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."
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
Who are the consumers going to be pissed off at when their Real-purchased music quits working on an updated iPod?
Wake up.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
if we stripped the DRM out of their music files so we can play them on whatever player we like.
While similar, I wouldn't say that the 2 cases are the same.
Lexmark put in a chip to STOP other cartridges from working in their printers while Apple has not included Real or WMA decoder support on the iPod, not put in stuff to stop it from working.
What Apple seems to be mad about is them cracking their DRM.
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.
Yeah, the spyware problem is so bad that I refuse to connect to any Real stream because I'd have to use RealPlayer. If Real weren't so underhanded about the spyware stuff, I'd be a lot more sympathetic toward their argument. As it is, Apple good, Real bad, even if Real happens to be right.
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.
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!
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!
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.
How this got modded up is beyond me... I guess it's just apple fanboyism, which really scares me in this case. First of all, you didn't stay on topic. The topic is not "Is Apple supportive of musicians?" or "Let's list all the things we love about Apple". Second, rather than focusing on the fact that Apple is going after Real for doing the same things that many slashdotters do on a daily basis, you try to make Apple look better by pointing out how bad you think Real is.
Anyway, let us focus on the real issue here, which is Apple accusing Real of using hacker tactics and going ape over the whole thing. Now, many of the Apple fanboys are going to say "Ohhh noooo, but Apple is not in the wrong because they should be able to determine what files can play on their products and what files can't!!!11!" I absolutely agree. When the iPod leaves the factory, Apple should (and does) have complete control over what music files it can play. When the iPod gets from the store into my house, however, it is my turn to have control. If Real offers me a way to put music on my iPod that I couldn't put otherwise, then it is my *right* as the full owner of the product to do with it as I please. I could throw it in the garbage if I want to, piss on it, or simply load some music from Real's network. It's mine.
And lastly, Apple does not really care about the music. I'm sorry to crush your dreams that Apple is a loving, caring corporation. It is in the business to make money. It does the things it does in order to get people like you to cheer it on and praise it and buy its products. So no, apple never really cared about the music, it just looked like it cared so that you (and others) would support it financially by buying Apple products.
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!
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?
>This is very different than DeCSS, where there
>was obvious infringing uses.
What infringing uses? To watch a DVD you own?
I'll be honest with you - I have no idea why you wrote that.
As far as I'm concerned, online Music stores are simply not worth it, exactly because of all this. When I pay for music, then I want the music. I want to play it on my computer, and on any player I buy, and be able to copy it to my new computer or laptop, and burn CDs of it forever, especially since CD-Rs don't last more than a couple of years.
The idea of paying for something and then KNOWING you have to pay for it again if you want to continue using it annoys me, and that's not how I'll spend my money. This is exactly like the MPAA tactic of changing formats every decade or so, making it very tempting to re-purchase your video collection. One of the beauties of digital music is that it DOES last, and I only have to buy it ONCE. For now, I'll stick to allofmp3.com and my CDs.
Why does my opinion matter? Well, because its people like me that Real is trying to cater to, and they're only helping the iPod market (though they may be hurting iTunes...but hey, competition is good.)
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.
Man, I have just a little guilty hope of seeing Real's ass kicked in this showdown. Legal issues aside - after all these years of Real's shady business practices, screw 'em. If someone had released (and maybe they did) an alternate Real streaming server that was cheaper and could still play in Real's player back in the day, they'd be pissed too.
Eh, just blowing off steam, I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one.
Truth is they want to sell more IPods, and having a consistent licensing scheme makes using an IPod just that much nicer. Now Real is threatening their revenue stream, and their "It's about the music" seems to take a back seat to "It's about the profit."
Perhaps you can explain to me how Real's plan is going to be detrimental to Apple selling more iPods. For the users who want the consistent licensing scheme (and Lord knows consumers have been clamoring for this - it's the single-most-requested-feature-ever - eyeroll) they can do this by simply ignoring Real and going with the out of the box solution. Big deal. If Real's plan goes off like they hope, it will INCREASE iPod sales, not decrease them. Apple already sacrificed profit from iTunes in favour for profit from the iPod by capitulating to the record companies.
No, the real issue here isn't about sales money - it's about percieved quality and development money. Apple doesn't want the burden of having to test both their solution AND Real's before each update to the iPod, iTunes or OSX.
Well, that and a healthy dose of 'screw you, Real!' thrown in by Jobs.
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.
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?
... Um, no, because no record label would license out their music in an unprotected format.
I'm neither an Apple fan nor a Real fan (ha!), but Apple is most definitely in the right here. Sorry to all the zealots out there disappointed to learn that Apple is just another corporate whore like the rest and not the ultra-hip, non-conformist underdog you thought, but they have an obligation to protect their property, intellectual or physical, and they have a right to do with their products what they wish.
Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff tha-- MICRO$OFT IS THE DEVIL!!1
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!
Yet, no one was ever forced to purchase an iPod.
That has nothing to do with the legality of you playing whatever music you like on a device.
I'm amazed that *anyone*, even the most ardent Apple apologist, is defending Apple on this point. Yes, Apple made a GUI for a POSIX environment that idiots can use, and Real made a lousy media player. That doesn't mean Apple has a halo and Real carries a pitchfork. Apple's trying to wedge themselves into a monopoly, and Real is telling them "Nope, this here is a free-market econonmy."
May we never see th
"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?
Oh, but it *is* ok. The court in Norway exhonerated him of all charges..
"Piter, too, is dead."
for pulling for Real on this one...
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
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
No it doesn't. The files remain DRM-locked. The only reason the record labels might complain is if they thought they could sell people the same music in both iTunes and Real formats.
Wrong. I can reverse engineer any product as long as I don't break any laws while doing it. Those would laws be patent violation, breaking encryption or access control method (DMCA) or distributing copyrighted material. Simply examining how something works is not and I suspect will never be illegal. And trade secrets are things that only one party knows. If you put your trade secrets in a product or they are easily deduced by examining the product, those are no longer trade secrets.
Fascinating question, since they used John's work on apple's DRM scheme to create harmony. Isn't it strange how these thigns work out?
Do you honestly think that Apple created iTMS to be an iPod seller for its entire span of existence and that Apple never intended it to become appreciably profitable on its own? Give me a break. The iPod is helping iTMS get off its feet and turn into a money maker. Come on, if there was no money to be had in online downloading, do you think that big names like WalMart, Coca Cola and Microsoft would be hopping onboard?
No, the iTMS will eventually grow to become a nice contributor to Apple's bottom line. But it isn't quite there yet, which is why Apple's keeping the iPod + iTMS killer combination going. Right now they feed off of each other. Apple doesn't want some punk-ass like Real coming in and reverse-engineering their stuff to take sales away from iTMS because they want iTMS to grow. When it's grown up and making good money, then they will probably start talking about licensing. But the market's too young at this point. Apple is waiting for its bazillion or so competitors to die out before they talk about strategic alliances.
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
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