcn/1997/January
Research is what I doing when I don't know what I am doing - Werner von Braun
"Real is violating the Fairplay encryption."
No. No they aren't. But thanks for playing!
Too bad Harmony is only compatible with Windows.
...if it was a normal person who had done what Real did he would be crawling under a mountain of DCMA lawsuits...
"Hell, imagine the only online store that has that obscure album you want is Real, and you have an iPod. Sucks to be you!"
9 80-peripherals view,m peg-formats viewr -digital-video viewe -offers-the-files view
You are not out of luck. Modicum of tedium involved. Burn & re-rip.
(Note to Real - make a better player/store and deal from a position of strength.)
"I hate their obsolete closed view of computers. I hate that the same business model killed Commodore, yet Apple survives. Obviously, there's no justice in the world."
Would that be:
- the towards-legacy-free, drag-pc-vendors-kicking-and-screaming-into-post-1
- the creating-standards-with-quicktime-that-plays-all-
- the creating-standards-with-1394-that-is-universal-fo
- the there's-already-itunes-resources-for-ogg-if-anyon
- the only-implementation-of-zeroconf-anyone-can-name view
- or the jeez-my-computer-works view
(cue crickets)
Oh, you mean their stuff isn't really 1337^H^H^H^H linux and it's not free part?
Well, that's different.
Real, MS and Apple all have branded media players. Real could barely code a workable Mac client that took less than your installed RAM for most of their existence. All of a sudden their proprietary format is a distant third AND they cry 'foul' AND they do something expressly prohibited in every major EULA including their own?
I'll get back to you when I can work up some tears.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I complained to my local NPR station for only supporting Real since I wanted to be able to use iTunes to listen.
They switched from Real to WMA.
Gee, guys, that doesn't solve my problem at all.
i am a soviet space shuttle
What if Real (or Apple) reverse-engineered the new HDD Sony Walkman to re-encode the Sony DRM to play .rm, .aac, or mp3 files? Would Sony threaten them with the DMCA and lawsuits, or would they say "that's great, now iTunes customers can play their music on our hardware! We'll sell more units!" How would Apple and/or Real react to that? How would you react to Sony's statements and actions?
Just a different perspective...
I figured the Hymn code was of use to them in protecting the files.
So then it seems pretty likley Hymn could undo whatever Real has done. That's the part that interests me, that music providers Real has struck a deal with may not be happy with the new level of Openess of Real's DRM.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I've read your post (this parent) and some of your replies to other followups, and I don't get what you're arguing -- are you in fact arguing that Apple is *subsidizing* the iPod's cost via iTunesMS, and that somehow Real is breaking Apple's revenue model by getting their music to play on the iPod?
If so, that's about the most ludicrous argument I've ever heard. iTunes/IMS is the lure for Apple's high-buck iPods. If I buy an iPod and never use iTunes until then, Apple's already "won" -- I didn't use their free app without the hardware.
I own an iPod and haven't bought anything from IMS (strike that -- I did buy a book, but I burned it to CD, ripped to MP3 and tossed the AAC file, and only used it in my car CD player).
Furthermore, Apple nor any other company should be able to "enforce" a multiproduct revenue model of any kind. If they're stupid enough to sell some item independent of other items and they do so below cost, too bad -- this will always be the economic motivation for someone to figure out how to hack it to get the product's value without having to buy the entire package.
Didn't we see that in the 90s with those PCs sold for $199 where they thought you'd buy a service package forever? The XBox? Tivo?
Interesting comments. You shouldn't post as an AC.
Little Bricklets
So I think your argument is crap. Ford has a responsibilty to provide repairs for my vehicle right up to the point that I void my warranty. So just make doing anything with your iPod void your warranty, I think you will find that this is current practice already.
They sell hardware. They have a duty to repair the hardware on warranty and to provide repairs of faulty components. One of the components is the software. They got no rights to tell me what I can and cannot do with it and they got no rights to tell a third party what they can and cannot do with it. Want a clear example? Third party addons for game consoles. Or do you think nintendo/sony/ms like all those "unofficial" cheaper and often better items? Who buys a nintendo GBA cable when the unofficial is better and cheaper? How much succes has nintendo has in banning this? Banning the afterburner for instance? Despite the fact the afterburner clearly eats into the profits as for less money you get a better product.
Sorry but I feel strongly about this subject. Sell the bloody hardware and then get out of my life. What next, the baker deciding what I can put on my bread?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Right law for the job.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Sorry to wander off-topic, but I watched Commodore's demise from rather closer that would be considered prudent, and I see very little similarity between Apple's business practices and Commodore's.
Commodore died due to non-existent marketing and aggressively incompetent management. They were used to "fire-and-forget" products that required no end-user support or continuing R&D. The Commodore-128 (and arguably the C-64) was the last such platform meeting that description. It was designed, manufactured, and sold -- end of discussion. You could return it under warranty if it was DOA, but that was about the extent of their "support."
Then they bought Amiga, and suddenly found themselves not only with the finest personal computer system the world would see for the next 15 years, but an honest-to-$(GOD) computer system that demanded end-user support and continuing R&D to keep it up to date and moving forward. Commodore could never figure this out. They couldn't understand why people didn't just buy the thing and then leave them alone. They had an amazing computer, but what they really wanted to sell was consumer electronic equipment. Commodore's technical staff was first-rate, but was continually sabotaged by an executive management team (Irving Gould, Medhi Ali) that simply didn't want to be bothered.
Apple's management understood and understands computer system design and enhancement. Commodore's didn't. And so, Commodore died, and (effectively) took the Amiga with it.
Sorry about the off-topic rant.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
It's not just claims I hope. Apart from the improvements on the windows side, have you looked at the mac player beta yet? Also, how many commercial software companies have made commitment to have linux as one of their major platforms? and opensourced their player? I hope that it is still true that actions speak better than words.
--
That really didn't seem all that scathing a response to me.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
I mean, isn't that what companies in the tech sector, like Real, claim is so great about their sphere? Isn't innovation the Holy Grail of the tech world? So, Real, take your guys off trying to gang-hump iTunes and start brainstorming for your own Great Idea that everyone else in the world will come rushing to. You know, at one point Real had a serious head-start on everyone else in terms of streaming audio. Real should have been the ones to create the iTunes music store and the software and maybe even the iPod, but they squandered their lead. Now they want to latch on to the company who beat them at their own game? Too late. Get over it, stop embarrassing yourselves and move on to something else.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
I complained to Apple for only hosting movie trailers in Quicktime format, because I wanted to be able to watch them using Flash MX. They just laughed at me.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
I join you in that hope. However this site alone proves that the technical community are a lot like a small town. You are not trusted until they trust your grandfather. Same goes here, old wounds take a very long time to heal. Let's up they keep to their promises and then perhaps sometime in the future they can be trusted again.
seSales, Point of Sale software for OS X.
According to Real, "... the DMCA is not designed to prevent the creation of new methods of locking content, and explicitly allows the creation of interoperable software." Does this mean that format translation software (think reverse engineer), which promotes interoperability, is legal?
There is nothing that makes the day better for my teams than to see that all the work we are putting in isn't for a lost cause.
Hope.. like you said, is an amazing motivator.
--
Apple has a reason (they developed Quicktime) to use that format. NPR didn't develop Real or WMA -- not quite an apt comparison there. No reason they can't offer multiple stream choices.
I should have said, though, that I requested an alternate choice, and instead of add an extra choice for people who want it, they just changed from one crappy format to another... without adding the extra option.
i am a soviet space shuttle
http://www.freeiPods.com/default.aspx?referer=7501 843
click the link, sign up, get 5 friends to sign up and you get a free ipod. Check the forums at gearlive.com if you don't belive me.
If it has an Apple brand on it, then I think they do have some right to say what happens to it, to a *reasonable* degree.
If fucknuts decides to overclock his iPod to become the next node in the Virgina Tech super cluster and the thing cocks out while some newby casually asks to look at it on the street, there goes a potential customer. They probably won't know that chumley there messed around with it and compromised its stability, all they know is that they tried one and it didn't work.
This is a little extreme of course, but my point is that you have to protect the brand integrity.
I think Apple should just let this Real thing go, drive a publicity campaign to point out to customers that the Real format is not an officially supported format for the iPod, and just keep issuing software updates from time to time that break compatibility and screw Ron Glaser like the buttery cornhole that he is!
I can see the campaign now: Apple announces the "Get real on Real" campaign.
I am not saying it is right or wrong, just different
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
Real and compatibility... hum.. hi hi hi
First, that would only make sense the other way around - it would undermine the process if Real found a way to get Apple's media easily working on a non-locked-down player (not to mention which this is possible anyway). Getting more music to work on the ipod doesn't undermine anything from a DRM standpoint.
And competition is a good thing. If this undercuts apple from a market share standpoint 1) that's good, because it means Real brought something to the table to compete with apple, and 2) it means that customers are still getting record-company-approved music from Real. Note this isn't about piracy, as one can encode pirated music and play that on your ipod anyway. This is about getting another DRM'd format working on the ipod, which record companies can't but love. In other words, this is in no way bad for the industry OR consumers. It's only bad for apple's monopoly.
I know the pro-apple crowd here thinks that only Apple can bring music to the masses, but their (admittedly very good) first foray into music only buys them time. Expecting all other companies to hand them a permanant monopoly is absolutely mindless. Expecting all content to be explicitly tied to a specific hardware platform is pretty dumb; expecting the opposite (as you and Apple do) is indefensible.
Disclaimer: I'm an apple owner. But it doesn't mean I have to rubber-stamp everything the company does.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
but what's all the fuss about?
Is there something that is being offered by Real that isn't by iTMS?
I would assume that regardless of where you purchase said music it will contain some type of DRM control.
Hi. It seems to me that Real can sell whatever kind of files they want, as long as they don't say _anywhere_ that they are iPod compatible.
If Joe Linuxbox wants to hack the iPod that he owns to play his own proprietary DRM'd OGG files, No problem.
If he sells the files I still don't have a problem.
If he starts selling them (without Apple's sayso) as iPod Compliant, then I have a problem.
Same goes for Real. They can sell whatever files they want (with - of course - permission from the copyright holders), as long as people will pay for them.
If these files happen to play on the iPod, no problem. If they start selling them guaranteeing that their unofficial/unsupported hack will play on the iPod, then they've overstepped their boundaries. If it's not on the Apple supported list of filetypes it can play, then you're in unsupported hack territory. Unsupported hacks are fine for the hobbyist, but reputable companies don't sell unsupported hacks. - Oh, wait... Nevermind.
No matter what side of the debate you are on it is clear that real reverse engineered Apples fairplay. Real tried to get Apple to open up fairplay and let them compete with Apple in the music store business....when Apple said no, the released their hacked version. It is plain and simple. It is funny that real is complaining so much, the have pretty much ignored the Mac platform and updates to real player for the Mac have come slow and in some cases not at all.
Some say that it is all about money...you are correct, Real is stealing from Apple and undermining Apples deal with the record companies....this can only help real in the long run. It is too bad if Real were a little more patient and waited till Microsoft came out with their music store they would have had a good shot at a legal fairplay license with Apple. Apple is beginning to license it to other companies and those that "play fair" with Apple will get a slice of the pie. Real did not and will lose because of that....If they record companies pull their support from Apple the only one to win from that happing is Microsoft and that won't be good for anyone!
If you can create a DRM system that is compatible with someone else's, then you can muddy the issue of whether or not a tool that bypasses that DRM, is primarily intended for "circumvention."
Here's how it works. "Circumvention" is defined as bypassing a tech measure that limits access, without authorization from the copyright holder. For example, if you bypass CSS on a DVD whose copyright is held by Disney, and you don't have Disney's permission, then you have "circumvented" CSS. Likewise, if you bypass the DRM on a Metallica song that you bought from iTMS, without getting permission from Metallica's record label, then you have "circumvented" Apple's DRM system.
The catch is this: look at who you're having to get permission from. It's not the party who invented or implemented the DRM system; it's the party who holds the copyright on the content. If you hold the copyright, then you can give yourself permission.
For example, if you hold the copyright on a movie, and somehow get that movie onto a CSS-scrambled DVD, then when you DeCSS it, you are not circumventing CSS. You are bypassing it, but since you're doing it with authorization, it is not circumvention.
If such bypassing is something that you often do, then it makes perfect sense for you to somehow obtain a tool to help you do it. In fact, if you're a hacker, then you're going to write a computer program to do it, the very first time. The use of this tool by you, is not prohibited by DMCA. Is trafficking in this tool prohibited by DMCA? Hmm... not so simple to say.
It is assumed that all music sold by iTMS has its copyright held by parties who do not grant authorization to anyone, to bypass the DRM. But if anyone can implement that DRM, not just parties who have contractual agreements to have their music sold through iTMS (I'm talking about the "bad guys" in Slashdot groupthink here -- you know, the RIAA), then the assumption breaks down. To put it in layman terms: Cracking tools would not clearly be intended for copyright violation. They would have substantial non-infringing use.
Well, how substantial it is, depends on the market sizes, I guess. If just a few hackers are DRMing their own music, judges are going to laugh at how substantial that is. But if it gets into the mainstream... holy crap. Is Real a mainstream player? DUH!!!
Having the capacity to create DRMed content that is compatible with someone else's DRM system, has the potention to neuter DMCA's ability to apply to that DRM system. Real's action here, is a direct (though possibly unintended) threat to FairPlay. Apple now has to pay close attention to just what this Real software does. Does it just preserve DRM on files whose copyright is held by RIAA-members? Or might it do something else? Whatever the case may be, it's out of Apple's control, thus pretty scary. FairPlay is at risk of losing the DMCA protections that prohibit cracks.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
That's absolutely right. Apple's not telling you what to do with your hardware, it's telling Real what they can do with THEIR software (FairPlay). Real is not putting .RM on iPod, they are putting FairPlay AAC's on it. If you've ever read any EULA ever, you know that you never own the software, just the right to use it.
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
Apple already sacrificed profit from iTunes in favour for profit from the iPod by capitulating to the record companies.
Given their reaction, it's a logical deduction that Apple is LYING OUT THEIR ASS about "not making any money from iTunes music sales".
If you think about it, it makes sense. Apple pockets about $0.35 out of every $0.99 track. The files are about 4 megs, on average. Allofmp3.com, which is in Russia, charges by the megabyte for its downloads. A 4 meg file costs you $0.04. That's right.. they charge FOUR CENTS per song, on average. Now, given that they can charge so little, and still turn a profit, don't you think it's a little outlandish for Apple to claim that it doesn't make any money on its music sales, when it's making over EIGHT TIMES the amount of profit per song as one of its competitors?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
There never was a lawsuit over the PC BIOS. IBM had so little of a case they didn't bother threating anyone.
Never fear, Spelling Man is here! He will correct your spelling errors!
Sincerely,
Spelling Man
"No, cars don't require special patented software to work."
I'm afraid you're wrong on this point.
Every car has software and computers that are both copyrighted and patented.
Try again, but this time, be factual.
"First and foremost because the iPod isn't just a music player, it's a bundled music solution, since techies love that word. You get a fantastic sexy little jukebox and the elegance of having it work with iTunes, nearly transparently"
No, its a music player.
And I think iTunes sucks. Absolutely horrible. Thank heavens for Xplay, or I would have sold the crappy iPod a year ago.
Let me help you:
"By your own admission, you're saying that Real DID in fact violate Apple's patent on FairPlay." -- Billy, this AC cannot admit to violating apple's patent since he's just some guy on slashdot. Second, this point is not clear at all. Third, copyright and DMCA specifically allow for reverse engineering in this case, so I suppose you're, uh, wrong.
2) "Believe me, I'm all for interoperability in products (even if it is Real)." No Billy. No you're not. You see, interoperability is kind of like free speech. You're either in favor of it or you're not. You're not.
3) "I think my biggest problem with this whole thing is that Real is capitalizing off of Apple's cash cow, the iPod." Billy, THAT'S OKAY in a capitalist system. Really. I suspect you don't like REAL, and you really like APPLE so its clouding your judgement.
4) "I have 100% belief in Apple that they will "fix" Harmony in a release of iPod firmware." - yes, that will help their customers.
5) "It's their right to do so." - Finally billy, you understand. Its apple's right to try to send software updates to destroy customer choice. It will surely be a wonderful day when that happens.
"they own the iPod. Period. "
They make iPod. My iPod is mine. Period. This fantasy that Apple gets to control my iPod is a weird fantasy, I'll grant you. But its just fantasy.
The reply was incoherent, but I think its because he was doing your mom doggy style, and she wouldn't keep still.
Jesus fucking Christ! Knee-jerk doesn't begin to describe the typical slashdot reaction here. People shouting over each other to praise Real for gloriously conquering the enormous, Big Brother-like Apple.
How many of you have ever used the iTunes Music Store? How many have ever bought a song off of it? Not that many of you? How can so many people be upset that a service they've never used only supports a music player they don't own?
If Real is so heroic in it's awe-inspiring attempt to topple the evil, hateful Apple empire, how come they themselves aren't selling music sans-DRM? How come they aren't building award-winning best-of-breed portable players? How come their software blasts its users with an impenetrable volley of seedy advertisements?
If the sanctity of DRM can't be protected, then the RIAA will ensure that online music will fail. Slashdotters complain that they don't want to buy DRM-encumbered music, and cheer when blow after blow is dealt to the future of online music by saint-like "purveyors of freedom".
I myself had decrypted m4p songs months before DVD-Jon released his first hokey headerless-aac dumping code (and my songs actually played), BUT I HAD THE DECENCY NOT TO RELEASE IT.
The RIAA will never just dissappear like some people want unless there arises a solution powerful enough to take it on -- which is never (never) going to happen if the RIAA gets scared with DRM-slippage and pulls out early.
karma: ouch!
Yeah! Go Apple!! Buy a Mac so you dont have to give in to monopolists!!!!
Um, wait...
1) I'll admit, I didn't check to see if Apple had a patent on FairPlay or not. However, reverse engineering for interoperability doesn't include provisions for remaking a product. If Real is indeed adding FairPlay DRM and not something so remarkably similar, then they would have a problem. 2) I'm for interoperability. You're really not qualified to make that decision on my behalf. I'm NOT for lazy companies that create competition by making someone else's product work with theirs. 3) That may be, but the iPod is Apple's baby. If Real thinks they have a better service, maybe they should partner up with someone to get their own player. 4) I assume you mean it will help Apple's customers continue to receive the service they pay for instead of forcing them to call Apple when they can't get it to work right. If so, then yes, it does help them. 5) You're right, Apple does remove a bit of customer choice. Look at the Mac. One machine, one OS. Sure you can run Linux on it, but few do. In the end, however, everyone gets a better experience. If you want more choice, buy a different product. No one is forcing you to use the iPod and iTMS. Yes, I'm partial to Apple. Because they innovate in the industry the way few companies do. Don't go around calling people morons because YOU disagree. Those were the kind of comments that make this forum un-fun. Get a life, troll.
In the future most music will be purchased or rented in digital format and delivered online. Having learned from their experience in the computer business that he who controls the file format wins, there are two companies vying to control the music file format that will be used. They are Microsoft and Apple. Real is not a contender and hasn't been for years.
Of the two challengers, one's files are based on an open codec and the other's on a proprietary codec. Both are wrapped with proprietary DRM, because that is what the copyright holders insist upon. One of these companies will probably end up dominating, if not outright controlling, your access to music in the future. Which one would you rather it be?
The whole Real soap opera is a sideshow. Real's scorched earth tactics in online music can only benefit Microsoft. The only tool that Apple has to fend off the .wma juggernaut is its accidental domination of the HD player market, courtesy of the iPod's astonishing market reception. Real's extortion could succeed several ways. They might win in court or if Apple decides that a law suit would be too costly in PR terms, before it even goes to court. Real is clearly prepared to play dirty and has nothing to lose, so Apple might be forced to protect short term iPod revenues by sacrificing its long term ambitions in the music industry.
If Real does prevail with the Harmony initiative, it will still lose in the marketplace and Glaser knows that. But Glaser's personal future could look a lot brighter for having done this big favour for his old employers at MS. Once FairPlay AAC loses it monopoly as the only DRM compatible the iPod, MS can walk right through that door that Real opened and set up shop on a Mini near you. That would spell the end of AAC and end of Apple's bid to be your future music provider. Say hello to yet another monopoly from Redmond.
Does that prospect make all of you chest-thumpin', freedom-lovin', choice-protectin', compatibility-promotin' and Real-apologizin' asshats happy? Honestly I can't believe more of you don't see the hand of MS in this. What has become of Slashdot?
PS: And gimme a break with all this "But, but, Harmony could sell more iPods for Apple and that's where the money is" bullshit. If EVERY SINGLE REAL CUSTOMER bought an iPod it would amount to a bit more than a month's iPod sales at current rates. Do you really think that would factor into Apple's thinking, weighed against long term control of music downloading? R-i-i-g-h-t!
PPS: Durandal64 and precious few others seem to grok this. Props to them, but the rest of you need to bone up on your big pictures.
How many times I will lose karma for saying to Real developers: 'do not take slashdot posters serious about spyware, its just a way to be cool at slashdot'?
:) BTW, keep coding, Mac beta 10 player is great but time to code an intelligent installer checks for older versions etc... Also thanks to go native, e.g. not like Mozilla, using system widgets, services...
:)
There I said again...
there, the karma goes
Yo mama so Real she exist in FIVE dimensions!
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Sales of iPod will continue to have everything to do with function.
Unless Apple wants to be a different company (which is another debate), they will be more concerned about selling iPods than about owning the content market. All they need to do is make sure the iTMS is big enough, just like they need to make sure there are Mac alternatives for all the Windows software people want to use. It suits Apple down to the ground if other content providers make their tunes play on the iPod, because it makes it the One Box To Play Them All. Apple don't even need to ensure that FairPlay tunes can never be played on other machines. It's just not how they compete!
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Apple's business model is what it is. The fact that they might be able to use existing IP laws to prevent Real from freeriding on Apple products is not a limitation on your *legal* rights. It is simply a means by which the Congress saw fit to regulate competition among IP owners. Bottom line: you have no *legal right* to purchase licenses to IP that the Congress deems to be infringing. Blame Congress, if you want to blame anyone. Apple is well within their rights to use the existing laws to manage their product lines as they please. If you don't like it, don't buy from Apple. My guess is that Apple takes the risk of a consumer backlash into account when they make the decision to enforce their legal rights. My guess is that you have been deemed a stastically insignificant market factor. Too bad for you.
It does not follow, however, that Apple's (and possibly Lexmark's) business approach is a bad one. If the law supports their preclusion of Real's encroachment on their product line, Apple will continue to sell songs and iPods in the same manner as they have been. It seems to me that Real's legally dubious approach (and the approach of any freerider attempting to encroach on legally protected product dynamics of their competitors) is the poorer of the two business models.
...Real's songs play on other players aside from the iPod. The songs sold on iTMS are designed to play on iPods alone for the time being. Therefore, Apple does not want users to buy Real songs in lieu of iTMS songs, because if users do that, iPod sales will likely suffer.
Yeah, I've been regularly cursing bbc.co.uk for dumping QuickTime and switching to Real.
The icing on the cake is that if you follow the helpful link from bbc.co.uk to the Real download site, you can find a Windows player but no Mac version.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Get it here (this link points to the free version):
Order: RealPlayer for Mac OS X
The Mac version is amazingly suckage-free. The Windows version, on the other hand... yegh. But then, I only use the winbox for games anyway.
i am a soviet space shuttle
I managed to find the link after some googling but thanks for the tip anyway.
Yeah, the software works remarkably well. I can't seem to get content to open in a browser though, only through the player. I'm not sure if I'm missing a plug-in or whether this is even possible.
Wise move on the winbox. Luckily a Mac version of Warcraft keeps me away from wintel.
-- Using the preview button since 2005