Real Feels iTunes Backlash

BunkAsInBed writes "CNET reports RealNetwork's recent campaign against the iTunes music network that involved tactics like slashing the costs of their downloads in half, reverse engineering Apple's FairPlay format (Harmony), and recently an online petition and bulliten board have received the opposite reponse that was anticpated."

Comments

apple fans

[Davak]

I don't think it is surprising that apple fans (iPod, iTunes folks) are energetically against competition for their little cash cow. They want to support apple. They know that this working well for apple; they don't want anybody to rock the boat.

Realone is trying to break apple fans from apple loyality... and it just isn't going to work. Of course I am stereotyping but Apple's success is based in their loyal, vocal, energetic community.

The linux community and the apple communities are a lot alike in this manner.

What is interesting is that trolling the site got success...

The deluge of anti-RealNetworks sentiment prompted the company to take down the original petition and replace it with one without a comment section, but where the names of those who signed up were visible. Most signed up as 'Real sucks' or something similar. The ability to see names was then removed.

Proprietary is anticompetitive by definition.
Apple is banking that proprietary is profitable. I'll guess we'll see if they are right.

Davak

Re:apple fans

[ClosedSource]

Given the market share of the iPod, it's clear that it isn't being purchased exclusively by the "usual suspects". It remains to be seen if Job's distortion reality field can reach non-Mac iPod customers.

Re:apple fans

[badasscat]

Realone is trying to break apple fans from apple loyality... and it just isn't going to work. Of course I am stereotyping but Apple's success is based in their loyal, vocal, energetic community.

It's hard to root for either side in this if you're not already an Apple zealot. Looking at it objectively, both Real and Apple offer proprietary formats, and Real is hiding behind a sort of pseudo-open source defense without actually acting in any way consistent with their message. They've also done plenty of questionable things in the past (adware, spyware, etc.).

On the other hand, one of the quotes in the C-Net article from an Apple fan says something like "Just because you don't like iTunes doesn't give you the right to reverse engineer the iPod". Well, yes it does. In fact, reverse engineering is the only thing Real has a right to do in this case, and it's why most legal experts think Apple has no real case against Real if this goes to court (search related articles on C-Net). If Real did reverse engineer the iPod, then more power to them. They're acting within copyright law.

I hate Real but I hate blind Apple evangelists just as much. I guess I'm just gonna go ahead and stick with mp3 like I always have; I've got no reason to worry about format wars or DRM with that strategy.

(Of course, I know MP3 is technically proprietary too, but it suffers from none of the problems Apple AAC or Real files do.)

Re:apple fans

[Anonymous Coward]

the iPod is selling to a lot more people than mac owners.

but I suppose most of them are just sticking any old mp3s on them. people who care about apple's 'fairplay' nonsense have got to be a bit evangelical apple nuts.

it's a bit of a stretch to claim proprietary is anti-competitive. it might be wrong and deserve to fail, but it's only anti-competitive if you abuse a monopoly to enforce a proprietary system. Apple are in no way doing that.

Re:apple fans

[dynayellow]

What's aggrivating is that the whole "campaign" is so insulting: Real is trying to pretend that they're "sponsoring" a grassroots campaign about "freedom of choice."

But you'll note that they've closed down the forums, and if you go to the petition site, you can't view any of the comments or the names, only the signature count, even though most of the "signatures" are against the petition.

Real campaigns for "choice," but what they really want to do is license their Harmony code so that they can get on the best-selling player and shore up their flagging store, which has fewer songs than the iTMS.

Re:apple fans

[Anonymous Coward]

Give AAC a shot. It's completely free of Apple influence; hell, Real uses it now.

Just steer clear of iTMS and FairPlay if you want to avoid giving Apple sanction on this.

~A Mac Zealot

Re:apple fans

[bhima]

As an Apple and iPod user I'm not so much pro-apple in this case as I am anti-real

Re:apple fans

[nojomofo]

And iPods play MP3 files just fine. Real is trying to stick you with their proprietary format. Apple does have their (essentially) proprietary* format, but they'll let you use the standard as well. This is why Real is just wrong on this one.

* AAC isn't proprietary, but FairPlay basically is

Re:apple fans

[stratjakt]

Real campaigns for "choice," but what they really want to do is license their Harmony code so that they can get on the best-selling player and shore up their flagging store, which has fewer songs than the iTMS.

So what? Why shouldnt they be allowed to?

Why shouldn't I be allowed to open my own iTunes compatible store if I wanted? Maybe I just want to sell my own bands songs, and dont want the RIAA/Apple in the middle.

Why have indy bands released CDs? Because they want to have their music heard on the best-selling players. Whats the difference, besides some irrelevant "I hate real because I downloaded something in 1998 and blah blah blah" crap?

Not just Real, anyone should be able to market tunes for the iPod if they want. Just like anyone should be able to make 3rd party ink cartridges, and publish their own PS2 games.

Re:apple fans

[prockcore]

But you'll note that they've closed down the forums, and if you go to the petition site, you can't view any of the comments or the names, only the signature count, even though most of the "signatures" are against the petition.

What? They were perfectly up front about this! They said that they were forced to take down the comments and names because Apple zealots were posting trash, porn, and obscenities.

Re:apple fans

[Philosinfinity]

I think your argument is fallacious at best and silly at worst. People need to stop looking at this issue from the consumer standpoint and start looking at it from a corporate standpoint.

Here's the problem with your argument. If Apple is solely supported (which I know you did not claim) by people unwilling to change their stance, and not in any way by the products they sell, then Apple should literally be able to package dog dookie in a box and sell it. Clearly there is a certain amount of competative product that is sold, and from the product, they are able to achieve the loyal fanbase. Thus, you should give as much credit to the product enticing the fan base, as the fan base itself.

Moving beyound this though, I sincerely doubt the goal of the iPod and iTMS is to stifle competition. Apple wanted to tap into the portable music player market. Now it is more than probably that Apple users would by an Apple MP3 player, as it would be very compatable with MAC OS. Furthermore, it would be difficult for Apple to sell such a player without having a guaranteed source where users could get music. Thus, iTunes Music Store. In order to get the deal Apple did, it was necessary to incorporate DRM into the music. With no universal DRM "codec" they had no choice but to build their own.

Now here's where the meat and potatoes come in. Should Apple have any responsibility, obligation, or reason to support another company's format? Now, if there was a universal standard DRM format, I could see such a thing. However, Apple should not have to support any other "proprietary" format. Furthermore, Apple's DRM is their own invention, their own IP, and as such such not be forced to open their IP as a standard. Let a standards body or committe do that much.

So is what Real did, reverse engineering the DRM, immoral, bad, or criminal? Of course not (IANAL). I believe they were well within their rights.

This is business people. If a business can make more money by proprietizing their hardware and software, then they should. Their first concern should be the proliferation of business and profits not the utilitarian benefit of consumers. However, as every company needs to learn, the consumer must be kept in mind enough to ensure that they keep coming back. Just like Adam's guiding hand of economics, there seems to be a guiding hand between maximizing profit and maximizing consumer happiness. A company that operates in the red but has really happy customers won't operate for very long

Re:apple fans

[TobyWong]

"Apple's success is based in their loyal, vocal, energetic community.

The linux community and the apple communities are a lot alike in this manner."

I think the term you are looking for here is "fanboyism".

Re:apple fans

[Anonymous Coward]

You can. You absolutely can. They can't be in certain formats (OGG, FLAC, WMA, .RA), which may or may not be big; here, however, the issue is one thing and one alone: DRM.

Apple isn't stopping you from putting content on, they're just the only ones allowed to put DRMed content on.

Re:apple fans

[dynayellow]

Yes, but you'll note they didn't have the names removed from the signature... they're still including in in the count of people who have signed (and implying that they've approved of) the petition.

But you can get around that and read the comments using that link.

Re:apple fans

[dynayellow]

Fine, go right ahead, in fact, use the MP3 format, or the AAC format without FairPlay. Both are supported by iPod, and you don't need Apple's permission.

Re:apple fans

[oscast]

And what if I wanted to take some of your intalectual or physical property?... Why shouldn't I be allowed to?

re: apple fans

[sfgeek]

This sort of behavior doesn't suprise me at all coming from Real.

This coming from a company that:
A) Hides it's 'free' player as much as possible and offers a 'free trial' of it's pay for player, effectively taking advantage of uninformed users and even confuses savvy ones.

B) Ignores user file association settings and takes over the playing of all media on your machine. It's also a real pain to get rid of.

C) Loads tons of unnecessary features and eats RAM for lunch, has overall poor compression quality and constantly barrages users with unwanted paid content and advertising as well as dock pop ups for PC users.

D) Is the most successfull maleware/spyware vendor on the planet.

Re:apple fans

[Theatetus]

If Apple is solely supported (which I know you did not claim) by people unwilling to change their stance, and not in any way by the products they sell, then Apple should literally be able to package dog dookie in a box and sell it.

Funny you should mention that...

Re:apple fans

[stratjakt]

So why can't I put DRM'ed content on?

If DRM is a mechanism to protect content creators, then I have no problem with it.

If it's nothing but a digital padlock to prevent competition, then fuck it.

Yeah, todays iPods play other formats. Of course, the iPod was launched in a world without iTunes. Tomorrows iPod wont, the way things are going.

Hell, watch for a discounted iPod that only plays iTunes DRM'ed content. Why not sell the hardware at a loss, and make a profit gouging consumers over the content, just like the console gaming industry?

Re:apple fans

[Philosinfinity]

=) point taken

Re:apple fans

[stratjakt]

DRM, digital rights management. Whos rights does it manage? I was under the impression it was that of the content creators, the copyright holders. In essence, DRM is there to stop me from infringing on the artists copyrights.

But you're telling me that DRM exists for its own sake, to protect Apple from direct competition. Just like CSS on a DVD. It's to ensure complete control of the industry, not to protect actors salaries or hollywood.

Re:apple fans

[pappy97]

"What's aggrivating is that the whole "campaign" is so insulting: Real is trying to pretend that they're "sponsoring" a grassroots campaign about "freedom of choice.""

Sounds to me a lot like IBM's Linux campaign...

Re:apple fans

[Durandal64]

His point is that Real would pull the exact same shit if Apple suddenly reverse-engineered the Real streaming file format, incorporated it into the next QuickTime and advertised QuickTime as "FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH REAL MEDIA." What Real is doing right now stands to hurt Apple more from an image standpoint. What happens when people download a song from Real's store and put it on their iPods, but then update the firmware, and the song no longer works? Who are people going to bitch to? Apple. After all, it was their change that broke the song, right? It was working fine before the firmware update, after all. Who has to handle all the calls to tech support? That would be Apple.

A 70% marketshare does not foist an obligation on to Apple to license its technology, especially when that marketshare is in a nascent market that's still growing and has just barely become profitable. No one has a monopoly in online music yet. It's just getting started. Furthermore, Apple has no obligation to support someone else's reverse-engineered implementation of their DRM system, but that's exactly what Real is trying to imply: that their stuff works with the iPod and will keep doing so. Or is "Not approved of, endorsed or supported by Apple Computer" somewhere on their ads in readable type?

It's different when the VLC group or the Mplayer folks reverse-engineer formats because they're open source and not guaranteeing reliability, and everyone who uses those applications knows that compatibility with future versions of reverse-engineered protocols is not guaranteed, or really even expected. But Real is a corporation with a good measure of mindshare and some credibility. They have to live up to higher advertising standards, and they're not doing that.

Re:apple fans

[LBartrich]

"Realone is trying to break apple fans from apple loyality"

I'm not sure thats really the case. The IPOD userbase is entirely different than the macintosh userbase. I don't think Real expects to disuade the mac base. I think they are appealing to the base of ipod owners who are not mac centric. And based on the figures we've seen regarding ipod sales, I suspect the "ipod not mac" crowd is probably huge. I was just in bloomingdales... and ipods were in the glass case by the front door along with watches. I don't think most of the sales go to existing mac users.

Of course its no surprise that a segment of the mac centric community is enraged and vocal. But if my classmates are any example, there are a ton of ipod users out there who don't own a mac and don't intend to own a mac. They are likely to be more receptive to Real's campaign.

Re:apple fans

[squiggleslash]

Perhaps those people shouldn't have signed the petition then? I'm sure they thought they were being "clever", but generally speaking, if you press a button saying "I agree", knowing exactly what it means, without even the slightest amount of coercion, then you're going to just have to put up with it when the maker of that button claims you pushed it.

I must admit I find this pretty bizarre and can only attribute the hostility to the fact that so many people seem to blindly love Apple, and, with some justification (the whole Malware for Windows clients BS, even though this is no longer something Real engages in), hate Real Networks. I think it boils down to exactly that.

Under normal circumstances, most Slashdotters and others would be in favour of being able to play whatever their iPods are capable of, and be furious at the notion of a company actually seeking to prevent that by mis-using the law, as Apple is proposing. Having a choice would usually be considered a good thing.

But today, no. No, it's suddenly no longer my iPod or your iPod, it still belongs, apparently, to Apple, and Real is just evil to try to sell iPod users music.

I don't think Apple is the great source of goodness the zealots maintain. In this case, they're demonstrably trying to lock iTMS buyers to the iPod platform and iPod users to the iTMS music delivery system, so creating a cycle preventing users from migrating to alternatives. Apple's behaviour in the past has also been suspect, from the look and feel lawsuits of the 1980s, to the arbitrary hardware locks of recent years (from iDVD to the Blue and White G3 "Simple G4 upgrades disabled in firmware" hack that they had to reverse rapidly)

I love much of the technology that comes out of Culpertino, but - despite having four Macs in various forms - I'm less and less inclined to want to continue throwing my money in that direction.

And in the meantime, I'll continue to act with bemusement, surprise, and concern when Slashbots leap on the whole "Real has no right to sell me music I can play on something I bought" bandwagon. They're all lined up and naked waiting for the Culpertino dominatrix to spank them. Why?

Re:apple fans

[turnstyle]

"On the other hand, one of the quotes in the C-Net article from an Apple fan says something like "Just because you don't like iTunes doesn't give you the right to reverse engineer the iPod". Well, yes it does. In fact, reverse engineering is the only thing Real has a right to do in this case, and it's why most legal experts think Apple has no real case against Real if this goes to court (search related articles on C-Net). If Real did reverse engineer the iPod, then more power to them. They're acting within copyright law."

I think the question is whether Real had to circumvent Apple access-control min order to reverse-engineer the iPod. In other words, I think it depends on just what it took to achieve this bit of reverse-engineering. (from DMCA)

However, I'm sure that Real knows perfectly well about that, and so I'd be pretty surprised if they were stupid enough to violate the DMCA in order to get this done... (Real must know to keep a "clean room" for doing something like this)

Re:apple fans

[dynayellow]

I'm not complaining that Real wants to sell their music on the iPod. That's a smart business decision.

I'm not even upset that they created Harmony to get around Steve's "no." That's clever of them, especially if they found a legal way to do it.

What cheeses me off is that they're trying to mask this as some "We're fighting for your rights!" campaign, and when the consumers--who they claim to represent--start calling them on it, they hastily reconstruct the site to hide those complaints.

Re:apple fans

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange how everyone seems to forget that the iPod will play MP-3 files from ANY source.

True, that could mean you have to get up, drive to a store, and end up with another shiny disk of plastic. But isn't it good to have a backup, anyway?

As someone whose copy of iTunes currently holds 20 GB of songs ripped from my personal CD collection, the only downside was the amount of time it took me to rip them all (several years ago), and that the jacket info is not available while I'm playing the songs.

Re:apple fans

[revscat]

Not just Real, anyone should be able to market tunes for the iPod if they want. Just like anyone should be able to make 3rd party ink cartridges, and publish their own PS2 games.

Sure, but with some caveats. If the original creators of any of those products weren't assured that they would have a way to legally collect royalties from their R&D efforts, then they probably wouldn't spend as much time developing new products. But if, say, Sony knows that for each game sold they will be receiving a certain percentage of the profits, then they will be more likely to work on a game console. This is as it should be: they put the effort into development, having someone else freeload off of their efforts is neither fair nor beneficial for the market.

Ditto Apple here. They paid for the iPod's development, so it is their toy. They can license out it's underlying technologies should they choose to, but they by no means are obligated to allow a competitor access to their device for free (or pay, really, if they think it is in their best interests.

Besides, it's not like there aren't a gajillion different open source projects out there for the iPod. If Real were serious about this they'd just GPL their entire effort.

Re:apple fans

[RichiP]

Even if I were an Apple fan, why would I have anything against a company reverse-engineering Apple's technology so I could be given the choice of where I could purchase music from to play on the iPod that I bought? Is Apple in danger of folding up?

What gets me the most is how people are easilly distracted from the issue at hand. The issue in the petition was Apple's anti-competetive behavior and yet people were yapping about Real's alleged anticompetetive stance of yesteryear. That may be true, but what does that have to do with the current issue?

Re:apple fans

[the pickle]

Why shouldn't I be allowed to open my own iTunes compatible store if I wanted? Maybe I just want to sell my own bands songs, and dont want the RIAA/Apple in the middle.

Be my guest. No one is stopping you. Sell all the MP3-formatted tracks you want.

The problem is that if you want to sell anything besides your OWN music, you're going to have to deal with labels sooner or later, and labels have said that DRM is required for them to participate. Without DRM, your iTunes-compatible store can be as open and as compatible as you like, but it won't have any content besides your own work. And no offence, but I don't think that's going to be the commercial success you're looking for.

p

Re:apple fans

[tlhIngan]

His point is that Real would pull the exact same shit if Apple suddenly reverse-engineered the Real streaming file format, incorporated it into the next QuickTime and advertised QuickTime as "FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH REAL MEDIA." What Real is doing right now stands to hurt Apple more from an image standpoint. What happens when people download a song from Real's store and put it on their iPods, but then update the firmware, and the song no longer works? Who are people going to bitch to? Apple. After all, it was their change that broke the song, right? It was working fine before the firmware update, after all. Who has to handle all the calls to tech support? That would be Apple.

A neat trick that Apple can do is in future firmware updates break the DRM by detecting a Real file, decoding it, and saving it back uncompressed and in WAV format, ready for the taking. Then the iPod just removes the old Real file and uses the uncompressed WAV version. User wonders why iPod runs out of space quicker on Real files, and either decides something's awful with Real, or buys a larger iPod. And then some person would notice the real files were ... ahem ... unprotected...

Re:apple fans

[GlassUser]

"Digital Restrictions Management"

Get it right.

Re:apple fans

[DavidTC]

Apple would, hilariously enough, be in violation of the DMCA if they did that.

Re:apple fans

[jedidiah]

Nonnsense.

All these poor downtrodden corps need to do is merely design and sell their systems not to be loss leaders. These companies are having problems because they can't seem to manage to manufacture something at a profit.

Perhaps they should find a new business.

Profit is not a right.

Re:apple fans

[phlyingpenguin]

They might be able to, won't make much money at competitive prices when the music industry is breathing down your neck for nearly all of the profit from those sales. Considering that gaming platforms are locked down (the way Apple wants the iPod) and direct competition is between the initial sale of the machine. The music industry (players included) can't afford to do that with any sort of open media out there like physically unlocked discs. We can look at Napster to see how loss leader player sales actually work.

Re:apple fans

[jafac]

Note to Real;
MAYBE if you reduced your per-track price to a dime, and MAYBE if you gave me a membership that guaranteed this price for 10 years for unlimited number of downloads, I'd consider it.

But considering the piss poor quality of your video product, that's a very big maybe.

Why would you think customers will pay for worthless crap?

Re:apple fans

[harlows_monkeys]

It remains to be seen if Job's distortion reality field can reach non-Mac iPod customers

The RDF is strong. For 18 months, I used an Archos Jukebox Recorder 15 gig. I recently got one of the new 4th generation iPods, because I needed more space.

The iPod is very slick. The screen is much more legible than the Archos screen. It's a nice unit. I had always been puzzled, though, be iPod fans telling me that its interface was so much simpler than anything else, because I could not imagine a simpler or more intuitive interface than that of my Archos.

Well, now that I've used them both, I know the truth: the iPod doesn't have a simpler or better interface than the Archos. In fact, in some ways it is noticably worse. The iPod has a bigger, better screen, for example, but when something doesn't fit, it doesn't handle it well. The Archos, on the other hand, autoscrolls it back and forth so you can see it. (The iPod does that for the song title of the playing song, but it doesn't pause at the ends, and since it is flickery and dim while scrolling, it is very hard to read). The navigation on the Archos, being basically the same mechanism that most people will have seen on the VCR, cable or satellite box, DVD player remote, cell phone, and other places, is immediately obvious. The iPod's click wheel, while freaking cool, is confusing at first (rotate a wheel to select in a menu? Press the "menu" button to go back instead of pressing the button with the "back" symbol?)

The iPod integrates well with iTunes, and I am actually letting iTunes manage my music--something I thought I'd never do, because I normally hate that kind of thing. I'm an "organize my music on the file system to manage it" type of guy.

Still, the iPod integration with iTunes is not nearly as good as it could be. For example, considering browsing your music collection in iTunes. You can basically go by genre/artist/album. Now consider browsing your music collection on the iPod. It adds some more categories for browsing (genre, composer, Audiobooks), and things are organized a bit differently.

It would make a lot more sense if the iTunes browsing categories matched the iPod music menu organization.

My conclusion? The iPod is pretty good. I like it a lot. It deserves to be a good seller. However, it is not nearly the great leap above the rest that the RDF makes it out to be, and without the RDF and the huge marketing Apple has put into it, it would not be nearly as dominant.

Re:apple fans

[Anonymous Coward]

You can have DRMed music on iTMS, Apple will add any band that they find has the quality to go there. You might argue that this might prevent your usual garage band (no pun intended) to have their music on iTMS. Sure but do you complain about BMG or Sony not distributing the same music??? NO.

Further, why can't I make GM cars. I want to be able to make and sell my own GM cars. Why is it that GM has a monopoly on GM cars???

For crying out loud, I'm all for FOSS and I don't like the idea of software patents but FairPlay was developed by Apple, with Apple R&D money and facilities so they have all the right to get their money back and some. They will open it if and when they wish to do so.

Re:apple fans

[DrXym]

If Apple fans want to support Apple, all they have to do is keep buying their music from Apple.

It isn't hard. I see no sign that iPods are subsidized so there is no obligation that an iPod owner should buy their music from a single source. If some zealot wants to fork out money when a cheaper sourceexists they are completely free to do so.

That any of them is complaining that (shock horror) others buy music for less from somewhere else is frankly pathetic.

I own an Apple Mac that I love dearly, but I don't give a shit where my media comes from. If Apple sell a track for 99 cents and another vendor sells it for 49 cents and all else being equal, guess which I'm going to pick.

I don't owe Apple anything. I've paid over the going price for their hardware (nice as it is) and I feel free to pick and choose what I use it for. If they're using lock-in as opposed to innovation or quality to survive, then frankly they deserve to die.

Re:apple fans

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not really sure how Real thinks it's doing anyone any good with its anti-Apple-DRM campaign. First of all, it seems likely that the only reason Apple uses DRM for the ITMS is because the record labels insisted on it. Does anyone honestly think the labels would have cooperated with Apple on the ITMS if the download format were, e.g., non-DRMed MP3 files?

Second, to say that Apple "locks in" users to its proprietary format is disengenuous. iPods (and iTunes) will play music encoded as AAC files (DRMed or not), .wav files, .mp3 files, or regular uncompressed audio files. It won't play WMA files, but that's MS's fault, not Apple's. Further, nothing prevents a user from burning a disk from DRMed files in a non-DRMed format, and then handing those files to someone else. FairPlay is basically a stumbling block to mass piracy of music; it certainly doesn't prevent casual sharing, nor does it "lock in" anyone to Apple's formats.

Third, isn't it a little disengenuous of Real to complain about Apple "locking out" users with its DRM when Real has not seen fit to make its online music store Mac-compatible? Being a Mac user, I couldn't use Real's service even if I wanted to.

So who is limiting choice here?

Re:apple fans

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that I seem to find more fanboyism in Windows users. It seems that the users of MacOS and Linux are more content with their choice while windows users constantly seem to be trying to defend their choice.

Re:apple fans

[nyseal]

Here go my mod points but proprietary IS profitable, right MS?

Re:apple fans

[merdark]

Of course I am stereotyping but Apple's success is based in their loyal, vocal, energetic community.

Yes. You are stereotyping. I'd say this was true 'historically'. But it's changing. For instance, the ipod is different in the sense that it's a *general* hit. Far more people buy and want ipods than those in the 'Apple community'. There are many many people who use ipods, but don't use Apple computers.

I'd say your stereotype is also fairly wrong for Apple computer users. I have a powerbook, I love it. But I'm not what you'd consider part of the 'Apple community'. Why did I buy a powerbook? Sure, the integration is asolutely amazing, and they are stunning machines, but I got it because of OS X. If it ran OS 9, I would not have bought it. There are a lot of unix users who are migrating to OS X and Apple. These people are not fanatical Apple fans. I am thoroughly impressed with OS X and with Apple machines. I'll even rave about them to others. But that is only because the technology is genuinly cool. I'll equally rave about other cool technology.

Real is targeting ipod owners, not apple community members. Hence, Real probably doesn't care much about this backlash.

Proprietary is anticompetitive by definition.

Really? Care to show me this definition? I always thought it was quite the opposite. Proprietary means that you think your technology is *better* than other peoples, and therefore valuble. You also think people will be willing to pay for it, instead of paying someone else for their technology. This is called competition.

Sharing like one big happy family is not competition. It's called working together. Open source is working together, it's not *competition*.

Now, *standards* are a different story. Having open standards is said to promote competition, yes. This is really relevant when one company has a monoply. In this case consumers will always go with the most prevalent protocal since they will not risk being in the position where their purchase will not work with item X. In such a case having an open standard will usually promote competition. Perhaps the ipod already constitutes a monoply, perhaps not.

Re:apple fans

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is banking that proprietary is profitable. I'll guess we'll see if they are right.

I think it's a pretty safe bet for Apple, given that they've been banking on it for 20-odd years now and they seem to be doing pretty damn good.

Re:apple fans

[.milfox]

Well, the nicest thing about the Archos is the use of a 2.5" laptop drive instead of the mini-drives. Yes, I know the iPod is smaller.

However, that means that you can a) upgrade drives (with some hacking) and b) run 3rd party firmware (a la rockbox)... not a bad thing by my book.

Are you going to try to hack your archos now that you've got an iPod? :P

Re:apple fans

[jdb8167]

Apple would, hilariously enough, be in violation of the DMCA if they did that.

I'm not sure that this is true. Apple is the owner of the DRM in question. If the owner of the DRM doesn't have the right to decode the DRM, then how can the device play back the audio in the first place. I think we might have hit a spot that the DCMA doesn't address. Something completely unanticipated.

Re:apple fans

[Panaflex]

Get Real.. Think Different

Pan

Re:apple fans

[autopr0n]

Well dispite unbeliveably childish apple fans, I support what Real is doing, even though they are a horrible company, they're in the right here.

Re:apple fans

[Anonymous Coward]

for your own sake, I hope you are just trying to make a point and don't actually believe that

Re:apple fans

[Durandal64]

It's their DRM. Is Real going to sue them for breaking their own DRM that Real reverse-engineered?

Re:apple fans

[harlows_monkeys]

All of those devices have different interfaces in my house. Can't follow and can't buy your argument

What I'm getting at is the 4 way navigation that is in a lot of devices. That is, an up button that goes up in a menu, down to go down, an enter button to select a menu item, and a back button to go to the previous menu, with these 4 buttons arranged in that order.

The main menu on the iPod is fully customizable. The default shows you the many options you can browse by

Yeah, I know. It's iTunes I was complaining about here, not the iPod. When in "browse" mode, iTunes basically only has two choices: navigate by artist/album, or navigate by genre/artist/album. I think iTunes should be customizable so as to match the navigation on the iPod.

Re:apple fans

[squiggleslash]

I'm sorry, I replied to your point and then kind of meandered, and it could kind of look like I'm responding to you when I'm actually responding to a more general issue. If I gave that impression I apologise.

Re:apple fans

[damiam]

Physical drive size has nothing to do with it, you can run third party firmware on the iPod too.

Re:apple fans

[Anonymous Coward]

The only one putting out a reality distortion field around here is REAL. They're going on and on about how Apple isn't giving ipod users the ability to have freedom of choice, blah blah blah.

The thing is Apple has promoted freedom of choice by allowing users to use the MP3 format. If you want to use Napster, REAL, Walmart, or whatever to buy your digital music, then by all means go for it. If you want it to work on your ipod though, just convert the damn thing to MP3 and import it into your ipod.

That way you kill two birds with one stone. You got rid of the DRM and you can play your songs on the ipod. (REAL) SIMPLE.

Re:apple fans

[Anonymous Coward]

"I seem to find more fanboyism in Windows users. "

In total numbers, yes, but that is only because Windows users outnumber Mac users 20-1. But Windows fanboys outnumber Mac Fanboys by about 2-1.

Do the math, einstein.

And before you get your hackles up, I have probably owned, and do own about 4 times the number of Macs that you have in your entire life.

Re:apple fans

[alset_tech]

For example, considering browsing your music collection in iTunes. You can basically go by genre/artist/album. Now consider browsing your music collection on the iPod. It adds some more categories for browsing (genre, composer, Audiobooks), and things are organized a bit differently.

These categories can be added to your iTunes playlists. Right-click the category / header (or empty space to the right of said categories / headers) to change or add subjects. 100% customizable. If anything, one could say that iTunes is the more flexible of the two.

Re:apple fans

[.milfox]

Use of a 2.5" laptop drive instead of the mini-drive allows for PHYSICAL hacking of the archos, ie replacing the drive with, say, a 80GB unit. So yes, drive size has everything to do with that. :P

Unless someone can get a hold of the 40gb mini-drives and retrofit it into a 1st gen ipod or something.

Also, it appears that the open source firmware for the archos is much more further along and usable than the firmware for the ipod.

Re:apple fans

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the real solution to this is .......BUFFERING........

Re:apple fans

[David Rolfe]

But you're telling me that DRM exists for its own sake, to protect Apple from direct competition. Just like CSS on a DVD. It's to ensure complete control of the industry, not to protect actors salaries or hollywood.

I don't know that anyone is saying that DRM exists for DRM's sake. DRM surely doesn't exist to protect Apple from competition. If anything the different DRM formats are competing in the 'free' market right now; And that's what this is about (Real wants you to think it's DRM content store is better so buy from us!).

There is no technical reason you can't start your own non-DRM content store, just the catch is -- you won't be able to offer music from artists that fall under the RIAA's umbrella (and increasingly Indy labels that want to play with the big boys). If you have a stable full of artists that are either releasing their music into the public domain (and hence don't need you) or that operate on a copyrights trust then go for it!

I can't say that DRM on it's face is evil. The problem is the popular DRM schemes often conflict with established Fair Use. If you look at it pragmatically, there isn't anything wrong with trying to retain some copyrights over a product as liquid as non-corporeal digital media. However, the whole concept is being abused by the 'intellectual property' barons as feudal land grab. I wish we could just use the good old honor system -- and just assume that everyone is law-abiding. The fact is, people copy music and we have laws that say it's wrong. As artists and their handlers feel more and more threatened by this activity DRM will be increasingly used as deterrent.

Sorry for going on a riff.

Re:apple fans

[sahala]

When in "browse" mode, iTunes basically only has two choices: navigate by artist/album, or navigate by genre/artist/album. I think iTunes should be customizable so as to match the navigation on the iPod.

I was a little confused by this at first but then I realized that I don't even bother using the browse boxes anymore.

With the entire library or a playlist selected, I start typing in the search box in the upper right. If I type in "jazz" it'll filter down the library to those with "jazz" in any of the meta-data fields. If I type in "beethoven" it'll do the same. I find it's a lot faster to navigate music using this method than any other method.

Re:apple fans

[sahala]

These categories can be added to your iTunes playlists. Right-click the category / header (or empty space to the right of said categories / headers) to change or add subjects. 100% customizable. If anything, one could say that iTunes is the more flexible of the two.

He's talking about the browse boxes that show up when you press the browse button in the upper right or if you hit CTRL-B. He's right...it's only limited to genre, artist, album. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have boxes available for any field, although I tend to just use the search box exclusively.

Re:apple fans

[fr0dicus]

It's still better though. *:-)

Re:apple fans

[CountBrass]

Hmm yes I can fit standard IDE and SATA drives into my PC but it leaves a hell of a bulge in my suit pocket.

You're rather missing the point. Personally I really don't want to carry a housebrick around with me to listen to music: the iPod is about as big as I am willing to tolerate. (The smaller solid state players are just to much of a fag to use: I'm simply not going to select and download a different selection of music each day).

Re:apple fans

[DavidTC]

Real's files are digital, copyrighted, and encoded with an copy control device. If Apple builds a device that circumvents their copy control, Apple is in violation of the DMCA.

Yes, it's very very stupid. But it's how it works.

Re:apple fans

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize, of course that Apple is not trying to "lock ipod users to the itms music delivery system". You can still rip cds to your ipod, upload shared mp3s to your ipod.

They're simply rejecting to notion of supporting real, after real tried to license Fairplay.

Re:apple fans

[squiggleslash]

They're simply rejecting to notion of supporting real, after real tried to license Fairplay.

No, they're making threats of potential legal action, and considering changing the firmware, to lock Real out of the system.

And they are trying to lock iPod users to the iTMS (or more specifically, systems that exclusively support the iPod) as the only legal source of downloadable music for that platform. The fact someone can also build up a collection by buying CDs isn't relevent to a discussion about downloadable music.

Re:apple fans

[damiam]

Yeah, Rockbox is more developed than iPod Linux, but that's irrelevent to the dimensions of the hard drive. There's nothing about a 2.5" HD that makes it easier to develop for than a 1.8" HD. I wasn't contesting that laptop drives are easier to hack physically, just that they had anything to do with open firmware.

Re:apple fans

[.milfox]

We'll have to agree to disagree. :P

The archos (while, yes, being ~2x ipod size) is still smaller than a CD player or a traditional tape playing walkman.

Going smaller just bumps up the costs. (~x2 when I purchased my archos, the 20gb USB2 recorder was at $200, when the 20gb apple ipod was ~$400)

Re:apple fans

[dwightk]

Why shouldn't I be allowed to open my own iTunes compatible store if I wanted? Maybe I just want to sell my own bands songs, and dont want the RIAA/Apple in the middle.


Umm you can... and you can format your songs with AAC, MP3, WAV, AIFF, or Apple Lossless...

Re:apple fans

[Thumpnugget]

Real's files are digital, copyrighted, and encoded with an copy control device.

Yeah, but isn't it Apple's copy control device? Since it's Apple's copy control device, can't Apple circumvent it whenever they feel like? If not, why not? I think this is what the original poster meant by saying it was a new situation, unanticipated by the DMCA.

Re:apple fans

[DavidTC]

Real is not selling files that are copyrighted by Apple. For that matter, neither are Apple, they're just selling files under a license.

If Apple owned the copyright on all the files that both Real and Apple were putting on the device, sure it'd be legal. But they don't.

You see why the DMCA is a completely broken law? No one has the slightly clue what 'circumvent' means. It not only prohibits people from using their computer in certain ways, it can actually prohibit the manufactures of the DRM from doing certain things, because of what other people have done.

Because there's no way to tell 'circumvents a copy control device' and 'circumvents an access control device' from 'accesses', once you start having multiple companies involved. That was a funny point about the DeCSS thing...who, exactly, gave the CSS people and the 'offical' DVD software people the right to decode CSS? They didn't own the copyright on those DVDs.

The whole law is just completely broken at accomplishing its intent, because there's no idea of a 'chain of permission', from the copyright owner, to the device producer. There is legally no difference between J. Random Hacker producing a device that decodes Apple's DRM, Apple producing the device, and a band producing a device that just decodes their songs. They're all criminals.

Who would have thought

[ike6116]

There would be a time when *CONSUMERS* would be the ones AGAINST reverse engineering DRM?

Re:Who would have thought

[blowdart]

Except that's not exactly what real is doing is it? They may have reversed Apple's DRM, but only so they can translate their DRMed files into Apple format. So how is that consumer friendly?

Re:Who would have thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they're wrong. But I could understand someone applauding Real's reverse engineering and still buying from Apple.

Re:Who would have thought

[gl4ss]

well, it's apple. "think different".

were apple making some ms drm'd files through some way or breaking atrac3.. well.. the reactions would be a bit different.

I say competition is good. You're never going to see the prices drop without that(essentially same price for a product that is made through copying bits in a computer as for a physical one with lots of extra costs is ridiculous).

well, actually I wish that there was a super-duper-mega-magic drm system in place that would make it impossible to copy mp3's of songs that aren't free. why? so that great bands that do provide the music for free download would get much much much much more exposure(I for one used to listen a lot to module music , .xm .s3m .mod etc before mp3's came available).

Re:Who would have thought

[diamondsw]

I could see your point if they were stripping out DRM to create a DRM-less product. However, all they're doing is converting their DRM to Apple's DRM. This has nothing to do with arguments over DRM and its validity, and everything to do with whether or not Apple can control who can license its DRM technology.

Re:Who would have thought

[athakur999]

Because it gives iPod usera a choice other than iTMS?

Re:Who would have thought

[Malc]

" well, it's apple. "think different""

I prefer to think differently. I have an education though, as well as a decent grasp of English. ;)

Re:Who would have thought

[Malc]

Are we sure it's the consumers who reacted this way? Some of the comments sound too savvy. Perhaps it was Apple employees in a mass campaign who reacted against Real in this petition.

Re:Who would have thought

[jonadab]

It's because *nobody* can stand Real. Their software has more nag screens
than anything else you can download, and, additionally, it's feature-poor,
doesn't work well, and uses (surprise) its own proprietary format in an
attempt to lock people in. If a decent company with a useable product had
reverse-engineered Apple's DRM system, public opinion might have been rather
different, but Apple has a good reputation, and Real has such an extremely,
utterly bad reputation, they make Microsoft look like a the poster boy for
popular companies.

Re:Who would have thought

[gl4ss]

well, on some level it's right, maybe. well, at least as right as my slashdot postings grammar wise.

that is if it's referring to thinking about some different thing, rather than how to do the thinking..

Re:Who would have thought

[nojomofo]

Oh, you mean like the MP3 files that you've always been able to play on an iPod?

Re:Who would have thought

[anonicon]

" Because it gives iPod usera a choice other than iTMS?"

You're right since it allows Real's DRM music to compete with Apple's DRM music, but iPod users already have a ton of choice beyond DRM and iTMS since their players support .wav and .mp3.

Chuck

Re:Who would have thought

[furballphat]

UPGRADE TO QUICKTIME PRO?

Re:Who would have thought

[almostmanda]

I think it's just as much, if not more about people unconditionally loving Apple as people hating Real. If Microsoft refused to license WMA and Real reverese engineered it, suddenly Real would be the hero, because Microsoft's lock-in measures with proprietary software are evil, while Apple's are expected and encouraged.

Re:Who would have thought

[aftk2]

Do you also think largely? Or would rather think big?

Re:Who would have thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I might think: big. I would probably just think on a grand scale though.

Re:Who would have thought

[discstickers]

CDs... ever hear of them?

Re:Who would have thought

[DoubleD]

Well we always complain about inkjet printer manufactures when they fight generic cartrige manufactures who make compatible products.

Why on earth shouldn't Real be allowed to make their product compatible with another manufactures device. That as far as I am concerned is the real issue.

As to the issue of Real being a subpar company run by a bunch of slimy bastards... that is a separate issue for discussion ;).
--

Re:Who would have thought

[metaomni]

But it only gives WINDOWS iPod users a choice. The hypocrisy of Real's closed-source mentality is overshadowed only by their sleight of hand when it comes to "open source initiatives".

The bottom line is that Apple sells users The Whole Experience. From OS X on Apple hardware, to iTMS on Apple iPod's. They can control the whole line, therefore ensuring a better overall consumer experience.

Re:Who would have thought

[Moofie]

They could have done that by selling un-DRMed files. But they won't do that.

Real doesn't give a damn about user choice. They DO care about getting a slice of somebody else's pie.

Re:Who would have thought

[Anonymous Coward]

And Apple can't control it. The only card they had to control licensing before was that only they knew how it worked. If Real reverse-engineered it legitimately, Apple has nothing left to control it with.

Tough luck, Apple, but you should have played your card before Real drew the trump.

Re:Who would have thought

[the pickle]

Only if they use Windows...

Not a whole lot of "choice" there if you ask me.

p

Re:Who would have thought

[prell]

Real wants to be able to put their own copy-protected files onto the iPod. That is why they want to be able to convert their files into the copy-protected AAC format. So, what Real really wants is to be able to siphon profit off of the most popular digital music player on the market. By corollary, they want to force Apple to allow arbitrary file encodings to be supported on the iPod.

No other music player on the market has featured open firmware (or software) to allow for features to be added by the end user, or other businesses for that matter. If anyone has a problem with Apple on this issue, they therefore have a problem with the entire menagerie of digital music players.

Also, Real Rhapsody customers may be in for a shock when Apple releases an iPod update that breaks all their purchased songs. It may also be possible that the converted Rhapsody files may be interpreted differently than what is listed in the terms of the Rhapsody license agreement. Imagine a car insurance salesman trying to sell you a policy for your Inifinity G20, when you notice the top of the policy states that the car in question is a "Lexus LS300." When questioned, the salesman insists it will be fine.

Re:Who would have thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... Those iPods that can only play Apple's format and that other thing... ummmm... obscure mp3 codec? Aaaah what a relief for an iPod owner to be able do download RealShit.

Re:Who would have thought

[cens0r]

They can't sell un DRMed files. The record companies won't let them. They approached apple about licensing FairPlay so that their DRM would be compatible with the iPod. Apple blew them off. So they figured out how to make their DRM compatible with most players in existence. If I was going to buy music from any online source (i'm not), it would be from Real now. With harmony I can play their files on the mp3 players I have now, and any I plan to buy. That's good for me, no?

Re:Who would have thought

[Moofie]

Hey, go buy a bunch of music from Real. Knock yourself out. Just don't come back crying when you update the firmware on your hypothetical iPod and lose all the music you "bought". Is that good for you? Is the risk worth it?

I won't buy music from any online source regardless. Real can reverse engineer whatever they want...I'm still not going to give them any money (particularly since I can't use their service on my Mac...so much for consumer choice!).

Fuck 'em.

Re:Who would have thought

[Porktastic]

Grr...I just bought an iBook recently, trying Apple out for the first time since the Mac Classic, and while I've been impressed with everything so far, the Quicktime Upgrade popup really sh*ts me. I bought the machine, why can't I have a regular version of quicktime that doesn't harass me??!!

Fortunately, I discovered VLC, so Quicktime has been relegated to a remote corner of my hard drive...

Re:Who would have thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you.

Re:Who would have thought

[MarcQuadra]

AFAIK, it should only bother you ONCE per user. I certainly never see that popup more than once per user.

Re:Who would have thought

[transient]

I believe it's once a day.

Re:Who would have thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't use thier service either, since I run linux. But real has been good about putting out linux players lately, and I expect that they might make the service available to other OS's soon.

I don't plan on buying an iPod (I'm an iRiver fan) or buying music online (I prefer CD's), but I don't see how anyone can knock real for what they're trying to do.

Re:Who would have thought

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't buy most music in mp3 format from anyone dumbass.

Re:Who would have thought

[Anonymous Coward]

every response to the parent so far is moronis. Either they claim mp3 as a choice even though no popular music is sold in mp3 format, or they argue about something irrelevant like Real doesn't support mac, or they state you can always buy cd, which is more expensive than even iTMS usually.

Re:Who would have thought

[rthille]

Right, I make my MP3s myself from music I bought in other formats.

Re:Who would have thought

[Dephex Twin]

Try setting your clock to some time 20 years from now or however much you want, run the program, click "Later" and then set the clock back to normal. That used to work anyway...

Re:Who would have thought

[lavar78]

Either they claim mp3 as a choice even though no popular music is sold in mp3 format

Except at eMusic and AllOfMP3.

Apple zealots slam Real's iPod campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

At least that's the headline on Google News' front page:

link

Re:Apple zealots slam Real's iPod campaign

[Gilesx]

Is that paraphrasing? Because when I look at it, all I see is "Real gets flamed over iPod campaign"

opposite response?

[Anonymous Coward]

What, people are using it?

Re:opposite response?

[SoSueMe]

Heh, maybe their next step will be a new marketing slogan: "Get Real!"

No big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get what the big deal is. I bought two albums for my sister on Real yesterday for $5 each. BUrned them to a CD, so she can play in her car. When Real ends the sale, I might switch back to Napster or something. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Re:No big deal

[CountBrass]

$5 you were ripped.

Try allofmp3.com where an album costs around 60 cents, comes in any format or bit rate you want and has absoltely no DRM at all ever.

I love my iPod and my 3 Macs but why anyone would buy from iTMS (or Real) when there's allofmp3 I don't know.

Re:No big deal

[syrinx]

If you're going to get music illegally, why not just get it for $0 off Kazaa/suprnova/whatever rather than paying the Russian mob?

Re:No big deal

[ViolentGreen]

why anyone would buy from iTMS (or Real) when there's allofmp3 I don't know.

Well if you'd read the replies to when you post this every day you might.

Re:No big deal

[gordgekko]

When the hell are they going to get their PayPal option working again? No one in Russia gets my credit card...

Re:No big deal

[NaugaHunter]

Part of the big deal is that if you can burn them onto a CD then you can pull them into iTunes yourself to get them on an iPod. Any Real argument that they need this so that their customers can get music on iPods just went out the window.

And the 'inconvenience' argument is out the window - Real could also sell un-DRM'ed MP3's and AAC files without being hypocrites.

Besides, the iPod is Apples product. This entire thing is like Chrysler bitching that Ford wheel wells are too small for Chrysler's wheels and Ford should change their design by their own expense. {Yeah, not a perfect analogy, but hopefully my point that a company's product is their own gets through. EVERY company has a monopoly of their own product; they are only considered an industry monopoly if the product is practically unavoidable.)

It's probably because...

[Anonymous Coward]

RealPlayer sucks?

I mean, DRM + craptacular player == ...?

Re:It's probably because...

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, DRM + craptacular player == ...?

Who knows? Why don't you ask Apple?

Real should know by now

[ElForesto]

Hell hath no fury like a Mac user scorned.

Re:Real should know by now

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you say:
Astroturfing?

Re:Real should know by now

[fermion]

This may be funny but the reality is that Apple competes by giving a certain group of people really cool toys and another certain group of really cool toys and another group of people things that just work. Real, like so many others, are trying to compete solely on price, with a bit of OSS idolatry thrown in. The former is later irrelevent, and the later is too little.

It is just like giving people a really confortable pair of shoes or a perfect loaf of bread. Anything that threatens the product also threatens the user of the product. It is the nature the free market. Supply and demand, although foolish people ignore the demand part. When we get used to a semi-respectful company, we tend to demand that sort of service, and demand the annilation of anyone who want to stop the flow of our products.

Real has never in it's entire existance shown a customer centered product. No one who uses Quicktime or an iPod would ever want to have a Real product. Now, does that mean that Real has no right to exist or offer a product? Of course not. But they should have a product. A product that once was and still could acceptable. It would be better for them to improve that product.

Nothing to do with iTunes.

[Anonymous Coward]

People just hate Real.

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[sfjoe]

People just hate Real.

While this may be modded as funny, it seems more insightful to me. I'm one of those who just hate Real. They sell email addresses to spammers, they're install screws up the desktop and puts icons trying to sell me things all over the place. Let's not forget the incidents of them trying to install spyware. I'll be one person who'd be happy to see them crash and burn.,

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[saden1]

I hated the Real that was trying to sell me a free player but I think they have mitigated their mistakes. The free player link is right there on the front page. I don't hate Real but I am in fact starting to dislike Apple. They are monopolizing the online music sales industry. I have been buying music online for sometime and have stayed clear from iTunes because it isn’t good for the consumer. If the only player that can play the music is an iPod it isn’t worth my money. Same goes for Sony Connect store. It’s frustrating to know that only Sony products can play those files. What the industry needs is open standard. Maybe it’s time for someone to take the lead and bring to the table a variant of OGG with built in copy right protection.

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[ilmdba]

no shit. if we were talking about Real hacking a Microsoft player/DRM, people around here would be partying in the streets...

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[ilmdba]

actually that should have read:

no shit????

if we were talking about Real hacking a Microsoft player/DRM, people around here would be partying in the streets...

as in, this backlash has -everything- to do with it being Apple's DRM being hacked, never mind it's Real (who sucks) doing the hacking.

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[stratjakt]

The industry has had an open standard for a couple decades. 44.1khz 16 bit stereo PCM audio. This format was coupled with a plastic form factor about 5" in diameter, and we called them CDs.

And if I bought a CD from Sony music, it would work on a Phillips player, and vice-versa.

Now we embark on a brave new proprieraty, DRM-laden, locked down world. The music players of tomorrow will be more closely related to a game console than the LP players of yesteryear.

No more discussing your favorite music with friends. It'll be all about brand loyalty, just like the game console wars. A kid who only owns a PS2 will be more than happy to tell you how "gay" and "stupid" Halo is. In a decade, it'll be the same with music. A kid with an iPod will tell you how "gay" all the bands that Sony licenses are.

And I'm happy to say I can't wait for the whole corporatized entertainment "industry" to collapse on itself. The real winners here are the indy artists, who will continue to offer their music on un-encrypted plain jane CDs, or offer DRM-less to anyone who cares to listen.

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[Romeozulu]

And I'm happy to say I can't wait for the whole corporatized entertainment "industry" to collapse on itself. The real winners here are the indy artists, who will continue to offer their music on un-encrypted plain jane CDs, or offer DRM-less to anyone who cares to listen.

You mean the indy artists that produce stuff that the vast majority of music buyers don't want to hear, which is why they are still indy artist?

Please don't kid yourself into thinking that many of the "indy" artists are not dying for a RIAA contract. It's easy for them to talk-the-talk, but when the big music company comes knocking, they fall all over themselves.

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those CD's work perfectly with iTunes and iPods too, you know.

You can fill an iPod up in a few days without ever buying a single DRM'd 99cent song..

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[Anonymous Coward]

And automatically opposing Real because they're the "bad guys" and Apple is the "good guys" sounds like as much of an ad hominem fallacy as I've ever heard. I think I've stopped caring about the zealots and have become more fascinated by how their logical abilites have totally vanished in light of the extreme degrees of "badness" and "goodness" of the two sides.

Heck, I think the gap here beats out the neo-con/arab terrorist gap.

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[Scrameustache]

I am in fact starting to dislike Apple. They are monopolizing the online music sales industry. I have been buying music online for sometime and have stayed clear from iTunes

Wow! What a monopoly they have where you can buy similar products from other vendors to your heart's content!

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Grammar Avenger strikes again!
Homonyms baffle you guys, don't they?
They're: A contraction of "they" and "are", as in "They're going to the store.
Their: Pertaining to them, as in "Their install screws up the desktop"
There: A location. "Let's walk over there"
Up up, and away!

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[saden1]

Apple is in fact a monopoly when it comes to online music. Everyone likes iPods including myself. I want one. If I get one I have to buy music from Apple. It's a clear case of consumer lock-in and a scheme to protect market dominance.

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[Doctor_Jest]

Rhapsody is in fact a monopoly because you can't use it on a platform other than Windows. Napster is I think, only Windows as well.

See the pattern?

The new MP3 Walkman from Sony. ATRAC only... well, mp3 -> ATRAC, but who's counting? ATRAC is a Sony only product. (ever try to use a MiniDisc? Pain in the butt...)

you can buy music from anyone and put it on the iPod. Tower Records, Wal Mart, CostCo, you name it. If you want digital downloads, you have to use the iTunes music store.

If there were NO other alternative for music than the iTunes store, I'd agree there was a monopoly. There are other alternatives. So, in effect, it's not a monopoly. You just can't download another company's DRM-laden tracks and use them on the iPod. I would sooner poke my eye out than allow my music to be in WMA format.... Lots of luck getting a reasonable DRM solution like Fairplay from Microsoft....

Besides, the only non-subscription based solution is iTunes store... you buy it, its yours even if you never shop at the store again. Burn it to a CD, re-rip it and it's yours on any device capable of playing MP3s.

I just don't get all the hubub... Real wants "choice"? Let people reverse engineer THEIR formats.

Oh, that's right... choice only works when it benefits THEM, not the consumer.

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[Scrameustache]

Apple is in fact a monopoly when it comes to online music.

Damn, you been hit HARD with the stupid stick boy!

Main Entry: monopoly
Pronunciation: m&-'nä-p(&-)lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control

Is the iTunes music store the only online music store? No? Then its not a monopoly.
This whole discussion is based on the fact that it is NOT a monopoly! Real wants the music sold from its store to play on iPods. The music from THEIR store! Get it? The store that ISN'T iTunes.

Everyone likes iPods including myself. I want one. If I get one I have to buy music from Apple.

I have one, and I have never bought music from the iTMS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY FROM THE DAMN APPLE STORE!
I have CDs, they go in the computer, the computer transfers it to the iPod.

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[AgentGibbled]

time for someone to take the lead and bring to the table a variant of OGG with built in copy right protection.

Which would be great if it had enough acceptance. There aren't very many portable OGG players on the market that I'm aware of. Unless you can convince Apple, Sony, etc. to drop their proprietary formats in favour of OGG+DRM it won't get off the ground. There's way more money in being Apple right now, with the proprietary format that plays on the most popular player. (and apparently cry about it if someone else tries to get a piece). I don't think Mr. Jobs will be in any particular hurry to move to OGG+DRM. More useful to the consumer than Yet Another Media Format (tm) would be an easy way to convert from the format you buy to the one that your favorite player uses (ie. Real's on the right track here, but don't have it quite right). But then, the tricky part isn't converting the audio, it's converting the DRM format so the rules get preserved. Once again, DRM ruins everything. Well, that and according the the content industries format shifting is evil to some degree so this will get squashed once the appropriate laws are purchased. I think I just reminded myself why I don't buy digial music online...

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"I hated the Real that was trying to sell me a free player but I think they have mitigated their mistakes. The free player link is right there on the front page. I don't hate Real but I am in fact starting to dislike Apple. They are monopolizing the online music sales industry. I have been buying music online for sometime and have stayed clear from iTunes because it isn't good for the consumer. If the only player that can play the music is an iPod it isn't worth my money. Same goes for Sony Connect store. It's frustrating to know that only Sony products can play those files. What the industry needs is open standard. Maybe it's time for someone to take the lead and bring to the table a variant of OGG with built in copy right protection."

Guess what the most open standard for DRM music is right now?

Microsoft WMA. You can choose your player, choose your portable device, and choose who you buy your music from.

Rhapsody. Napster. Wal-Mart. They all use WMA.

There are players from Samsung, Creative, Rio, Dell, Gateway, iRiver, and others that play WMA-DRM.

Now, don't get me wrong, WMA is proprietary as hell. But it's not as bad as Apple-AAC-DRM. Microsoft has licensed their system to different companies so you can buy music from your choice of providers and play it on your choice of devices.

You can't do that with Apple-AAC-DRM. Before the Real hack, you could only buy files for your iPod on Apple's store. And Apple's files only transferred to Apple's player. Believe it or not, not all of us want to carry around our collection as 150 redbook CDs. And not all of us want to re-encode a lossy format into another lossy format.

WMA is a proprietary standard for DRM music, but it is the de-facto standard in the non-Apple world.

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[saden1]

I'm glad you're able to look up the meaning of monopoly now lets do the critical thinking portion of my argument together.

1. iTunes provides cheaply had commodity.
2. iPod is exclusively owned through legal privilege, command of supply, and concerted action by Apple.
3. Apple has exclusive possession and control of the iPod product.
4. iPod is the most popular player on the market with 45% market share. 45% market share might not seem much, but it leads to 70% share for the iTunes store for online music sales. These numbers are slated to grow.
5. People want the iPod first then a place to purchase music.
6. If you want to buy music online, there is an idea, and you want to play it on your iPod you have to buy from, you guessed it, iTunes.
7. No one wants to buy a CD from a music store, go home, rip it into mp3 format and put it on their iPod. The whole point of digital audio revolution is to buy music online and make your own CDs. Capisca?

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[hubang]

Not True. I also hate Apple, Microsoft, Hp, the US Patent and Trademark Office, the FCC, and squeeky shoes.

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[Anonymous Coward]

ummm...nobody wants to buy CDs??? the majority of music is still sold on CD! all of the online music stores combined is still a tiny slice of the total music sales.

The Apple DRM model is fine by me but I dont plan to buy much music online until I can get it in some lossless format. (As in not MP3, not AAC, not WMA, not OGG, not any of that... Must be FLAC or Apple Lossless or even just raw WAV files before I will buy. Otherwise I will stick to buying CDs, of which I have >500 in my personal music library. And yes, I have an MP3 player with quite a bit of my personal music library loaded.)

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[tantlerur]

Re: 6. If you want to buy music online, there is an idea, and you want to play it on your iPod you have to buy from, you guessed it, iTunes.

That's odd. I buy music from all kinds of other online music stores and put that music, that I bought online, on my iPod.

Where is the problem here?

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[saden1]

Here is the deal name those stores you buy from. I'm talking about those with wide variety of selection. New selection.

People, Apple has no intention of allowing any one near the iPod.

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[Darren Winsper]

Hell, even TurboLinux have licensed WMA...

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[Ilgaz]

If hating "Real" and announcing it on Slashdot as AC without any reason gives you 5 insightful points, why not hate Real?

Yea, I hate Real too, spyware crap! now mod me up! :)

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[Octagon Most]

"If I get one I have to buy music from Apple."

Right. Except for the fact that you can buy a CD from any of approximately 1 million stores, rip the MP3's, and play them on your iPod. Or acquire MP3's through any other means and play them on your iPod.

And the music you buy from iTunes can be played on any CD player.

But other than that they're an evil monopoly stifling your consumer choice. It's too bad there are not other online music stores or portable players.

Re:Nothing to do with iTunes.

[Datafage]

Buy CD online. Rip to MP3 or AAC. Copy to iPod. Enjoy.

I know what you mean by "buying music online." However, it is hardly as if the only way to use an iPod is by buying music from Apple. Your argument also applies very nicely to game consoles with their exclusive titles. I have a PS2 but I want to play Project Gotham Racing 2. Do I get to say Microsoft has a monopoly on console games because they get to choose what platforms you can play their games on?

The reasons are easy

[christurkel]

Real has always treated the Mac has second class. We get RealPlayer after the Windows version. Their jukebox software has never worked on the Mac. And now they want us to sympathise?

Re:The reasons are easy

[bedouin]

I dunno, I think Real Player for OS X is probably the only version that doesn't suck. Actually, the only reason this little squabble between Apple and Real bothers me is because it could potentially mean the end of Real Player for OS X.

And their jukebox -- who cares?

Re:The reasons are easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention, their store STILL isn't compatable with Macs. Nothing says choice than only offering the service to Windows users!

Re:The reasons are easy

[TechnoPope]

Why do you assume that they are only targeting the Mac version? Last I checked, there were versions of both the iPod and the iTunes for Windows. Sure we (users of Apple's Windows products) are not the one's that Apple really cares about, but we do still exsist.

Re:The reasons are easy

[RealityMogul]

How could it mean the end of the RealPlayer for OS X?

I'm not familiar with Apple's tactics, but I don't think they could stop software from being written for their OS.

Unless you mean Real would pull their product out of that market, but that wouldn't make since after their recent moves to interoperate with the iPod.

Re:The reasons are easy

[freedom_india]

On the spot. REAL wants to piggyback on success of iPod since their Real Player sucks. And they thought that it was a brilliant idea of reducing prices. If they had done this for a Windows piece of hardware, then maybe it would have worked. But Mac??? REAL must be REALly crazy

Re:The reasons are easy

[unboring]

The reason for this easy, viz.Windows has 90+ % marketshare. Or perhaps you expect companies to give you priority based on your 10% share of desktop computers?

Re:The reasons are easy

[Kiryat Malachi]

Yeah... Real Player on OS X has second-class spyware, second-class bugs, second-class ability to screw up your system...

Damn them for treating us Mac users like second class citizens!

Re:The reasons are easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, the world treats apple as second class. Get over it. When you went with apple, you knew well in advance that no one develops for it, you would never have the popular software first, you would never get to play games until they were old and stale. Why apple users complain about this stuff is beyond me. Linux users don't (well, the idiots do). There is a trade off to be made. If you want to run the "outlying" OS's, you have to make it yourself, rely on the OS community, or wait for the software to get ported.

Don't flame the crap out of me, I have nothing against apple, I use Linux at home, and Solaris at work. I loath M$ as much as anyone, but I still realise that if I want mainstream software, the day it comes out, I am going to have to boot that windows partition. This is not going to change before you have to upgrade your mac next, so either deal with it, or swallow your pride.

Re:The reasons are easy

[2nd Post!]

Yes, but Mac users have a disproportionately higer share of the MP3 market and the online music market.

We were, after all, the first adopters of the iPods, that drove the market, and we did have the music store before it was released on Windows.

So if we are strictly being logical, I would say companies should give me priority on 30% of the target music playing market.

Lest you forget, Adobe and Microsoft both make a pretty penny from us Mac users too. It's not as if we're an unprofitable market. We are very profitable.

Re:The reasons are easy

[daviddennis]

They are only allowing Windows users to interoperate with their software. Mac users are left out, an attitude that seems a little short-sighted to me. Surely it wouldn't take that much effort to port their DRM to the Mac?

The Mac market for legal downloadable music is clearly healthy, and the anger of spurned Mac users is all too easy to predict. So why didn't they introduce a Mac version from the get-go? It would have only made sense.

This debacle, in other words, would have been easily predictable and preventable with minimal extra effort.

I think this kind of stupidity is one reason why Real is so widely hated.

D

Re:The reasons are easy

[atari2600]

and Microsoft treated Apple users first rate - in fact Office and IE for the Mac were brought out before they were brought out for the Windows version!!!. Also MS brought out Halo for the Mac first!!! - oh wait - what are we talking about? Get real kiddo - apple users are minority - not worth it bringing out any software for the platform first at the expense of another platform.

Re:The reasons are easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly like Apple treats Linux users. Except Apple NEVER releases ANY desktop type software for Linux, EVER.

Re:The reasons are easy

[cHiphead]

just because I have an iPod doesn't mean I use Apple's (crash your usb/firewire subsystem) windows software.

Screw iTunes, use
ehppod

Re:The reasons are easy

[Aerog]

> Their jukebox software has never worked on the Mac.

I don't consider this "second class". I consider this "kind of them".

Re:The reasons are easy

[Performer Guy]

Exactly, Apple selling their iTunes on teh PC stepped into Real's territory and they're competing. Competition is good.

Re:The reasons are easy

[zangdesign]

Why do you assume that they are only targeting the Mac version?

It's pretty easy to figure out that they are targeting both Windows and Macintosh platforms, but Windows users are less likely to have a problem with it, since they're used to having Real's products available by default. Mac users have always been second-class citizens when it comes to Real's products. Now, they want to charge us for the privilege of using their products, without offering up any proof that they've changed their opinions of the Mac. It has all the appearance of being a cynical money-grab without offering any real philosophical change to go along with it.

Microsoft does the same thing, but we tolerate it (barely) since they are the 800-lb gorilla. Open Source and Free Software does it too, to an extent, but OS X is still a environment by comparison, so it probably doesn't matter as much being snubbed by them (plus, it is getting better).

So regardless of who Real is really aiming at with their marketing, the biggest effect is on the psyche of the Mac user. Thus the backlash.

Me? I don't use Real (even on my PC) and this isn't likely to change things.

Re:The reasons are easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Desktop Linux just isn't as profitable as OS X. That's not very hard to see. The two important desktop systems (right now) are Windows and Mac OS X. And Windows itself is less profitable than you think because there are a lot of computers counted in market share statistics that aren't used by consumers, like computers that sit there behind the counter of your clothing store and handling the opening and closing of the cash register.

Re:The reasons are easy

[Moofie]

Of course not. I expect them to provide products I want to buy if they want my money.

I don't care if Real ever releases another piece of software. I don't need 'em.

Re:The reasons are easy

[Herkum01]

Damn them for treating us Mac users like second class citizens!

Or worse, like a Windows user. The horror.

Re:The reasons are easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the reason Real treats Mac users as second-class costumers is because they are.

Re:The reasons are easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, in Real's executive offices, "Desktop OS X just isn't as profitable as Windows. That's not very hard to see. The only important desktop system (right now) is Windows. Besides, OS X itself is less profitable than you think because there are a lot of computers counted in market share statistics that aren't used by consumers, like X Serve servers and whatnot."

Re:The reasons are easy

[BenFaremo]

> Real has always treated the Mac has second class.
Hmmm...unless I'm wrong about Apple's market share these days...you guys should consider yourselves lucky to be coming in second.

Re:The reasons are easy

[Anonymous Coward]

You are irrational. Real makes their software compatible with iTunes, and your response is to bitch about something else they haven't made compatible with a platform that has a 5% market share. We're talking about iPods here, not macs, dumbass

Re:The reasons are easy

[Anonymous Coward]

The Windows market for legal downloadable music is clearly healthy, and the anger of spurned Windows users is all too easy to predict. So why didn't Apple introduce a Windows version of iTunes from the get-go? It would have only made sense.

Re:The reasons are easy

[prockcore]

They are only allowing Windows users to interoperate with their software. Mac users are left out, an attitude that seems a little short-sighted to me. Surely it wouldn't take that much effort to port their DRM to the Mac?

It's not the DRM, it's the actual Rhapsody software.

Look at it this way:

January 2001: Apple releases iTunes for the mac.
October 2003: Apple releases iTunes for the PC.

It took Apple almost 3 years to port iTunes to the PC. Real has only owned Rhapsody for a year.

Goddamn double standards, these mac appologists are sickening.

Re:The reasons are easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Apple had to port a music jukebox, XML-based store/purchasing system, custom-made DRM layer, etc, etc to Windows. Although they do have some previous experience programming QuickTime for Windows, I'm sure not all of it was directly applicable to iTunes. Surely they did borrow what they could from QT (which contains a surprisingly large amount of the Mac's APIs), but there was still a lot to add to make iTunes for Windows.

The difference here is that if Real knows how to translate their 192k AAC wrapped in Harmony DRM into a 192k AAC wrapped in Apple-compatible FairPlay DRM, I wouldn't think that would be nearly as difficult to port. It would probably be nearly impossible to offer Harmony DRM to Windows Media DRM support on the Mac, but that is because MS only offers Mac users a very early version of WMA-DRM that is now considered insecure and doesn't support very many features.
The point is that a FairPlay DRM'ed file that will work on iTunes for Windows and the iPod would also work equally well for iTunes on the Mac and Mac users' iPods.

I also think Mac users would have taken (for now) the ability to simply have CD burning for RMS purchased music; they could always burn & rerip for iPod use. (But I think Mac users would feel most comfortable if Real guaranteed Harmony DRM > FairPlay DRM support on Mac by some specific date.)

(It occurs to me, if Real would actually have that much trouble doing the Harmony > FairPlay transition on the Mac itself, why not just convert them on a Windows server in WA at Real HQ and download a straight FairPlay *.m4p file to Mac users? I doubt any would complain.

Re:The reasons are easy

[stor]

Real has always treated the Mac has second class. We get RealPlayer after the Windows version. Their jukebox software has never worked on the Mac. And now they want us to sympathise?

So where's quicktime for Linux? I can find Realplayer.

Cheers
Stor

Re:The reasons are easy

[Ilgaz]

Hi,

I am glad as a G5 user that Real sometimes releases LATE but WORKING products for OS X.

Now go to some site using advanced wmedia scripting and try to watch it in MS IE even.

Their jukebox never worked on Mac? or NEVER released. They can't race with iTunes on Mac platform, thats why it has never released.

Stop this über bullshit karma whoring bitching about Real on slashdot.

Re:The reasons are easy

[Ilgaz]

Nevermind, there are tens of thousands of Realplayer content subscriber users using OS X. Like me...

Real sells content, not player anymore and that business is going fairly well.

So they can'T say like ms: "oh, you coded better browser than mine, I give up" and end IE coding.

Re:The reasons are easy

[daviddennis]

(1) I don't know of a single person who's passionate about Windows. They use it, yes, and they don't switch to the Mac, but they don't love it. It's just what's there, and they don't want to think about anything else. So you are wrong. There was certainly no hostility created towards Apple for not starting with a Windows version.

(2) I think the most likely reason there was no Windows version of iTunes is that they wanted to test-market it with their own audience first. Their own audience is very loyal and forgiving, and that's a major advantage. I don't think that's a bad idea at all for something mass-market; companies test-market things like laundry detergent all the time.

D

Zealotry

[cephyn]

All the mac zealots are up in arms! Of course, many of the open source-standard protocol zealots need to speak up in defense of real...though it must hurt. where are ya'll?

Re:Zealotry

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Apple has done a bit more for open source than Real has. KHTML, Zeroconfig, etc.

Re:Zealotry

[cephyn]

Hey no argument here. But does that mean they get a free pass?

Re:Zealotry

[weekendwarrior1980]

KHTML came from the KDE team. Zeroconfig is a spec. So if you're going to talk about Apple "doing" a bit more for open source, get a better example. To be pertinent to the discussion, real has given helix to the community.

Re:Zealotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, many of the open source-standard protocol zealots need to speak up in defense of real

No we don't. There's nothing stopping Real from selling un-DRMed mp3 files. There is no compatibilty problem with the iPod for mp3s.

Re:Zealotry

[Anonymous Coward]

KHTML was greatly improved because of Safari bug reports and Apple engineers. Zeroconfig was created as a spec and was implemented by Apple. Their engineers also released source code to use Zeroconfig with Windows and Linux programs. How's that?

Re:Zealotry

[switcha]

Maybe we're (mac users) just sick of having to update all of our shit every other week because some dill-hole keeps breaking the DRM that keeps record co.'s from telling Apple to take the service we love and stuff it.

Maybe we're sick of idiots not realizing how easy it is to strip all rights off the purchased music by doing nothing nefarious at all, or to just go buy the friggin CD.

I'm happy with the service, but all the 'free everything' idiots are expending more energy breaking shit and whining about it than it would take them to just make it 'free'.

Re:Zealotry

[p4ul13]

While I am surprised that there isn't more support for Real coming from the anti-DRM / Proprietary folks, I also can't help but think that Real would have more support if they opened up their format.

Granted, nobody really wants to use their format, but at least I'd be more willing to get behind them if they acted in a non-hypocritical manner.

Re:Zealotry

[cephyn]

well technically speaking, isnt apple also acting in a hypocritical manner?

Re:Zealotry

[p4ul13]

Quite possibly (what company doesn't at some point), but you'll have to explain how they are in this case..

Re:Zealotry

[Lost Engineer]

Except music companies. I don't think anyone Real, Apple or otherwise wants to sell DRMed files - just doesn't make much market sense the way things are right now. It is record companies that demand these things to preserve their "monopoly" on music distribution. I put monopoly in quotes because everyone knows there are at least 5 other major labels: Kazaa, Bittorrent, Gnutella, Direct Connect, and eDonkey.

Re:Zealotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we're (mac users) just sick of having to update all of our shit every other week because some dill-hole keeps breaking the DRM that keeps record co.'s from telling Apple to take the service we love and stuff it.

I guess you could be up in arms over that if you want to be (I'm not), but that has nothing to do with this. Real isn't letting you circumvent anything. They didn't break the DRM, except to let themselves keep DRM on files while also letting them work on the iPod. Fairplay is still "safe".

It's the lack of logical thought, such as you demonstrated, that's making the zealotry so sickening.

Re:Zealotry

[weekendwarrior1980]

The improvements you claim of is "nominal", give the credit where it's due and the evolution or improvement on KHTML for almost everything lies flatly on the KDE group.

Re:Zealotry

[ColMustard]

I don't think anyone Real, Apple or otherwise wants to sell DRMed files

Well said. I think that's basically what it all boils down to. Without the stupid complaining music industry, it would just be a matter of which non-DRM'd music format a certain online store uses is technically superior (and of course price). Now we have to deal with all this DRM crap.

Re:Zealotry

[Anonymous Coward]

have you even seen the CVS diffs for the Apple additions? they are quite a bite more than 'nominal'. i'm sorry to say it but KHTML was rather poorly regarded before safari came along and in fact, Apple was roundly criticized for going with KHTML initially. the KDE group are a great bunch of people as is anyone who contributes open source sweat. but Apple has done a lot for the current state of the project.

also Apple did alot to push Zeroconf as a technology that third party companies like TiVo and printer manufacturers would be interested in supporting.

Re:Zealotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, Darwin (Quicktime) streaming server?

http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ps-faq.html

Vendor lock-in mentality?

[garcia]

The next step--a campaign and petition to get music fans to support the company's open stance--hasn't worked out quite as it might have hoped, after some people besieged the petition with obscenities and anti-RealNetworks postings.
The petition, on RealNetworks' www.freedomofmusicchoice.org site, is entitled: "Hey Apple! Don't break my iPod."

Now while I understand the zealotry and the hatred for someone daring to stomp on Apple's parade I can't understand the "break my iPod" bit. If anything they have "fixed" the fucking iPod allowing it to play even more formats.

Now, now, all you iPod fans are going to jump down my throat about Real's shitty codecs and how Apple's non-sense is so much better... I just can't agree with you. I haven't heard Real's code but I have heard 100s of samples of Apple's *and* 35 full length tracks. Apple's codec sucks compared to even MP3 and I won't even get into what they sound like compared to FLAC/SHN. Granted, you are paying less than the average CD in a store but I can certainly hear the difference. I don't know if I would be so inclined to support any more artists that sell their music there. I'll continue to stick to SHN/FLAC encoded music distributed by the fans of the same bands.

This sounds a lot like what happened with the Katie.com bullshit. People flooding Amazon with bad reviews, trolls, and downgraded marks. They were successful in getting the name changed... Do the Apple zealots think that this is the best way to approach this? Personally, I think that the Appleaters should be thrilled that more codecs could come to their beloved device. Perhaps these Apple lovers have become so accustomed to vendor lock-in that they don't want any competition in the codecs available for this device?

I guess you'd have to ask an iPod user.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... real isn't providing additional codecs, they're just using a reverse-engineered version of apple's. So it's the same thing. And comparing mp3 to FLAC? Where to begin!

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like this... The writer states that he has not heard Real's format, but because it's "open" it must be better. But then he doesn't own an I-Pod either.

It's like a Ferrari sucks, but I never drove one so it must suck.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[polecat_redux]

Personally, I think that the Appleaters should be thrilled that more codecs could come to their beloved device.

I don't think that's true. More formats means informed decision-making, and Apple fans merely want quick, easy, and compatible - much like the audience Microsoft is catering to with Windows XP.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[garcia]

It's like a Ferrari sucks, but I never drove one so it must suck.

I don't need to own an iPod to hear the music that is played on it. And this has nothing to do with it being "open". It has to do with choice on a device instead of vendor lock-in.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[mental_telepathy]

I think you read it wrong... the "don't break my ipod" quote is from Real, not apple supporters. It's the title of the survey.

Nice rant, though

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[ohsoot]

Now while I understand the zealotry and the hatred for someone daring to stomp on Apple's parade I can't understand the "break my iPod" bit. If anything they have "fixed" the fucking iPod allowing it to play even more formats.

Ummm.... I'm impressed that you read the article but, you misunderstood:

Real named the board "Hey Apple! Don't break my iPod."

Real IS implying that they've fixed the iPod, and they don't want Apple to "break it" by suing them and not letting the .rm format play on the iPod.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[citiZen2010]

Let's get one thing straight here. For the actual audio compression, Apple uses 128kbps AAC for ITMS downloads. AAC stands for "Advanced Audio Compression", not "Apple Audio Compression" or anything else. AAC is an MPEG standard, just like MP3, only better. RealNetworks uses 192kbps AAC in their store. It's the same damn format. The quality will be slightly better, if you have some nice headphones to plug into your iPod, you'll probably hear the difference. The only new thing that Real has brought with Harmony is that they've enabled tracks bought from the Real store to play on the iPod by wrapping the AAC tracks with FairPlay DRM. The fact that the tracks cost $0.49 and are encoded at a higher bitrate makes this a good buy for anybody who isn't an Apple groupie or against DRM on principle. If you don't trust Real, then don't buy from them, but I fail to see how this is anything but a net positive for consumers. I'm amazed that there are people screaming "Please! Give me a monopoly in the digital music market!"

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[mbbac]

"Hey Apple! Don't break my iPod." is Real's title, not one of the Mac users'.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[JBMcB]

>Apple's codec sucks compared to even MP3

What was the format of those tracks? What bitrate? What makes you think Real is using their own codec for the iPod (It isn't, the iPod can't play RealAudio) What music store sells MP3's? (OK I know of ONE, but I doubt anyone has heard of any of it's bands) AAC compressed music actually sounds pretty good at comparable bitrates to MP3.

>I'll continue to stick to SHN/FLAC

Then your portable music player must have FLAC/SHN support and a gargantuan hard drive for the terrible 2:1 compression ratios you get. MP3/AAC usually gets about 10:1.

>Perhaps these Apple lovers have become so accustomed to vendor lock-in

You mean the way the Realaudio music store ONLY WORKS ON WINDOWS?

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand. Real named the site, "Hey Apple! Don't break my iPod." in an attempt to pressure apple into supporting their hack of the ipod's drm system. The only real argument I have against what Real did, is that they did it poorly, and half-assed. Apple spends alot of time making their product just work, then Real, makes a nasty hack, that will break the next time ipods are updated, and will result in many unhappy users and support calls. The don't even offer the software for macs. If they expect support from apple, maybe they should think about supporting apple in return.

They could license fairplay from apple like motorola does, and sell music for the ipod that way, but they would rather try to strongarm apple into supporting their propritary format instead of apple's own. When that failed, they make a conversion program from .rm to mp4, with some wierd hack so that the drm looks like it was issued by apple. Not exactly a kosher solution, IMHO.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Real's shitty codecs and how Apple's non-sense is so much better"

Clarification:

Real's audio codec is just AAC wrapped into a RM file container with Real's DRM.

Apple's audio codec used for the iTunes store is AAC wrapped in a FairPlay DRM'ed AAC file container (a subset of the MP4 file format).

Real didn't do anything special, they were just able to bypass certain routines (the FairPlay junk) demux their RM file container, decrypt the packets, and send the compressed audio frame to the AAC decoder (that Apple wrote).

Virgin was upset that they were not able to licence the FairPlay DRM from Apple. I don't know why this is stopping them from being able to sell their music. Real was able to provide their DRM decoder in the iPod, I'm sure Virgin could do the same.

Nothing like flooding the market with proprietary bitstreams with identical codecs.

It's a bit ass backwards to how the video codec world is.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[lrucker]

If you don't trust Real, then don't buy from them, but I fail to see how this is anything but a net positive for consumers

Suppose I bought some Real music, and only intended to play it on my iPod. Now suppose Apple wants to update the iPod, and that update happens to break Real's hack. Now my music doesn't play as Real promised it would - how is that positive?

I've worked at Apple; we tried to keep things backwards compatible even with 3rd party stuff or OS versions not officially supported - I kept Java working on 8.5 for several releases after it was officially dropped - but when it becomes impossible, the new feature wins. But that was for products we liked; even if Steve wasn't pissed off, I can't see any engineers bending over backwards to help Real

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM is DRM pure and simple. Real is exchanging their DRM for a hacked version of Apple's DRM. How is this in the best interest of the consumer? Real's DRM stuff is just as proprietary as any other proprietary DRM stalking the lands. I'm not limited to the iTunes Music Store for music for my iPod. I can put several formats on my iPod, including good old fashioned MP3s ripped straight from my ever-growing CD collection which is what i do.

You want to talk about lock-in, as a Mac user what options do i have if i were so inclined to purchase through an online store? Real won't let me. Napster won't let me. Sony won't let me. Virgin won't let me. All these companies calling for apple to play fair have decided to crap on a good chunk of apple's customer base. Where's the lock-in? It's more of a lock-out!

Real is displaying their hypocricy not just in there demands for apple to license their proprietary format while keeping their own in house, and the battle cry of "freedom of choice" apparently applies only to Windows users. How can i possibly be sympathetic here?

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[garcia]

If you don't trust Real, then don't buy from them, but I fail to see how this is anything but a net positive for consumers.

As everyone here knows I am a HUGE proponent of supporting those musicians that support free music. I support them with tickets to concerts, spreading the good word about free music, and spreading their names as being bands to listen to...

People want to listen to this bullshit and there's nothing I can do to stop that. Legally we have little choice when it comes to downloading a song from the net unless we get it from one of the various sites on the net. iTMS has been the most successful so far. That said, their song quality sucks, their prices are really shitty for what you get, and their selection is god-awful unless you are a typical teeniebopper pop lover.

Real comes along and offers music for .49, a much better bargain, and not only do they do that, they offer it at a higher bitrate. If we don't have a choice for DRM or non-DRM and people might as well be allowed to pick from their choices of evil.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[Anonymous Coward]

If what Real Newtworks wants is actually preventing vendor lock-in then why doesn't it cut a deal with Apple and buy the rights for AAC codec or just sell mp3's? I think cracking up ipod is not the way to prevent vendor lock-in. In such a case Windows has the right to crack in to linux and viceversa. As you can see such a thing will sprial out of control and at some point everybody will be hacking their competetors products. This will strifle innovation (as opposed to enhancing innovation). This is the exact reason why we don't like the play of Real Networks.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[tgibbs]

Now, now, all you iPod fans are going to jump down my throat about Real's shitty codecs and how Apple's non-sense is so much better... I just can't agree with you. I haven't heard Real's code but I have heard 100s of samples of Apple's *and* 35 full length tracks. Apple's codec sucks compared to even MP3

I've seen a number of comparative listening tests, and AAC virtually always comes off ahead of mp3 at the same bit rate. I'd like to use it, but I don't want the ability to play my music to be tied to Apple's fortunes. I'm sticking with mp3. I can usually buy CDs for close to the price (and if used, sometimes cheaper) of iTunes Music Store, and I have a backup than I can re-rip at a higher bit rate as storage gets cheaper. And I can stream mp3 to my TiVo, which doesn't like AAC. So if Apple wants my business at their music store, they need to offer an unprotected format. I understand that the music industry won't let them do that, but that's not my problem. At least Apple's software and player supports mp3 as well as their own format. Apple probably doesn't care which I use--iTMS is there to sell iPods, not the other way around, and I'll probably end up buying an iPod anyway.

Of course, Real isn't opening up Apple's proprietary format; they're just horning in for their own benefit. They may well be legally entitled to do so, but they aren't the White Knight here. If they really want to play that role, give me a utility to convert Real formatted music and video files to standard mp3 and mpg.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[stratjakt]

Real was able to provide their DRM decoder in the iPod, I'm sure Virgin could do the same.

Could, technically, of course they could. Anyone who wanted to could sell their own DRMed content for the iPod. According to Apple, it's illegal.

See, DRM on the iPod isn't to protect artists from having their stuff stolen. It's to prevent competition in offering content for the iPod.

The only vendor of legally downloadable RIAA music for the iPod is Apple, and Apple wants to keep it that way.

Imagine your Sony CD player only played Sony CDs, to play any other commercially available music, it had to be bootlegged on a CD-R.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[revscat]

Do the Apple zealots think that this is the best way to approach this?

Just out of curiosity: what makes someone an Apple zealot? I use and enjoy Apple products. Am I a zealot?

Perhaps these Apple lovers have become so accustomed to vendor lock-in that they don't want any competition in the codecs available for this device?

If Apple were taking active steps to block and open codec such as MP3 (not really open, I know) or Ogg then I think more people would be up in arms and with good reason. But Real is a for-profit company attempting to put it's own closed and proprietary codec on another company's product. They haven't achieved marketplace success with their own hardware efforts, so they are attempting a backdoor means of getting a piece of the pie.

No one is fooled. Real is doing this for their bottom line and no other reason. This is not in and of itself a bad thing, but they are trying to convince people that this is a matter of civil rights. This "Power to the People" stuff is complete bullshit, and everyone knows it. There are plenty of open source add-ons available for the iPod; Apple has done nothing to discourage such developement. But there is no market pressure for the iPod to open up to more formats, especially not to proprietary ones like Real's.

Simply put: Real's disingenuousness is costing them.

Before they will get much sympathy in this battle they will need to either (a) open up .rm or (b) open up their music store to Mac users.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[tim_bissell]

Damn! I used up all my mod points yesterday, otherwise I'd have dumped a bunch on you. Just what you said.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Perhaps these Apple lovers have become so accustomed to vendor lock-in

You mean the way the Realaudio music store ONLY WORKS ON WINDOWS?

Oh, I forgot it's okay to lock in if you're Apple and it's terrible when you're not Apple.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[Rxke]

That's not the point. The point is: you can *not* deny the current iTunes sound less than perfect...
I'm a Mac-user myself, and I stand by it, but I'll never buy iTunes, not until they upgrade the quality.

And agreed: for casual listening it's ok. But IMHO it is an unreasonably hefty price to pay if you can't sit back and attentively listen to a piece of your favorite music w/o noticing the strange artifacts, the weird stereo-behaviour etc... compared to the original (CD, DAT or vinyl(!))

Most people don't agree, I know... But I love music, and I do not use my favorite music as a background. I tend to sit back and listen. Well Apple would be crazy to change their bitrate for a minorityguy like me of course. I can understand.
Too bad. I can wait, too. But it's a pity to see this coming from a company that makes high-quality, premium hardware, you know...

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[WaltFrench]

The fact that ... makes this a good buy for anybody...

Well, any iPod user who (1) has built their music collection in Windows and (2) never wants to use iTunes or the iTunes Music Store in the future.

'Cuz the next time you plug your iPod into your WinPC, iTunes will update the 'pod by adding any new songs & playlists, and removing any that are not on the iTunes list... just like it was originally designed to, way before the Real issue arose. As a result, you erase your Harmony tracks every time you use that marvelously easy/fast update. Then, you will need to either (a) manually re-copy all those tracks to your iPod, or (b) stop using iTunes and switch permanently to the Real jukebox, losing any iTMS music you got from Pepsi caps, free downloads of the week, or your hard-earned $$$.

And Real wants to claim they're offering a superior alternative?

Real justifies this lock-in with fine print as to "why you want to use the Real jukebox." Either all the songs you bought from iTMS or from Real, will become useless on an iPod, or you become a low-paid servant to that little tune player that you used to love.

The big deal with the iPod -- for me, and I think I'm typical with this -- is that it lets me just listen to music without all those techno-horrors. Not that it's cool, or sexy white, or Apple®. Real is offering a techno-horror of gotchas.

No wonder there's outrage. Mine is directed at Real's bait-and-switch, false sanctimony and their phony Dot-ORG marketing BS.

A universal DRM format? It'll probably have to be imposed on the hardware and software types by our friends the "music industry." Real, MS and Apple all have vested interests in promoting their kits. The only twist is that Apple actually has the upper hand here. And while it may look like the labels would benefit from selling the same program many times because of Balkanization, sooner or later they'll realize that commoditizing the players and stores leaves more money for them.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>I'll continue to stick to SHN/FLAC

>Then your portable music player must have FLAC/SHN support and a gargantuan hard drive for the terrible 2:1 compression ratios you get.

Not a problem. I'll gladly waste disk space for lossless compression, such as FLAC, SHN or even gzip.

Re:Vendor lock-in mentality?

[geekee]

"Suppose I bought some Real music, and only intended to play it on my iPod. Now suppose Apple wants to update the iPod, and that update happens to break Real's hack. Now my music doesn't play as Real promised it would - how is that positive?

I've worked at Apple; we tried to keep things backwards compatible even with 3rd party stuff or OS versions not officially supported - I kept Java working on 8.5 for several releases after it was officially dropped - but when it becomes impossible, the new feature wins. But that was for products we liked; even if Steve wasn't pissed off, I can't see any engineers bending over backwards to help Real"

Substitute Microsoft for every instance of Apple, Windows PC for every instance of iPod, OSS for every instance of Real, and Bill for Steve, and everyone with think your post is flaimbait.

Real should put their money where their mouth is

[savagedome]

We want Freedom of Music Choice

How about opening up the .rm format first so that I can use any player I want. Then we can talk on the same terms. Until then, Real, you can kiss my a$$.

And before you come in with Real Alternative, don't bother. I know about it and it's not the same thing.

Hm....

[The-Bus]

Visitors--some of whom identified themselves as "Michael Jackson," "The Pope" and "Bill Clinton"--expressed the view that they already have freedom of choice and would be exercising it by using Apple's iTunes music service.

That's some pretty famous people coming to Apple's defense.

Re:Hm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but who would want to be defended by Michael Jackson?

Re:Hm....

[Anonymous Coward]

We all knew the Pope was a Mac user already--

C'mon, the big hat, all the jewelery, the dress...

Re:Hm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Apple always did get the support of A-list celebs at Steve Jobs' keynotes. I just didn't realize that The Pope would leave the comment, "Real can suck my b@lls."

Re:Hm....

[Anonymous Coward]

plus stylish white clother, don't forget those. the iPod fits well into the pope's branding.

Re:Hm....

[chris_mahan]

Hum, you must have misquoted.

The pope would have said: "Real, suck my holy b@lls".

Re:Hm....

[stor]

We all knew the Pope was a Mac user already--

C'mon, the big hat, all the jewelery, the dress... ...the bullet-proof car windows...

Cheers
Stor

don't understand apple

[geneing]

The way I understand it, Apple makes most of the money on iPods. The iTunes business is to make ipods more attractive and brings almost no profit. Why don't they want to let others sells songs for ipod?

Re:don't understand apple

[ajservo]

If you sold someone a product that uses consumables in it, wouldn't you like it if they continued to rely on you and your services to provide a good experience for them?

Buy an iPod, download your music from itunes.
What would apple do to a ipod purchaser that was happy with their purchase that would justify dumping apple to go with a company that has never really supported or endorsed apple in the past?

I'm not a fan boy, but good customer support, reliable hardware, and the fact that paying a decent premium for hardware nets you reliable hardware, makes Apple a good decision all around.

It's got me considering buying a mac PC as my next box because of this.

Re:don't understand apple

[buzolich]

No one else found it suspicious when Jobs said we aren't making any money on iTunes? Maybe they didn't at first, but I have every faith in economics that they are now making money not only on iPods, but on the music sales as well. This is why apple doesn't want Real selling music.

Sorry, I should fall in line and realize that Jobs speaks only the truth and things or economies of scale never change...

Re:don't understand apple

[rjstanford]

What happens with one of Real's tunes doesn't work on the iPod? Possibly after new iPod software is released, even if its not trying to break the Real hack. I'll tell you what - Apple will get a tech support call. Whether or not its their fault, they're now paying (support costs money) for a problem that they had nothing to do with. Worse, the reputation of their offerings could potentially suffer.

That's why they're complaining.

Re:don't understand apple

[ad0gg]

Same reason why MS office will never get released to linux. Its all about control.

Re:don't understand apple

[rhsanborn]

Its going to be apple's fault when they release a firmware upgrade to intentionally stop this from happening.

Re:don't understand apple

[Dark Paladin]

Because it's not just about the iPods.

Look at today. For the DRM crowd (so we can throw out MP3 and Ogg files), there are 3 systems in competition:

Microsoft WMA (in the most stores, about 25% of the market)
Sony (in one store, let's give them 5%)
Apple Fairplay (70% of the market)

Where's Real in this? I'm not even going to give them that much credit - this is about why Apple doesn't want others playing in its Fairplay system.

Right now, who's making money?

Napster - losing money on selling music
Sony - supplemented by hardware sales
Apple - maybe they make money off of iTMS, but they make money from selling iPods
Microsoft - licensing fees every time somebody buys a WMA song

Recently, some companies who sell "Pirate proof" CD's have announced they're dropping WMA and going with something "iPod compatible". Why? Because 70% of the DRM market is in the hands of the iPod.

Now, you're response is right: if more people used Fairplay, or some hacked version, then Apple would sell more iPods, and they'd make more money.

You're right - as of the year 2004.

Now, let's jump in the magic time machine and head to 2014. Now, here's a possible look at the market:

DRM music files: WMA (5%), Sony (5%), Apple 95%. Real - somewhere between 0-1%.

iPods cost $99 for a 100G hard drive - enough to store so much music its silly. Even adding in PDA and visual abilities, it's still so much storage Apple makes hardly anything selling iPods.

But! They make millions a year because everybody uses their DRM system, and everybody has to license with Apple to play it.

Imagine Steve Jobs sitting in the Jobs Cave thinking "What if by 2010, Microsoft has to pay Apple every time they sell a Windows computer, because they need the Fairplay codec? That could mean millions of dollars a year "just because".

That is why they don't want others selling songs: why bother? If they can get Real to kick the bucket so that all in the world is either WMA or Fairplay (and the former only supported via monopoly money - no, not the Parker Brothers kind), then Apple will rule the future of online music, and put them in a position to make a lot of money in the future.

Don't just look at "hardware sales now". I think Steve learned his lesson from a long time ago (which is "hardware sales aren't always king"), and he's looking at the long term. Odds are, he'll release Fairplay to others (*cough*HP and Motoroloa*cough*) when he's ready to, and get people to join his vision.

Is he right or wrong? I don't worry. Last time I checked, my iPod still works great with music CD's I buy in the store. But at least now you know.

And knowing is half the battle.

Re:don't understand apple

[serano]

Apple makes most of the money on iPods. The iTunes business is to make ipods more attractive

If Apple is charging $.99 a song and not making a profit and Real can charge $.49 a song and not go out of business, then either
a) Real is selling at a lost to get market share
b) Apple is making more of a profit than they acknowledge, or
c) Real negotiated better licensing contracts than Apple did

Re:don't understand apple

[Anonymous Coward]

People will point the finger and blame Apple anyway if a firmware upgrade UNINTENTIONALLY stops Harmony files from working.

Re:don't understand apple

[Anonymous Coward]

> The iTunes business is to make ipods more attractive and brings almost no profit.
> Why don't they want to let others sells songs for ipod?

Because the store will bring even less profit if it sells fewer songs.

Re:don't understand apple

[Anonymous Coward]

FairPlay and many other products have specified interfaces. These interfaces are usually clearly specified rules about what you can and can't do. When you add new features you normally don't break this interface. Now Real has reverse engineered the app but doesn't know the can and cant's around the interface.

Apple will make firmware changes to support new iPod / iTunes features which don't damage product who actually play by the rules of the interface. These changes may make the real hack not work. They may or may not do this intentionally because they won't know. They will not test with Real's hacks and should not be obligated to. That is one of the reasons around their being licensing costs, for apple to cover the addition R&D costs for new feature changes.

Re:don't understand apple

[Anonymous Coward]

If the firmware upgrade stops Real's files from working on your ipod, doesn't that mean it's going to stop all of those files that you already bought from iTMS from working also? Since they both are AAC with Fairplay DRM wrapped around them...

Re:don't understand apple

[stratjakt]

Yeah, I'd blame Pioneer if a firmware upgrade stopped my DVD-RW drive from playing audio CDs. So what?

Is the future of music proprietary lock-in?

Will every consumer device have DRM that exists solely to make sure that the only legal source of content is the company that made the player? Cuz that sure looks like Apples vision of the future.

Re:don't understand apple

[itsdark]

iTunes Music Store, iTunes and iPod is a great threesome and they combined are what drives the current Apple success.

iPod is surely the one bringing home the cash, but all three are bringing in the success which allows the iPod to bring home the cash.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

The way I understand it, Apple makes most of the money on iPods. The iTunes business is to make ipods more attractive and brings almost no profit. Why don't they want to let others sells songs for ipod?

Because, given their reaction to Real, 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?

Re:don't understand apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they don't want to and there are a variety of reasons I could think why.

Integration. What makes the ipod the number 1 seller? features? probably not the iRivers beat them on that front or the neo? (the one with the backpacks for flash or hd). Pretty much everyone beats them on price so it isn't that either. They win because the look good, the work well and everything just feels intuitive. And that covers the whole package from ripping cds or purchasing them on line to just playing them on the ipod. Allowing 3rd party storys breaks part of that.

IMO music matchs software sucks, Reals software sucks in comparison to itunes. Yet if you want to purchase reals files you have to use the real software and then not sure how it makes it to the ipod but either which way it isn't the seemless experience they want.

Compatibility. This is especially true with the way that real has chosen to do things. Apple knows thier DRM protection and can and has changed it in the past with out breaking anything of thier own. Real made guesses how it works. They don't know how good those guesses are and apple may or may not know. If apple changes things either to break hymn, add features or just because they feel like it may break reals drm. You know apple will be the one fielding most of the calls when someone upgrades thier itunes or ipod firmware and thier songs stop playing. It's bad press for them, costs them money all from something they aren't benifiting from.

So why didn't they just liscense their drm to real? Well given reals history and general customer perception of them would you really want them being associated with you? More genericly it adds someone else who will have to update thier software potentially every time apple changes something related to drm.

Itunes store. While it's true that it isn't a big money maker compared to the iPod I'm sure that it's something that does better as it scales. The more music they sell the more money they make or less they loose. Letting real on is going to decrease thier volume. The motorola phone on the other hand can only increase thier sales and help lead into more ipod sales.

Re:don't understand apple

[ignipotentis]

That's why they're complaining.

Hrmmm, if Apple would license their DRM, they wouldn't be in this prediciment to begin with.

Re:don't understand apple

[Bastian]

As soon as Real gets access to the iPod and iTunes, your iPod is going to start transmitting your GPS coordinates back to Real so they can keep track of what places you like to frequent and what stores you shop at. Your iPod will also randomly start playing advertisements, and your copy of iTunes will display nothing but slideshows of banner ads when you try to use the visualiser.

Re:don't understand apple

[rednever]

Apple did make a small profit on iTunes. They just didn't expect they would. Steve Jobs disclosed during the iTunes One Year Anniversary conference call. Any profits they do make off iTunes should be listed in their quarterly SEC filings.

Source: http://www.macminute.com/2004/04/28/itunescall

Re:don't understand apple

[revscat]

Because, given their reaction to Real, 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.

If you can prove $0.35 number then you should really call a securities attorney or the SEC, because that means that Apple has been lying to their shareholders, that their auditors are lying, and that in fact they are vastly more profitable on their music store than any of their competitors. Anyone who had evidence of this could make a ton of money. Makes me wonder why it hasn't happened already, actually.

Oh wait. It hasn't happened because you're wrong. That's a much simpler explanation. Occam wins again!

Re:don't understand apple

[caddisfly]

well, there is short term and long term..... I can pay for a Ferrari for about 6 months, but after that I am toast unless I buy a dodge dart!

Re:don't understand apple

[caddisfly]

....yes, and look at the licensing/copyright/IP laws in Russia. They don't much exist. I bet no one - artists included - is getting paid for these downloads.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

If you can prove $0.35 number then you should really call a securities attorney or the SEC, because that means that Apple has been lying to their shareholders, --snip, blah, blah, blah--

Don't believe me, believe the mac news sites

Oh wait. It hasn't happened because you're wrong. That's a much simpler explanation.

If you were as smart as you are smug, you wouldn't be so easily duped by El Senor Jobs.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

I bet no one - artists included - is getting paid for these downloads.

This is what makes Apple's "no profit" claim so pathetic.

Allofmp3 *could* charge whatever they want. but they don't. they're making enough profit on FOUR CENTS PER SONG.

Re:don't understand apple

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Except that it's not 70% FairPlay anymore. Wal-Mart, in particular, has already gobbled up 35% of the market, and it's still growing.

The 70% figure is from an outdated Apple press release.

Re:don't understand apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, let's jump in the magic time machine and head to 2014.
They make millions a year because everybody uses their DRM system, and everybody has to license with Apple to play it.

At which point Apple will have completed the transition from plucky underdog to the great satan, officially displacing the RIAA and Jack Valenti from their current vaunted positions.

Re:don't understand apple

[mduell]

Whats your source for the 35% figure for WMT? That incredible growth on their part.

Re:don't understand apple

[Tokerat]

As soon as Real gets access to the iPod and iTunes, your iPod is going to start transmitting your GPS coordinates back to Real so they can keep track of what places you like to frequent and what stores you shop at. Your iPod will also randomly start playing advertisements, and your copy of iTunes will display nothing but slideshows of banner ads when you try to use the visualiser.

As sarcastic as that comment was, I wouldn't be suprised if this story where to come true; I've used RealPlayer before.

Re:don't understand apple

[adolf]

Oh. Ok.

A few points:

1. Fairplay isn't a codec. It's better described for as a restrictive wrapper for AAC. If Apple did their job correctly in designing this wrapper, it ought to be general enough to be able to be applied to any data. (Fairplay MP3s? AVIs? JPGs? PDFs? Sure!)

2. AFAIK, nobody is licensing Fairplay from Apple. Therefore, it's not a profit-center. And, thus far, there's no evidence to show that it ever will be.

3. Nobody knows where the compressed music market will be in 2010. That's six years from now. Generally speaking, this entire industry is younger than that.

4. Remember, Apple is already competing with the likes of KaZaA, Gnutella, eDonkey, Usenet and IRC, where everything is free, while iTunes wants 99 cents per track. Losing exclusivity for Fairplay is the least of their problems.

5. Never assume that just because the item seems inexpensive, that there's no profit involved. Just because you can't buy a big hard drive, quasi-touchpanel, LCD, DSP, lithium battery, and a slick plastic box cheaper as individual parts than you can in the form of an assembled iPod means nothing. Apple gets better pricing on its parts than you or I, as individuals, ever will.

This allows them to sell to us finished, working units cheaper than we can build them ourselves. If the price of an iPod appears to be so cheap that one can't imagine how they manage to make any money selling them, that just means that their marketing and procurement departments are doing their job

And they're not alone in this game, either. GM builds cars cheaper than I can, too. But they're plenty profitable, and have been for a really long time. GE sells appliances cheaper than I can build 'em, also at a profit. My Uniden cordless phone would cost me a fortune to implement myself, so I bought one instead. Same with my laser printer, my monitors, and my stereo components.

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that any of this is news to you, but I've gotta ask anyway:

Are you really so naive to think that just because you can't concieve of how they might profit from iPod sales, that they must not be profitable at all? If so, then that is exactly the reason that they're the ones selling 'em by the boatload, and you're not.

Re:don't understand apple

[caddisfly]

....and you know this (they make a profit) how?

If you get a couple of 100 gigs of HD and a ISP, etc., and start selling stuff you ripped (pun intended) off and don't own the distribution license to, you may last for a bit of time or even longer; street vendors selling fake rolex watches "make a profit" also

....and most illegal activity sells "goods" below market. Why? Because it didn't cost them anything (or little) to get it or they like to keep it under the radar. Real Rolex can't/won't go after fake Rolex street vendor because it costs them too much (they have pay people like you $10, or $20, $30/hr) or the vendor lives in *another country*, etc

....why don't you think this just like "free" Napster, but they decided to charge money instead? (IOW, charging for stuff they stole that everyone used to get for free!) boy, what a rip off that would be! ;-)

....and I bet you give these guys your credit card number as well?

Sleep well at night! ;-) ....

Re:don't understand apple

[Dark Paladin]

2. AFAIK, nobody is licensing Fairplay from Apple. Therefore, it's not a profit-center. And, thus far, there's no evidence to show that it ever will be.

Sorry, I was trying to imagine a "period in the future" where such items are commodotized, and a possibility that Apple might go towards. Naturally, in your wisdom I'm sure you can see that since nobody "knows" the future, this is all guesswork on our part.

My apologies if you believed that I was actually making "real" (no pun intended) predictions of the future, rather than just a "what if" exercise to explain to the parent poster why Apple wouldn't want people to play in the Fairplay arena.

Are you really so naive to think that just because you can't concieve of how they might profit from iPod sales, that they must not be profitable at all? If so, then that is exactly the reason that they're the ones selling 'em by the boatload, and you're not.

Again, I was just bringing up possibilities, not actual facts of the future. Please unknot the panties, remember that a lot of this discussion boils down to navel gazing, and have a nice yummy hot chocolate. It will put things in perspective.

Re:don't understand apple

[krel]

Real is only doing the $.49 for a short while. They've publicly said that shareholders can expect a 0.05$ loss per share for it.
They absolutely can't keep selling songs at 0.49$ for any long period of time.

Re:don't understand apple

[krel]

WOULD YOU MODERATORS STOP MODDING THESE EXPLAINATIONS DOWN?!
This is exactly the reason Apple doesn't want Real messing with their iTunes/iPod experience!
I'm sure most of you don't know Apple too well, but since day one the single quality they strive for in their products is ease of use, and Real with their spyware-bloated software atrocities would immediately render that feature of the iPod useless.

Real is trying to pass Apple off as some sort of Microsoft-like hate group, insisting that they're stifling consumer liberties, which is laughable because Apple's main competitor is Kazaa and other P2P networks, not Real or Sony or Napster. Apple can't compete on price here, so they compete on quality. As soon as some parasite-like sponge-company (Real) insists they're iPod-compatible, people are going to start calling Apple and complaining that their music won't work, or the music store didn't download a song correctly -- and why should Apple have to support another miserable online music source like Real? At least with Kazaa there's the excuse that a customer shouldn't have been stealing music in the first place, but Real is supposed to be "legitimate".

The problem is than Real is too lazy and incompetent to create their own genius portable music player, and so in one last attempt to stay afloat, they're latching on to Apple's hard work and claiming they have a god-given right to a piece of Apple's hard-earned success.

The only good solution here is for Apple to burn down Real headquarters and everyone inside.

Re:don't understand apple

[SilentChris]

"If you sold someone a product that uses consumables in it"

Stop right there. How is music "consumable"? You buy it, you stick it on X devices (if you can), you keep it for as long as you live. The analogy falls apart from word 9.

Re:don't understand apple

[ajservo]

You listen to it?

Check out the definition of consume on dictionary.com

2. To purchase economic goods and services: "a society that consumes as fast as it produces."

You buy something, it is a consumable object.
You don't have to eat it or smoke it to become this.
It only has to be something you can absorb. Listening is as much absorption as reading or watching TV.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

and you know this (they make a profit) how?

Because they're still in business. Even if they make exactly zero profit, it still proves the "no profit on iTMS" idea to be a crock. Occam's razor, my friend.

...and most illegal activity sells "goods" below market. Why? Because it didn't cost them anything (or little) to get it ... which is what makes Apple's claim of "no profit" so pathetic. Let me restate it, since you seem to be having trouble understanding.

1. Apple charges 99c per song, 35c of which goes straight to Apple.

2. AllofMP3.com charges ~four cents per song. Even if 100% of that goes to them, without paying any royalties, they're still able to stay in business.

3. Therefore, if allofmp3.com is able to cover their expenses (cc processing, bandwidth, hosting, electricity, staff, etc) on FOUR CENTS PER SONG (which is the high estimate, assuming no royalties being paid out), then Apple's claim of making no profit taking in 35c per song is complete bullshit.

And look, Steve Jobs proves me right, in a private conference call.

If apple sold 200 million songs, that fits right in with the $70 million profit figure that Jobs himself mentions.

Of course, publicly, he has a completely different story. Publicly, he pretends that they make no profit on iTMS. It's great PR, it fits in great with Jobs' bullshit faux-hippie image, and it works--

*Because he knows Apple zealots are too sheepish to do their own research.

*Because anyone who contradicts the word of Jobs is shouted down, even if Jobs' statements are completely illogical

This whole "no profit on iTMS" line is just like his famous "$1 salary". That's a load of horseshit too. Because along with that $1 salary, he also receives $74.7 million in restricted stock; Apple also provides him a private jet, which he leases back to Apple for $1.2 million in two years

Hate Microsoft and Real all you want. Their products certainly aren't the best. But Bill Gates actually does good things with his ill-gotten gains. Jobs pathologically lies about what he takes in, then keeps it for himself.

Re:don't understand apple

[caddisfly]

Because they're still in business. Even if they make exactly zero profit, it still proves the "no profit on iTMS" idea to be a crock. Occam's razor, my friend. '

that is a non-sequitur -- they exist therefore they must be profitable? There are tons of companies who "are still in business" but aren't making a profit. Try the short term/long term concept on your analysis. Your razor is need of some sharpening.

1. Apple charges 99c per song, 35c of which goes straight to Apple.

...and you assume this 35 cents is profit? based on what? revenue does not equal profit! unless you know Apple's cost structure, you can't determine profit. [I will grant you their cost structure is higher than a Moscow apartment or where ever the "4 cent/MB" is based, but that is a different discussion. They obviously don't have to pay lawyers.]
I think your razor company just went out of business.

Steve Jobs proves me right, in a private conference call. If apple sold 200 million songs, that fits right in with the $70 million profit figure that Jobs himself mentions.

...apparently your eye-glasses company went out of business as well. Read your reference article. He didn't say they made proft of $70M on itunes, he said they sold 70M songs and "made a small profit" on itunes that quarter.

*Because he knows Apple zealots are too sheepish to do their own research.

...and - given the evidence you just provided - apparently whatever group classification you put yourself in as well. (although I don't think the problem has anything to do with "sheep" - perhaps more porklike.)

Microeconomics 101: It is entirely conceivable that Apple lost money on downloads 1 to 40 million; broke even on 41 million to 50 million; and made a "small profit" on 51 million to 70 million. [See concepts of "marginal costs/fixed costs/economies of scale".]

So what? At the time the statement was made - I think it was at the itunes launch, Apple probably didn't make a "profit". Even today, the profit of itunes is not the driver for their music business, the ipod is. If the market suddenly dropped the per unit revenue of a download to 49 cents (or 4 cents), the whole revenue line gets shifted, but the cost line stays the same. Back to no-profit. [See prospectus of Real. ;-)]

it fits in great with Jobs' bullshit faux-hippie image,

hippieness is a state of mind, not a state of pocket book ;-) No one ever accused Jobs of being poor or dumb. You really hate the guy don't you? take a valium and quit listening to Fox and Rush for tips on debating and making points.

Hate Microsoft and Real all you want.

1. How did Bill get into this?
2. Real - now there is an interesting test for your logic. They exist - "are in business" - but are demonstrably unprofitable. Hmmmm. I didn't think that was possible.

Let's see: need of a shave, can't see, a bit pig-headed and wasn't an econ major....oh, I see where Bill comes in! ;-) But the dude can make some "profit" though.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

that is a non-sequitur -- they exist therefore they must be profitable? There are tons of companies who "are still in business" but aren't making a profit.

So your position is that Allofmp3.com has been in business for the last 3 years, and losing money the entire time? So, what, they're a charity organization? Allofmp3.com could charge however much they want. Why would they choose an amount that was so low, they'd lose money on it for three years straight? If you want to discuss logical non-sequiturs, start with your own little bizarro world, big guy.

...and you assume this 35 cents is profit? based on what? revenue does not equal profit!

...and you assume this 35 cents is *all cost*? Even if Allofmp3 spends all four cents to cover their expenses (because you seem to think they're a non-profit charity organization), Apple's still making 30 cents profit per song. On 70 million songs, that's still 23 million dollars profit.

Hell, say Apple's operating cost is TRIPLE that of AllofMP3. Apple's still making 16.1 million dollars.

At the time the statement was made - I think it was at the itunes launch, Apple probably didn't make a "profit".

Now that's just insane. Apple announced that they hadn't made a profit on iTunes the day they launched it? Somehow I doubt that.

The only other way to read your statement is that Apple announced that they weren't *planning on* making a profit, when they launched the store. Well, that makes Jobs look like an even bigger liar-- you see, they missed their sales projections by 30 million songs, and still made a pretty sizeable profit. So you're saying that they were actually planning on making a bigger profit than the one they made?

Even today, the profit of itunes is not the driver for their music business, the ipod is.

Once again, taking the word of Jobs as gospel. Haven't we already demonstrated that he's a pathological liar?

Re:don't understand apple

[caddisfly]

".....So your position is that Allofmp3.com has been in business for the last 3 years, and losing money the entire time? So, what, they're a charity organization?"....

No, my position is that # of years means NOTHING. You are the one making the claim based on number of years. I just asked the question. You haven't been around long have you? there are tons of examples of businesses who run losses for multiple years. look at the telcom industry; look at any number of companies during dot.com era; look at the auto industry as the Japanese cars were coming in; heck, look at Apple for several years running; A corp can be unprofitable for as long as it has cash in the bank and can cover it short term costs; in fact, some will take those losses for the promise of long term return or to establish a market -- it is called INVESTMENT.

your world is the bizarre one: you're trying equate your unsupported belief in the financial status of some website based in Russia who is dealing stolen licenses and is probably run by some kid with a 500GB hard drive existing in a financial culture that has little or no regulation and laws and is probably accountable to no one - and then use it as a model to grind on an american public corporation with 10s of thousands of employees subject to the state and federal regulations in a culture full of lawyers just because you hate the CEO....get real....

"......and you assume this 35 cents is *all cost*? ..."

Never said that, I said it was revenue. I don't know how much is cost - your the one making the claim that Apple is making some huge profit on each download. Prove it. Look at Apples financial statements. Look at AllofMP3 statements...oops, that's right, they don't have to file any do they? of course, but they do have your credit card number....what is your credit limit? ;-)

"Apple announced that they hadn't made a profit on iTunes the day they launched it? Somehow I doubt that...."

...again, you haven't been around much. How long did it take Amazon to make a profit (have they yet?) How long did it take Google? how about the artificial diamond industry, etc etc etc

do you really understand how business works? do you think if someone opens a business with all its related costs (rent, inventory, marketing, fixtures, marketing, etc), that they make a profit with the first widget they sell? Not the norm. particularly if it is an unknown or new market - which is exactly where Apple was when they started legal downloads. It is perfectly reasonable that they may have gambled short term profits and sustained "breakeven" or some losses on itunes for an investment as a new adopter to set the standard for long term market growth. Would you rather make 35 cents per on 10 million downloads the first year or 5 cents per on 500 million year after year a couple of years down the road when everyone is using your product (ipod) where you make $$ per unit. I know your answer, so, interested in this bridge I have?....

"....The only other way to read your statement is that Apple..."

No, that is the only way YOU can read the statement...and as you have already shown, you can't read....even your own citations.

"...Once again, taking the word of Jobs as gospel. Haven't we already demonstrated that he's a pathological liar?"....

no, WE have shown YOU believe he is a pathological liar

Re:don't understand apple

[krel]

They did. They licensed it to Motorola and to HP.
Apple's #1 in this industry because their products work so well, and if Apple suspects a company might lessen a customer's enjoyment with a crappy store, then Apple has the right not to license their software to them.
Especially a parasitic joke-of-a-company like Real Networks.
The iTunes Music Store was made for the iPod, and the format it uses was only designed to work with iTMS. If Real wants to sell music so badly, then they have a couple of options:

1: They can put the hard work and money in to creating their own iTunes/iPod-like solution. (hard)
2: They can sell their music in an unencrypted format and fight with the record labels for the right to do so. (hard)
3: They can go against Apple's decision and try to worm their way in to the iPod with sleazy back-handed tactics. (easy)

Real could do any of those, but Real doesn't have the talent or money for #1, and they don't have the credibility or intelligent reasoning skills for #2, but real has proven in the past that they're the best in the business at #3.

Re:don't understand apple

[krel]

Your DVD-RW drive is supposed to play audio CDs. It said so on the box when you bought it. Apple has never supported and never will support Real's junk, so if their cheap hack breaks, Real's to blame.

Though unfortunately iPod users won't see it that way, and they'll complain to Apple and like the iPod less. In the end, Apple will end up paying for Real's store while reaping none of the benefits.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

A corp can be unprofitable for as long as it has cash in the bank and can cover it short term costs; in fact, some will take those losses for the promise of long term return or to establish a market -- it is called INVESTMENT.


you're talking on a whole lot about business, but not responding to the obvious question that I've asked TWICE: Why would AllofMP3.com set their price *so low* that they would lose money, and do so for three years straight?

The only logical conclusion is that they're not losing money. You seem convinced of the opposite, for some ridiculous, unknown reason. AllofMP3 could increase their price by a factor of 10, and still be less expensive than Real or Apple. Explain that one, Adam Smith.

do you think if someone opens a business with all its related costs (rent, inventory, marketing, fixtures, marketing, etc), that they make a profit with the first widget they sell? ... and as I've shown, even if AllofMP3 makes zero profit, and Apple's costs are TRIPLE AllofMP3's costs, Apple's still making 16.1 million dollars.

... and as I've ALSO SHOWN (and you conveniently ignore), Apple missed their own projections by 30 million songs, and still made a big profit. This means that they were planning on making an EVEN BIGGER PROFIT than the one they made.

No, that is the only way YOU can read the statement...and as you have already shown, I can't read....

...fixed that typo for you. I posted two interpretations-- and you completely ignored the second interpretation that completely blows away your argument. I reposted it above, using slightly different wording, in case you were having trouble with some of the larger words.

WE have shown YOU believe he is a pathological liar

and his "$1 salary" that's actually upwards of $75 million in yearly compensation?

and his "no profit on iTMS sales" claim, when his own sales projections predict they're going to rake in millions of dollars?

It's too bad your religious beliefs get in the way of your ability to think rationally. It's fairly obvious the guy's worse than the Iraqi Information Minister when it comes to factual information.

Re:don't understand apple

[caddisfly]

The only thing you do is tell us what you believe and want to be the case, repeat it often enough and somehow that will make it so. [Do you work for the Bush Administration?]

Where is your evidence that Apple is making "huge profit"? or your evidence that "allofMP3" does as well. YOU made the claim. I simply asked "How do you know that?" and you simply repeat "Because that is what I believe" or make other non-related claims that I have pointed out with examples which show your claims open to the totally opposite conclusion.

Lets look at your "allofMP3" numbers (4 cents/MB, correct?) and try to normalize them with Apple:

* your average 4.5 minute song takes about 5MB of space.

* ergo, consumer cost at "allofMP3" is 20 cents. (4 cents x 5MB)

* now add the cost that "doesn't go directly to Apple" which Apple has to pay because they have a legal product and have to pay the record companies, artists, etc.
You have stated that this is 64 cents ("....35 cents goes directly to Apple"...99-35=64). This is the cost that all legitimate owners of the license would have to pay. It is fixed cost to Apple and others and can't be influenced by the efficiencies, internal costs or economies of Apple and others ("allofMP3" included).

* suddenly the "normalized" cost of a 4.5 minute "allofMP3" track becomes 84 cents. [20 cents + 64 cents] (a 5.5 minute song would cost 90 cents at "allofMP3", etc) Suddenly, the "allofMP3" deal doesn't look that much different than Apples.

* now the question for you - if you decide to actually use evidence and partake in analytical thinking is: how much of "allofMP3"' 20 cents is "profit" and how much is "costs" and/or how much of Apple's 35 cents is "profit" and how much is "costs".

Let me hold your hand -- I would suspect that Apple's costs are not the same as "allofMP3". Why?

1. I don't see any comparable R&D done at "allofMP3"; they are just serving music, they didn't develop the itunes program and interface, etc
2. I haven't seen any marketing efforts done by "allofMP3" - print, radio, TV ads; Apple's cost multiple millions;
3. No evidence that "allofMP3" had to pay any lawyers to negogiate fees with license holders like Apple did
4. I would think the respective salary of employees is a bit different; Guess now, which one do you think is higher? ...and how about the benefits piece? US v Russia
5. Taxes in US vs Russia
6. Cost of facilities and data centers are probably different
7. Cost of respective customer support infrastructure. does "allofMP3" have one?

etc, etc

Now, the cost of living index is higher in Russia than US (123 v 100 see http://www.expatforum.com/Resources/icol.htm), but make sure you READ the assumptions on that number. For example, housing costs are not included.

I suspect the cost of labor is lower in Russia but cost of technology may be higher....but who knows?. You are one making the claim, find out!

and his "$1 salary" that's actually upwards of $75 million in yearly compensation?

FYI, salary does not equal compensation. Your compensation, assuming you are employed, is higher than your salary, but when you quote how much you are paid, I bet you don't use your compensation figure. All of which, btw, are a COST or EXPENSE to your employer.

Apple missed their own projections by 30 million songs, and still made a big profit.

You need to "sharpen" - remember, your razor is dull - your projections argument. Missing projections (high) could result in higher costs or lower costs depending on the efficiencies of your infrastructure. Did increase your revenue projections though. Fixed costs don't vary over units sold. Variable costs could due to diseconomies/economies of scale, etc. VC would be the main thing that would be impacted by "missing the projection".

So, go ahead, make your case with some EVIDENCE of how missing the projections resulted in apple making HUGE profits. Pls

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

Lets look at your "allofMP3" numbers (4 cents/MB, correct?) and try to normalize them with Apple:

Weren't you the one pounding the pulpit about reading comprehension? Try again, there, genius.

I'll even link my post so you won't pretend you can't find it.

snip-- blah blah blah, a bunch of shit conclusions based on the fact that you can't read properly, and then-- You need to "sharpen" - remember, your razor is dull

LOL. what a joke.

BTW-- you've once again managed to IGNORE the point that destroys your whole pretend world where Apple isn't full of shit. Here it is again, for the THIRD TIME:

Why would AllofMP3.com set their price *so low* that they would lose money, and do so for three years straight?

The only logical conclusion is that they're not losing money. You seem convinced of the opposite, for some ridiculous, unknown reason.

Look, I even put it in bold, so you can't pretend you missed it for a fourth time.

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

User956, caddisfly never stated that AllOfMP3.com is losing money, so you can give up that particular straw man now. The burden is upon you to demonstrate that Apple's operating costs are as low as AllOfMP3.com's. Until you can do that I suggest you shut up, as you are making a real idiot of yourself.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

caddisfly never stated that AllOfMP3.com is losing money, so you can give up that particular straw man now.

My position is that AllofMP3 is making money, since if they can set their own price, it's illogical that they would set it so low (1c per meg) that they would lose money (and keep it that low for years and years). Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is the most probable.

His position more complicated, and is somewhere in the opposite. (that AllofMP3 is either not making money, or losing money, he hasn't specified). See the following:

There are tons of companies who "are still in business" but aren't making a profit. Try the short term/long term concept on your analysis.

...there are tons of examples of businesses who run losses for multiple years...

Blah, blah, and so on. Now, I know you Maclots are required to stick up for each other (per membership agreement in the cult), but you really should have read the whole thread before opening your big mouth, and subsequently filling it with your foot.

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

For what it's worth, I agree with you about AllOfMP3, I very much doubt it's losing money.

However, caddisfly's position is that even if AllOfMP3 can make money at 4 cents a song, that doesn't mean to say that it's possible for Apple to make 31+ cents a song when their revenue is 35c.

caddisfly didn't say that AllOfMP3 are either losing money or not making money. He/she just said that being in business for three years is no guarantee of making money. That is true. Again, though, I agree with you, the simplest explanation is the best: AllOfMP3 is likely turning some sort of profit.

However, you STILL haven't addressed caddisfly's point, which is that just because AllOfMP3 have operating costs low enough for them to profit at 4 cents a song, doesn't mean to say that Apple can have operating costs low enough to make a considerable profit from 35c revenue. There, I've stated it again just so you can't pretend you've missed it again :P

Please now answer the question, rather than re-attempting to bolster your straw man!

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

However, you STILL haven't addressed caddisfly's point, which is that just because

We weren't able to get to it. He was apparently more interested in self-ingratiation and hypocritical witticisms to actually read and comprehend what I was saying, so the conversation didn't progress that far.

AllOfMP3 have operating costs low enough for them to profit at 4 cents a song, doesn't mean to say that Apple can have operating costs low enough to make a considerable profit from 35c revenue. Which is why I went so far as to say that even if AllofMP3 makes ZERO profit, and Apple's costs are THREE TIMES that of AllofMP3, Apple's still making $16.1 million. Even if Apple's expenses are 20c per track (which is ridiculously high), they're still making $10 million.

...even worse, they made this profit with a sales shortfall of 30 million songs. They were planning on making more money than they made. The whole "no profit on iTMS" has been a crock of shit from the beginning. They know it, too, which is why they lump iTMS sales in with "ipod accessories" in the Q3 SEC filing.

The problem with Apple is that they won't just admit that they're a corporation like all other corporations. No, they're *different*. Their CEO only takes $1 salary. Their online music store is a hair away from being a charity. They just offer it as a service out of the goodness of their hearts, so the people with ipods have something to listen to.

Yeah. Right.

If Jobs didn't compulsively fabricate this smokescreen of total bullshit, he might not drive away 97% of the computing market, and people might actually take Apple seriously as a company.

Please now answer the question, rather than re-attempting to bolster your straw man

My analysis of caddisfly's argument was quite fair. The only strawmen we've seen here are imported from Maclot-sylvania.

Re:don't understand apple

[lavar78]

Which is why I went so far as to say that even if AllofMP3 makes ZERO profit, and Apple's costs are THREE TIMES that of AllofMP3, Apple's still making $16.1 million. Even if Apple's expenses are 20c per track (which is ridiculously high), they're still making $10 million.

But the problem here is your "three times" number is completely arbitrary. Take another look at caddisfly's list of reasons why Apple's costs are probably different (higher) than AllofMP3's:

1. I don't see any comparable R&D done at "allofMP3"; they are just serving music, they didn't develop the itunes program and interface, etc
2. I haven't seen any marketing efforts done by "allofMP3" - print, radio, TV ads; Apple's cost multiple millions;
3. No evidence that "allofMP3" had to pay any lawyers to negogiate fees with license holders like Apple did
4. I would think the respective salary of employees is a bit different; Guess now, which one do you think is higher? ...and how about the benefits piece? US v Russia
5. Taxes in US vs Russia
6. Cost of facilities and data centers are probably different
7. Cost of respective customer support infrastructure. does "allofMP3" have one?

You probably have no idea how much any of that costs, so it's rather naive to say that expenses of $0.20/track for Apple is "ridiculously high." Your entire argument is based on assumptions and leaps of logic.

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

We weren't able to get to it. He was apparently more interested in self-ingratiation and hypocritical witticisms to actually read and comprehend what I was saying, so the conversation didn't progress that far.

I have never seen such ridiculous denial. Halfway through a sentence in which I show you that I have seen and understood caddisfly's point, you cut in to tell me that it doesn't exist. Somebody else has replied to this thread too, telling you you don't get it, so caddisfly and I are not the only ones who think that.

Anyway, where does this "THREE TIMES" figure come from? I suspect you pulled it out of somewhere the sun doesn't shine. Your argument is based rather too heavily on the word "if".

The problem with Apple is that they won't just admit that they're a corporation like all other corporations. No, they're *different*. Their CEO only takes $1 salary.

You think anyone is under the impression that Jobs's salaray has anything to do with charity, or altruism? Of course not. There's another straw man you've created.

Their online music store is a hair away from being a charity. They just offer it as a service out of the goodness of their hearts, so the people with ipods have something to listen to.

You've got a right little straw crowd coming on. No, being unprofitable is not the same as being charitable. Go away and look up "loss-leader".

My analysis of caddisfly's argument was quite fair. The only strawmen we've seen here are imported from Maclot-sylvania.

Just stating that you're right doesn't make it so. It seems you need to look up "straw man" too.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

But the problem here is your "three times" number is completely arbitrary. Take another look at caddisfly's list of reasons why Apple's costs are probably different (higher) than AllofMP3's:

It's arbitrary, is it? Nice. It's actually not. It comes from Roxio's costs of operating Napster (10-Q filing):

1. R&D: $3.7million
2. Sales & Marketing: $2.5million
3. General & Administrative: $1.5million
4. total employees related to the Napster service: 17, salaries included in figures above
5, 6, 7. LOL. See above.
Total Operating expenses for online music division: $7.7million

I don't see why Apple's expenses would be that much more than Napster. These expenses work out to 11c per track (about 3x AllofMP3). Lets say Apple's costs are DOUBLE what Napster's expenses are. (It's ridiculously high, but any less gets the Maclots screaming the estimate is unfair. Yeah, I've seen that before.) That leaves us at expenses of about 20c per track.

Thanks for playing. Maybe your kindergarten teacher explain the numbers if you have trouble.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

I have never seen such ridiculous denial. Halfway through a sentence in which I show you that I have seen and understood caddisfly's point, you cut in to tell me that it doesn't exist. Somebody else has replied to this thread too, telling you you don't get it, so caddisfly and I are not the only ones who think that.

I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said we weren't able to get to it. I kept having to repeat the same important point, because he kept ignoring it, and blathering on about how I needed to buy a glasses factory, or sharpen a razor. He ignored it three times, and then ran off. Pathetic.

(FYI-- The three times figure is addressed here.)

Re:don't understand apple

[caddisfly]

....sigh...I understand now...you are a dog, right?

Re:don't understand apple

[lavar78]

1. You're assuming Napster's R&D costs are the same as (or even comparable to) Apple's; you have no proof whatsoever. Remember, Apple was the trailblazer in this market -- and they traditionally have higher R&D costs. I suspect they are spending a lot more money here.
2. You're assuming Napster's sales and marketing costs are similar to Apple's. Again, you have no proof. This is called an assumption.
3. - 7. See above.

Roxio != Apple

I don't see why Apple's expenses would be that much more than Napster.

Unlike almost everything else you've written, this is an actual fact -- you don't see how this could be possible. However, that doesn't mean it isn't. By your reasoning, Napster should be in the black as well, but, AFAIK, they aren't. Please correct me if I'm wrong... and try to do it with facts instead of more assumptions.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

Unlike almost everything else you've written, this is an actual fact -- you don't see how this could be possible. However, that doesn't mean it isn't. --snip, blah blah blah -- Please correct me if I'm wrong... and try to do it with facts instead of more assumptions.

You're missing the whole point. I've already proven my original assertion--Which is that Apple is profiting from iTMS.

Steve Jobs admitted it in his conference call to shareholders, and it's in the 3Q report. We established that yesterday.

Now, estimating *how much* profit is just a fun little exercise, to see *how big* of a lie the "no profit on iTMS" claim actually is. If you're not interested in that, which you're obviously not, why even post?

Re:don't understand apple

[lavar78]

No, you're changing the point. Yes, Apple is making a profit on the iTMS -- no one disputed that. You insist on claiming Apple lied about making "no profit on iTMS" or expecting not to make a profit when it's quite possible they crossed into the black at some point well after the launch and they beat their expectations because of higher-than-predicted revenue and/or lower-than-predicted expenses. You're assuming Apple has been deliberately lying about the profitability of the iTMS (something they were eventually going to report, BTW) without any proof. At any rate, that's about all I have to say, so feel free to have the last word if you want it.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

Yes, Apple is making a profit on the iTMS -- no one disputed that.

LOL. Nobody? Re-read the thread.

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

How ironic that you think he kept ignoring you, and yet you think the two of you were unable to get to the point because you continuingly ignored him.

Also note there is more dignity in realising you're arguing with a complete idiot and stopping banging your head against a brick wall than there is in carrying on posting straw men and failing to address the argument.

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

Your "original assertion" is nothing like the whole point. You've stated further up this thread that "the whole point" is something completely different. Nobody said that Apple wasn't profiting. Show me this "No profit on iTMS" claim. LINK TO IT. QUOTE IT. You can't. The only person that said it was made of straw.

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

Link to it, then. Quote it directly, don't just link to a reply which you think implies that someone disputed it. Make you quotation at least as direct as this one from caddisfly:

He didn't say they made proft of $70M on itunes, he said they sold 70M songs and "made a small profit" on itunes that quarter.

Or this one:

"......and you assume this 35 cents is *all cost*? ..."

Never said that, I said it was revenue. I don't know how much is cost

Good luck, strawboy!

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

Your "original assertion" is nothing like the whole point.

It's not? How do you manage to fit your foot in your mouth, when your head is so far up your ass?

"Because, given their reaction to Real, it's a logical deduction that Apple is LYING OUT THEIR ASS about "not making any money from iTunes music sales"."

Nobody said that Apple wasn't profiting. Show me this "No profit on iTMS" claim. LINK TO IT. QUOTE IT. You can't.

LOL. I can't? Nobody challenged my argument?

"....and you know this (they make a profit) how?"

There's no argument left. I've proven my point-- so all you Maclots can do is try to eke some minimal amount of victory by muddying the point of the discussion.

You really should take the advice from your sig: 'Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.'

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

Link to it, then. Quote it directly, don't just link to a reply which you think implies that someone disputed it.

Ok, I hope you don't soil your panties, but here it is.

"....and you know this (they make a profit) how?"

So now you're arguing about whether or not there was an argument. Pathetic. Remember: Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.

Re:don't understand apple

[lavar78]

Now we're getting somewhere! You misunderstood him. He was talking about AllOfMP3, not Apple. You can tell by the context of the rest of the post. You claimed they (AllOfMP3) make a profit in the parent and he was asking how you "knew" that (since they haven't reported anything like Apple).

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

Given that Apple declared that they had made a profit on the iTMS, your claim that they are LYING OUT THEIR ASS [sic] becomes a statement that you don't think they did make a profit. So you can't even agree with yourself.

SHOW ME THE CLAIM

You've linked to a question about whether or not AllOfMP3 make a profit, not Apple. I've never seen such a poor attempt in my life. Even if it were about Apple, a question about how you would know if they make a profit, and a statement that they do not make a profit, are two very different things.

SHOW ME THE CLAIM. Show... me... the... claim...!

Here's one I made up just now, in honour of you:

Debaters debate because they are able to win arguments; trolls troll because they are not.

Put that in your sig and smoke it!

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

SHOW ME THE CLAIM

LOL. I just did.

That's right. Just ignore the truth. You've been doing it long enough buying Apple products, anyway.

Debaters debate because they are able to win arguments; trolls troll because they are not.

Well, given that I've already won, I'd say you just aptly labeled yourself. You know, admission is the first step to recovery.

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

Wow! If I'd known it was as simple as just stating it, I would have won a long time ago ;)

I just won the argument. There!

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. The beauty of meta-trolling is that everyone reading, troll included, knows you've won the argument. Of course the troll can't admit it, because that would lay bare his pursuit as a waste of time. Trolling is like taking candy from a baby. Meta-trolling is like re-integrating candy theives into society. The former probably seems quite fulfilling, until you've tried the latter. May I suggest an upgrade?

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

I just won the argument. There!

won what, exactly? seriously, I want to know, because you've not had a real position on anything this entire time.

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

It's always amusing to hear that from the likes of someone whose approach to discourse is to be purely contrary as an end in itself, regardless of whether or not they can logically defend their position.

My position is that you cannot say what proportion of Apple's iTMS revenue is clear profit, and that you are wrong to accude caddisfly of claiming that AllOfMP3 is losing money. Both points are clearly stated in the first reply I made to this thread and my position on them has not changed.

May I once again suggest you try cutting your claws in real logical rhetoric rather than in empty sophistry? Honestly, it'll keep your mind a lot sharper; you'll thank me in the end. It's like living a healthy lifestyle versus being a junk food couch potato -- sounds like hard work but becomes its own reward.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

It's always amusing to hear that from the likes of someone whose approach to discourse is to be purely contrary as an end in itself, regardless of whether or not they can logically defend their position.

You must talk to yourself quite often.

Both points are clearly stated in the first reply I made to this thread and my position on them has not changed.

LOL. He didn't argue that? You sure?

So your "position" is based on your assertion of the supposed position of someone who couldn't defend it themselves. Hilarious.

May I once again suggest you try cutting your claws in real logical rhetoric rather than in empty sophistry?

Once again, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.

So go ahead, say something. I know you can't help it. It's obviously your nature.

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

He didn't argue that? You sure?

Perfectly so, thanks. Once again: SHOW ME THE CLAIM. And please don't try the same boring tactic: you've already admitted I've won the argument.

So your "position" is based on your assertion of the supposed position of someone who couldn't defend it themselves. Hilarious.

No, my position is based on the clear position of someone who got bored with you. I obviously have too much spare time, plus I have a peculiar fascination with antisocial behaviour.

Once again, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.

You don't have to quote that at me. It's in my sig for good reason. You and I both know what the irony is.

What I sometimes wonder is what drives you and others like you. I think you must imagine that whilst I keep replying, you are winning: after all, the art of trolling is all about getting bites, and the more on the same thread the better. Yet given that I am meta-trolling, I am winning for the very same reason in equal measure. So by what metric do you feel that your pursuit is worthwhile? Clearly you know not only that you cannot beat me in a logical debate but also that I know it, I know you know it, you know I know you know it, etc. Do you get some perverse sense of satisfaction from that? Am I just unwittingly playing the role of the Daddy in a bizzare masochistic flagellation exercise? I am truly fascinated.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

What I sometimes wonder is what drives you and others like you. --snip, blah blah blah -- Am I just unwittingly playing the role of the Daddy in a bizzare masochistic flagellation exercise? I am truly fascinated.

Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something. Now you're blathering on about self-flagellation and some imagined Electra complex.

I'm not sure what that has to do with Real & Apple.

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

Given your unwillingness to address the question (as a result of your inability to form a rational argument), we were getting nowhere with Real and Apple, so I thought I'd try to address the problem at a lower level. Unfortunately your critical faculties don't seem to be up to introspection either.

Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

we were getting nowhere with Real and Apple, so I thought I'd try to address the problem at a lower level.

Remember though, wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something. If you can't address the topic, maybe you're better off not saying anything.

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

Remember, though: debaters debate because they are able to win arguments; trolls troll because they are not.

Whichever of us posts the last word to this thread before it is archived, you and I, and anyone who ever reads it, will know that you had to resort to ignoring the question because you could not win the argument.

But of course, for you it's not about winning the argument, it's about keeping me posting. And you are prepared to take the role of my "bitch" in order to secure that. I find it all absolutely fascinating, and will continue to post just as long as you continue to provide me with fresh insight into the active-submissive psyche.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

Whichever of us posts the last word to this thread before it is archived, you and I, and anyone who ever reads it, will know that you had to resort to ignoring the question because you could not win the argument.

LOL. I proved my point in the second post. Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something.

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

LOL. I proved my point in the second post.

Your point being that you can't form a logical argument? Of course it is: the point of your style of trolling is that you are *never* right, yet you pretend you cannot understand that. That's the bait. But what's the reward from your perspective? Help me to understand you, and you may find that I can help you gain enough self-respect to enter into equal relationships with your peers.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

Sheer Hilarity. Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something.

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

Such a shame you're so used to getting shafted you find the entire concept of an alternative hilarious. Remember:

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

That's the best you can come up with? Remember, wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something.

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

Remember:

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

Hey, now you're down to one-word responses. Keep it up and we'll be done!

Re:don't understand apple

[hobbit]

Remember to tell me to remember that wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something.

Re:don't understand apple

[User 956]

Right, right. I forgot, that time. Here you are: "Remember that wise men talk because they have something to say: fools, because they have to say something."

not surprised

[Triumph The Insult C]

1. apple fanboys going out on some crusade

2. it's Real we're talking about ... not exactly the pillar of good example wrt technology

3. i think it's cool what Real did (beating the drm) and think more companies should do it. maybe then we'll get rid of this absurdity called the DMCA

Re:not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't beat DRM. They just found a way to get their music on the iPod that doesn't involve not using DRM.

In other words, they strengthened DRM.

Is THAT language Real-ly Necessary

[grunt107]

It is sad when a salient point is ruined by vulgarity.

The fuckers.

Newsflash!

[Otter]

Idiots on Internet! Computer users identify obsessively with their preferred platform, act like obnoxious twits in way they would never dare in real life!

Film (Quicktime or Real) at 11!

Re:Newsflash!

[stromthurman]

The term "Shitcock" comes to mind...

Harmony and FairKeys (and Does FairKeys work?)

[Anonymous Coward]

First an off topic question: Has anyone actually used FairKeys and had it work, successfully retrieving keys from Apple's servers?

Now for the on-topic stuff:

While Real is getting a backlash, I suspect most of the animosity is because of the awful reputation Real enjoyed in the past as a purveyor of a Spyware-like product. They've changed a bit since then, but some remnants remain...

Now another question: Does anyone know how Harmony acquires keys from Apple? Does it do like vlc client does on Windows, decrypting iTunes' existing SIDB key database file, or does it work like FairKeys, asking for an Apple ID and Password and performing an authorization direclty with Apple's servers over the Internet? Or does it grab the keys directly from the iPod's own key database?

Good.

[ajservo]

Real has taken some bizzare guerilla tactic against a company THEY have determined is the problem factor that needed correcting. (ie hacking Fairplay)

I have no issue with Apple's tactics of keeping their format, player, and store closed for just them.

As long as Creative and Sony keep their smaller markets kickin' Apple's not approaching a monopoly on this... If this approaches this front, how unfortunate is it for the competitors that they have to rely on moving physical media (ie brick and mortar) to peddle their wares?

It's not Apple's fault that they have one of the least restrictive DRM's on the market. That's their thing going in their favor to being a market leader.

Screw real. They want to muck up Apple's fantastic plan with a brand that has SOOO many negative connotations to it, that it seems unfair in my eyes to Apple to have to put up with this.

Re:Good.

[Sv-Manowar]

You would rather see apple dominate with force rather than using their business sense ?

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and he doesn't like competition either.

Re:Good.

[ajservo]

There's no force here. You've got some delusion that Apple's making a workable and popular device for mp3s means that they have to surrender all their IP to anyone that wants a slice of their cake? This is a clear model of the "Little Red Hen" at work here. http://www.bres.boothbay.k12.me.us/wq/nnash/WebQue st/little_red_hen.htm Apple gets to eat their bread.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen people make the itunes-red hen analogy all over. Looks like Apple got their talking points out to the astroturfers.

Re:Good.

[ajservo]

Yeah, thanks...

It's not hard to THINK up stuff on your own you know.

You look at the success that Apple has had with this, and this seems to be a logical analogy.

The fact that I can (by my OWN logic) come to this analogy on MY OWN, says to me that apple has infact found themselves in this situation and they are doing what the Hen did, and it was all to the Hen's benefit.

Or is there a resolution to the Hen's story?
The hen didn't share, so the hens "friends" called up a senate subcommittee claiming unfair "food" distribution that was anti competitive?

And resulted in people who could care less one way or the other getting to dictate to the hen about who she has to share her bread with.

(BTW, I OWN 2 ipods, and I'd like to have them supported by my freedom of choice, ITMS)

Re:Good.

[radish]

They haven't hacked anything, they have legally reverse engineered it. Just like SAMBA reverse engineered SMB to allow linux boxes to talk to windows servers. Do we support that? Of course we do. It's legal, and it helps that minority of users who don't want to use the Microsoft client along with their Microsoft servers.

Real have just given an option to the minority of users who don't want to use iTMS with their iPods. I really don't see the difference.

Actually - scrub that, I do see the difference.

The word "Apple" was involved, so all logic and rationality goes out the window.

Sigh.

Re:Good.

[geekee]

What's your opinion on Lexmark locking out competition for compatible ink cartridges?

Re:Good.

[ajservo]

seeing as how I don't own a lexmark printer, nor do I care to, I'd say buy someone elses printer if it upsets you so.

They're hardly your only option for printing supplies and manufacture, and it's their product. Why shouldn't they be entitled to profit off of their products?

Simply put, if you don't like it, buy it from someone else.

If the company of original manufacturing is making a quality product, I don't believe it's in another businesses place to rip off that original company of their hard work just to undercut them by a few dollars. There are people who have worked hard to provide those products, with lots spent on R&D to ensure a quality product, and just as good after sales experience with this same company, and you'd rather support a business looking to profit off the backs of others hard work?

right...

Astroturf?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, no, it's probably just the usual stupid Apple zealots... Apple doesn't *need* to astroturf; their grass-roots supporters really DO robotically parrot the Official Version.

Re:Astroturf?

[homer_ca]

Ain't that the truth. Apple makes some nice products, but the fanboys are too much. They don't care about proprietary vs. open standards. I've heard many of them defend Apple's hardware monopoly as good for quality, compatibility, user experience, and even necessary for the survival of Apple itself. If you look at it that way, their defense of Apple's monopolizing is not surprising.

Re:Astroturf?

[Paradox]

Well, considering how much Apple has done for, say, GCC... saying they don't give a damn about open source is a rather tough statement to justify.

Incedentally, I'm curious what closed standards you're talking about here. The OS? Posix compliant, pretty fair standard. The hardware? It's all stock parts and OpenFirmware. It doesn't get much more open. How about we attack Cocoa's underlying window system, Quartz Ex? Bzzt. While the source isn't open, all the APIs and the supporting protocols are. Sure, Eric S. Raymond can't hack Quartz directly, but you'd be surprised how little that matters.

Look at what parts of Apple's OS are really closed source. It might surprise you to realize how little of the essential stuff is actually closed source.

You can build a computer capable of running Mac OS without resorting to buying one at apple. It's hard though. The hardware that meets Apple's specs is pretty rare.

You can do it though.

The only place this "openness" argument comes into play is with FairPlay. Know why it's closed? Because FairPlay is effectively security through obscurity. You can't make a system that really does what people want.

Maybe by "closed" you meant "expensive". I'll agree to that.

Re:Astroturf?

[homer_ca]

"You can build a computer capable of running Mac OS without resorting to buying one at apple. It's hard though. The hardware that meets Apple's specs is pretty rare."

Look, I don't disagree with most of your arguments, but this is where you lose me. I know MacOS supports open standards and interoperates well with Windows and *nix networks. I know Macs use standard peripherals like USB and Firewire. I know Macs use standard hardware components like DDR RAM and SATA drives. However, Apple is the only company that sells a complete computer system that runs MacOS. That makes them a hardware monopoly. Where the hell am I supposed to buy a non-Apple PowerPC motherboard that boots MacOS natively (not through something like MaconLinux on LinuxPPC)? The last company that tried to sell complete systems sourced their motherboards by buying real Apple boards as spare parts from Apple repair centers, and Apple wasted no time in releasing the hounds (lawyers) on them.

The issue isn't about opening Fairplay and risking its security by obscurity. The issue is allowing other copy protected music to play on iPods (whether that's a good thing or not) and Apple protecting its iTunes/iPod vendor lock in.

BTW, I'm shopping for an iPod now, and I wouldn't touch Real Rhapsody with a 10ft pole.

Re:Astroturf?

[Paradox]

However, Apple is the only company that sells a complete computer system that runs MacOS. That makes them a hardware monopoly.

Since we seem to need a refresher course in what monopoly means:

1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
2. A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity

But let's not lose context here. They're talking about whole categories of service. Look, I know you like Mac OS X. I love it. But it's not a necessary thing. There are plenty of other OS's. Software companies are not forced to release Apple-only software unless Apple shells out the cash and buys them outright.

And even then, we see Apple release PC versions and appeal to the PC market with the iPod.

There are plenty of other choices. Apple does not control the market. They are a tiny little corner-sliver of the market. Once they have Microsoftian marketshare, then we can worry.

Until then, calling a company that doesn't even have 10% of the marketshare in an open market a monopoly is a gross abuse of the word.

Where the hell am I supposed to buy a non-Apple PowerPC motherboard that boots MacOS natively (not through something like MaconLinux on LinuxPPC)? The last company that tried to sell complete systems sourced their motherboards by buying real Apple boards as spare parts from Apple repair centers, and Apple wasted no time in releasing the hounds (lawyers) on them.

Buy everything but the motherboard somewhere else, if you're worried. People have done it without giving a dollar to Apple.

The biggest obstacle is getting the OpenFirmware set up just so. And you can, as you mentioned, use LinuxPPC as a trampoline if you find this obstacle insurmountable.

The issue isn't about opening Fairplay and risking its security by obscurity. The issue is allowing other copy protected music to play on iPods (whether that's a good thing or not) and Apple protecting its iTunes/iPod vendor lock in.

Riiight. So Apple now has to cater to other companies who want to sync with their hardware. Why exactly? Because it's "fair"? I'm confused. Apple can't stop Real from releasing this software, but Apple doesn't need to help them either. The iPod is coded like an embedded system. Compatibility with a 3rd party extension would be hard to maintain. Not worth Apple's time. Remember, they have to maintain the code.

Unless of course Real paid Apple for their time and gave them the format and the hoops they had to jump through. But then Real would complain that it's their IP, and it would undercut their online music store if Apple could offer their songs in Real Format too.

Let's get this straight. You're telling a small company in a competitive market that is currently favorable to give up advantages. Not because it's the law, or that it's even ethical. It's because people would find it convenient.

Real can't even be bothered to maintain mac compatibility on their store! This kind of deal has to go both ways. Real is getting something from Apple if Apple allows this deal. And what does Apple get in return? Apple can't afford to give away something for nothing, and all the work to keep Real's extension working would fall on their engineers!

Oh, and Real has a real history of quality software. I'm sure Apple is quite confident in Real's software engineering ability. NOT!

I could see Real saying, "Apple. We will give you money if you allow our files to play on your player. We'll pay you for the engineering and a royalty because we're in on your brand." I could even see Apple seriously considering such a deal. Heck, I could see Apple buying Real and heavily leveraging their tech to push themselves further in the PC side of the music world.

I cannot see Apple giving handouts to a competitor that doesn't want to give anything back except more competition.

Compatibility?

[2nd Post!]

How about the fact that Real's music store isn't Mac compatible? Is that enough reason to dislike Real in this situation?

Unlucky

[AKAImBatman]

Real just can't seem to figure it out. When they first opened their whole "Helix Player" project, they locked everyone out of the "Open Source" source code unless you signed an NDA. They fixed that after they figured out what a problem it was.

Even worse, they launched the Helix website with nothing there except a blurb saying that it would be coming soon. That sort of dissipated most of the momentum they'd built up by announcing it to the Open Source community.

Believe it or not, I really like Real Player for streaming content. The problem is that their execs just don't "get it". They can't present a unified marketing front, and it IS killing them. Even worse, they continually lose customer goodwill by installing spyware (now fixed) and intentionally hiding the link to download the free RealPlayer (not fixed).

Now they're off trying to steal Apple's thunder with a format that the market doesn't want, and no integrated media center to compete with.

"Load gun. Point at foot. Pull trigger. Repeat.", should be their motto.

Re:Unlucky

[mmurphy000]

Even worse, they launched the Helix website with nothing there except a blurb saying that it would be coming soon. That sort of dissipated most of the momentum they'd built up by announcing it to the Open Source community.

They were determined to announce something at OSCON that year. The problem was that the decision to go open source had only been made within the preceding several weeks, so the license hadn't been chosen, the source hadn't been prepped for external release, third party IP entanglements hadn't been fixed, etc.

Re:Unlucky

[AKAImBatman]

Fair enough. But it completely destroyed the momentum they got out of the OSCON. Which is why I'm saying that Real doesn't "get" it. They HAVE to provide a unified marketing front with no hiccups. Consumers are very fickle and will develop poor opinions based on the slightest mishap.

*cough*opensourcezealotsareevenworse*cough*

Re:Unlucky

[Anonymous Coward]

I respectfully disagree. I believe their motto should be "buffering..."

*wink wink*

Re:Unlucky

[geekee]

Yeah, Real making the music they sell directly playable on the most popular portable music player in the world was a horrible decision. What were they thinking? What are the moderators who modded this up thinking?

Re:Unlucky

[Ilgaz]

I really don't get why Real offers free software to Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris anyway.

As we know they read slashdot and even submit stories, I'd say "OK opensource team, lets concentrate on Mac and Windows versions, those geeks call us spyware anyway"

Re:Unlucky

[AKAImBatman]

I really don't get why Real offers free software to Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris anyway.

Because they're trying to get someone (anyone?) to like them?

Actually, the reasons are historical. WAAAYYYY back when Netscape ruled the planet, Unix machines were actually more populous on the Internet than Windows or Mac machines. Thus pretty much all internet technologies were developed on Unix and then ported to Windows. With that codebase to work from, Real has been able to continue releasing their out of date player for OSes other than Windows.

Re:Unlucky

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they're off trying to steal Apple's thunder with a format that the market doesn't want

That is some serious ignorance right there. Both Apple and Real and using THE SAME FORMAT! Apple uses 128Kbps AAC and Real uses 192Kbps AAC.

Re:Unlucky

[Anonymous Coward]

"Load gun. Point at foot. Pull trigger. Repeat.", should be their motto.

Close . . . Let's go with "Load gun. Point at foot. Pu*BUFFERING*"

Well duh...

[TWX]

If there's one thing that Apple as a company has managed to succeed with for a very, very long time, it is building a fiercely loyal customer base. Apple customers don't jump ship when the company is at its worst, let alone when it appears to be sailing relatively smoothly. Apple customers also of late really, really seem to want stuff that "just works" without any extra work on the part of the user.

While I don't doubt that RealNetworks is going out of their way to make it relatively easy to ultimately play their stuff on Apple's hardware, the user still has to get third party software, still has to subscribe to another service that isn't affiliated with their computer (in fact being a direct antithesis), and has to do extra work. Combine that with the large amount of market burnout regarding Real, and I'm really not surprised by this. I'm more surprised that Real pursued this attempt to begin with.

Hmmm...

[HebrewToYou]

One poster, Rich Mertz, wrote: "You people are wrong, wrong, wrong. If we wanted 'choices' like yours, they wouldn't have to be foisted on us. Most of us, given a real choice, would rather see you and your tactics go away. 'Competition' doesn't give you any right to reverse-engineer when you feel like it, but come down on those that hack into your IP rights. It's theft, pure and simple."

That was from the CNET article, and I cannot say I agree. While what RealNetworks did is not entirely ethical, it isn't theft. It's essentially what the Linux on iPod group is doing (on some level) and I believe it's wrong to condemn them for it.

The major issue I have with Real is that they tried to cut a deal with Apple and *THEN* decided to go and 'hack' the iPod. It seems to me that Apple has no problem with an agreement with Motorola -- so what did Real do wrong?

My guess is that Real was unwilling or unprepared to make the necessary accomodations to get on Apple's boat (so to speak). The best-selling hard disk digital music player isn't going to be pushed around by Real, so it seems obvious to me that the lack of negotiation skills on the part of Real is the problem.

As such, *that* is the problem people should be focusing on: why Real's management was too inept to make a deal happen.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

First they tried to do it the easy way and it didn't work so they did it the hard way. I don't see why hacking the iPod as Plan A is somehow more ethical than making it Plan B.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

While what RealNetworks did is not entirely ethical, it isn't theft. Normaly they would have to pay apple to licence fairplay. They reverse engeneered it so they no longer have to pay for it, while making profits off of songs sold.. How exactly is this not theft? Imagine if somebody "reverse engeneered" Coca Cola's secret formula and started selling their own soft drinks. How is this different?

Re:Hmmm...

[gl4ss]

**so what did Real do wrong?**

That they're a direct competitor on the online music selling business??? maybe, JUST MAYBE, that's the problem apple had.. and is pissed off now about.

Re:Hmmm...

[dfghjk]

Who says they'd normally have to pay for a licence?

Re:Hmmm...

[Smitty825]

I understand the comment from the article differently than you do.

My take is that the person is saying Real shouldn't "hack" the iPod, and gain access to playing songs on it, if they aren't willing to allow their ".rm" format be "hacked" and played in any player that someone else wants to use...

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when has reverse-engineering been wrong? Do you have a PC? Do you like that PC? If so, you ought to be very thankful for reverse-engineering. If IBM's PC BIOS hadn't been reverse-engineered, there never would have been clones, and the PC market might not have become the near commodity (for middle class at least) that is today.

It wouldn't be theft if somebody reverse-engineered Coke's formula either.

Re:Hmmm...

[stratjakt]

You've never heard of Pepsi, RC Cola, supermarket branded colas, etc, etc?

They ALL "reverse engineered" Cokes recipe.

Coke and Pepsi dominate the market together through anti-competitive practices, like threatening to stop stocking stores that also sell third party products. Ain't no half price RC cola in the fridge at 7-11. They also have contracts with vending machine manufactures that stipulate that nobody but Coke or Pepsi can have backlit vending machines.

Coke is a great comparison to Apple. It's success all about brand recognition and sleazy tactics, and not about having a better product or pricing.

DRM is intended to protect artists from piracy. Not to protect Apple from competition.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to capitalism. Population: Apple and Real. If you're going to whine about normal, legal competition, then try cutting a deal with China instead.

Re:Hmmm...

[jschottm]

>It seems to me that Apple has no problem with an agreement with Motorola -- so what did Real do wrong?

Real and Apple have competing media formats. Motorola has no stakes in streaming media. Motorola has no music store, and has a tiny amount of space for MP3s on their licensed devices, meaning that they are no threat at all to iPods. From all the interviews I read, it sounded like Steve Jobs spit in Real's face when they tried to license it.

Re:Hmmm...

[geekee]

"As such, *that* is the problem people should be focusing on: why Real's management was too inept to make a deal happen."

Same reason the mac clone industry died. Jobs believes in monopolies, and he wants to keep his fairplay AAC monopoly.

Re:Hmmm...

[zangdesign]

I hope Real winds up taking a dirt nap simply because I'm tired of being treated like a second class citizen because I own a Mac. Their player has never worked correctly under OS X and it shows no signs of improving. On any platform, the quality is terrible.

Real? Just go away.

enlighten us?

[i_should_be_working]

maybe some ipod users here could explain why they would be against one more digital music store's songs being compatible with their ipod?

just want to know

Re:enlighten us?

[Gilesx]

I'd say it's because the itunes and ipod thing is the most successful venture they've ever embarked on since the Mac Classic. The Apple fans basically love Apple and everything it stands for, including it's distinctive design principles, and apart from being a classic example of the "Apple" look and ideals, it is also creating a vital cash stream that can be used to fund further future projects. By keeping everything closed, restrictive and proprietory, Apple can maintain that edge and source of revenue. Anything that comes close to chipping away at that stranglehold will obviously be attacked by Apple fans, as it could wipe away some of the money that is streaming into Apple alone.

I personally also think it's sad. The Apple users are quick enough to diss Microsoft and it's DRM and lament how Microsoft could force everyone to use WMA. Whilst this thought also concerns me, I don't think Apple are behaving in an any less evil way than Microsoft, they just have something that no amount of damage limitation by the Microsoft PR wheels can provide - a friendly, cool geek chic image.

Re:enlighten us?

[2nd Post!]

Because Real's music store is incompatible with the Mac. Me, as an iPod user, is scorned by Real. So I continue to scorn them. Open up their music store, and then I can guage the quality of their offerings. Until then they are hypocrites.

Re:enlighten us?

[Moofie]

It's easy to make your digital music store compatible with the iPod. Just sell un-DRMed AAC or MP3 files.

For the record, I love my iPod, and I don't use the iTMS.

Apple did not want to license their DRM scheme (which, by the way, seems awful darn liberal) to Real. I wouldn't want to do business with Real either...they've been making themselves the enemies of their customers for the better part of a decade.

I don't think Real has done anything wrong reverse-engineering the DRM scheme. I just think that anybody who buys music from them is really not very smart, because the next iPod firmware update is going to nuke this loophole something fierce.

Re:enlighten us?

[_Sprocket_]

maybe some ipod users here could explain why they would be against one more digital music store's songs being compatible with their ipod?

There's this great file format that's compatible with the iPod and rather easy for Real to implement. I hear people call it "MP3". Maybe you've heard of it too.

Granted, its not Ogg Vorbis. But then... its certainly not a "DRM"-crippled format either.

Re:enlighten us?

[transient]

I haven't thought about this particular situation much, so my opinion is a bit half-baked at the moment. I am neither opposed to nor in favor of another digital music store for my iPod. It wouldn't harm me if it existed, and I probably wouldn't use it. Apple's selection, pricing structure, and technology are suitable for my tastes.

I strongly dislike Real's stance as a victim. Where was Real when Apple, and most everyone else, was getting stomped into the ground by Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior? Oh, that's right, they were writing Windows software while delaying the release of their Mac clients.

At first thought, I wondered why Apple and Real couldn't come to a mutually beneficial agreement whereby Apple would add support to the iPod for Real codecs. But then I realized that this would only serve to steal thunder from the iTunes Music Store, which, as we all know, is simply a way to sell iPods. Opening up the iPod to a competitor's music store is in direct opposition to Apple's strategy: get people to use the iTunes Music Store in order to sell iPods. Likewise, Real writing software primarily for Windows is part of their strategy, and it strikes me as hypocritical for them to publicly chastise Apple for what is essentially the same behavior.

My initial feeling is also that, in principle, it is wrong to close the iPod in this way. Being a particularly pragmatic thinker, I rejected this idea because: (1) the iPod supports enough formats that I can always find a way to get music onto it, and (2) Real doesn't have a God-given right to make their service compatible with the iPod.

Ultimately I just don't care about Real, because although I've heard that they've brought an end to their obnoxious behavior, this whiny episode indicates otherwise to me.

Re:enlighten us?

[diamondsw]

I don't think anyone minds having more music files, I think it's a matter of support. Since users will be dealing with an Apple iPod and assumedly Apple iTunes, when something breaks they're going to call Apple for help, and Apple will have to waste time and resources on a competitor's product.

We're not against more music choices, we're against saddling a company we particularly like with support headaches and costs they have no reason to bear.

Re:enlighten us?

[TomorrowPlusX]

I have an iPod & I'm not opposed to others publishing music for it. Frankly, I wish Apple would let anybody use their DRM.

As it stands, every track I buy off iTunes is promptly run through Hymn and de-DRM'd. I don't share them, I don't pirate. I just want to have a file which I can play, in principle, on some other device 10 years from now.

Anyway, it's not like I can't buy a CD, rip it to MP3/AAC/WAV/AIFF/etc and play it on my iPod.

Cripes. I wish Apple would pull their head out of their asses and let others publish with AAC, and I wish other people would get their head of their asses and realize iPods play all sorts of music files.

Newsflash: people are idiots.

Re:enlighten us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Mac users are tools and would pay to felate Jobs if his wang were made of brushed metal or white plastic.

Re:enlighten us?

[lysander]

I'd really like someone to write up what their experience was in buying a track from Real and trying it on their iPod/iTunes/whatever. (If someone wants to reply with one or a link to one, that'd be great.)

What did the file look like? .m4p? AAC protected under some other extention? Some sort of mp3 that you had to unlock with some real software? Did it play all right using iTunes and iPod? Anything act weird? Did you "authenticate" the track to the computer using some Real software, or your iTunes account? What prevents you from copying the file to a friend or a friend's iPod?

Personally, I'm not going to buy a thing from Real until I know some of the above answers. Depending on how Real did it, it might be simple for Apple to change something in their next update that breaks Harmony, making any Real purchases useless.

Re:enlighten us?

[chochos]

Because Real wants me to hack my iPod with their software (unsupported by Apple, the vendor) in order to play music encoded in their closed proprietary format that I can buy from their store, to which I cannot enter from my Mac.

Real software has been always crappy on Mac. Their music store isn't even accessible from a Mac. I'm not even sure I could hack my Mac-formatted iPod with their software if I wanted to, and even if I did, what good would it do to me if I can't even use their store?

The store is windows-only (I can't see why, after all, isn't it web-based? still not learning that if it's web-based it should be platform-independent). Their iPod hack is most probably only for windows-formatted iPods. So once again the Mac users are being ignored. Only this time, a lot of iPod owners are Mac users. And we don't like Real.

If some day some other company starts an online music store that can be accessed with Safari, and where I can buy songs that will play on my iPod without having to hack it, then I will seriously consider buying music there.

Re:enlighten us?

[jgs]

I wish Apple would pull their head out of their asses and let others publish with AAC

'Course, Apple's not stopping anyone from using AAC. It's DRM'd AAC ("FairPlay") which is the problem. If Real were willing to sell music without DRM, they'd have no problem. (No problem from Apple anyway -- instead they'd probably have a RIAA problem, sigh.)

Re:enlighten us?

[EnglishTim]

Okay, so you have a Mac. Okay, so you don't like the Real software, and they don't have their music shop software for the mac anyway. I still don't understand why them selling tunes to Windows iPod owners is a bad thing though?

Re:enlighten us?

[Telepathetic Man]

My iTunes and my iPod have done everything I have expected it to. No ads, no hassles, just music. Its a matter of trust. How can I trust the quality, and safety, of the software that Real uses if they have to steal it?

Re:enlighten us?

[chochos]

WHAT they're doing is not the problem. It's HOW they're doing it. "Hack your iPod with this little patch here, and then you can enter our store and buy songs and listen to them on your iPod".

Next iPod software update, something breaks. Maybe those songs don't play anymore, maybe something else doesn't work. Who will the user blame? Apple or Real? Will Apple be considered the bad guy for not supporting the hack on their next upgrade? Or will Real be blamed for making people hack their iPods to buy music they can't listen to after an upgrade?

Had they come to an agreement with Apple, Real could be selling AAC songs with Fairplay just for iPod users, and using their crappy rm format for everyone else. Or maybe they could have even added rm support to the iPod...

Re:enlighten us?

[Ahnteis]

Guess what -- Apple could use those great formats too. Guess why they don't? The record companies won't let them. (Do you think they'd let Real, but not Apple?!)

Re:enlighten us?

[JohnWhitney]

If FairPlay has the same capabilities as Microsoft's DRM to specify rights on a per-song basis, I have a big problem with other companies being able to produce FairPlay'ed AAC files.

One of the beauties of the iTMS/iTunes/iPod combination is that everything is consistent. On iTMS, each and every song is the same price, and each has the same rights. That was one of the problems with early competitors.

Apple, with the market presence of the iPod, had enough leverage to get the music distributors to agree to these (liberal) terms.

What happens when the RIAA leans on Real's music store to use different rights on "popular" songs? Will I suddenly have to deal with inconsistent rights on individual songs? Apple will no longer have the market clout (of being the sole producer of DRM'ed music on the #1 player) to push the music industry to agree to their terms (including equal footing for independents).

And why should Apple have to deal with end-users suffering problems from music they bought from a different company? What will Real tell people if Apple changes its FairPlay format for some reason? After seeing their petition, I suspect it will be "Apple did this to you! Take it up with them, ask them why they broke your iPod!".

Additionally, while iTMS is currently seen as an enabler for iPod sales, Apple might be trying to leverage it into become a huge, viable distribution method for music. If it takes off, it could end up making Apple a lot of money. So Real's actions could end up being a serious threat to Apple's future plans.

Some people might not care about that, but I like Apple's products and business, and I want to see them make money and continue to produce them.

John

Re:enlighten us?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use iTunes music store and do not own an iPod... The first music I've Purchased in a long time. You can even have an iPod and NEVER use iTMS. So what is he big deal... really! By the way, my computers are the bottom of the line crt iMacs (pd 799) so you don't have to be rich to play in this playground.

Re:enlighten us?

[javaxman]

repeat after me: iTunes music store is not and never will be a money maker. It's the *iPod* thing that makes money.

On your other topic, that of DRM, the reason nobody bemoans Apple's DRM is simple:
you can convert your iTunes Music Store songs to MP3 songs.
Burn a CD right from iTunes ( with a limit of 3 times ).

It's, at worst, DRM-lite. Comparing it to Wintel DRM schemes is... er, well, they're very different. Your music is yours, more or less, and it's not *rented*, it won't expire. Want to make an MP3 or AIFF disk? No problem. And if you're any kind of geek, and maybe even if you aren't, you'll find plenty of ways to losslessly convert your FairPlayed AAC files to non-FairPlayed files if you can't stand MP3s. If you're talking about evil restrictions on your use of bits, sure it's still evil... but it's the lesser evil, by far.

Standard disclaimer: I do not use the iTunes music store nor do I own an iPod.

Re:enlighten us?

[Tsiangkun]

I'm not. Real was a lousy company, and I want to see them fail. It's nothing to do with the iPod, the quality of the music, DRM, choice or freedom. Real made some dumb decisions in the past, and I am still holding those decisions against them. It's personal.

Re:enlighten us?

[exhilaration]

I don't suppose you could tell me if Hymn works on the files purchased from Real?

Re:enlighten us?

[Anonymous Coward]

so you don't have to be rich to play in this playground.

Maybe not rich, but you have to be willing to pay $1/song for shitty 128kbps quality music.

Re:enlighten us?

[TomorrowPlusX]

Can't. I'm on a Mac! ...and I don't have, or have access to, a PC.

Re:enlighten us?

[prockcore]

It's easy to make your digital music store compatible with the iPod. Just sell un-DRMed AAC or MP3 files.

Well that's not feasable.. so what is going to happen is that *everyone* is going to switch to a DRM they can actually use (like MS's), and Apple will be relegated to niche player... AGAIN.

Re:enlighten us?

[ztirffritz]

While Apple's DRM is closed, AAC is not. Anyone can use it.

Re:enlighten us?

[Moofie]

What's unfeasible about it?

And why does Apple care if they're a niche player? I certainly don't. Their products work fine for me. I don't care whether they work for you or not, even for very large values of "you".

Re:enlighten us?

[jschottm]

-----
Where was Real when Apple, and most everyone else, was getting stomped into the ground by Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior? Oh, that's right, they were writing Windows software while delaying the release of their Mac clients.
-----

They were largely getting stomped into the ground by Microsoft's anticompetative behaviour as well. I work in streaming media, and I assure you, Microsoft has gone out of their way to try to put Real out of business. How much resources do you think a small company has to put toward releasing software for a platform with a very small market share that has a strongly entrenched competing product that's pushed by the maker of the platform?

It's not as if Apple is any better - QuickTime is still quite unstable under Windows, and there's no QT client for Linux.

Re:enlighten us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where was Real when Apple, and most everyone else, was getting stomped into the ground by Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior? Oh, that's right, they were writing Windows software while delaying the release of their Mac clients.

Maybe you don't remember, but Real was as close to being a Microsoft spin-off as you can get without a formal contract. At the time, MS had not fully grasped the potential of the net, but some employees did. They left MS, on good terms, to do Real. Eventually things soured when MS figured out that the net's future is in multimedia and the two could not strike a deal. But until then, and even for a while afterwards, it was no surprise that Real was primarily a windows shop because the workforce WAS primarily a bunch of people from Microsoft.

To have expected Real to put equal effort into the Apple platform at the time is just kinda silly. And once they were in the fight with MS, they certainly did not have the resources to fight and support multiple platforms. Certainly their linux support was just as sucky, but we've forgiven them for that now. You should too.

Re:enlighten us?

[geekee]

Why do you care what Real does? Why do you want to take a choice away from other people just because it's a choice you don't want to make? Saying Real is a hypocrite is irrational, BTW. Just because they don't support mac doesn't mean they object to supporting mac. They simply may not have the resources at this time.

Re:enlighten us?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't think Real has done anything wrong reverse-engineering the DRM scheme. I just think that anybody who buys music from them is really not very smart, because the next iPod firmware update is going to nuke this loophole something fierce."

Funny, that's the same reason I don't use open office. because ms will keep changing the file format. So if MS is evil for doing this, why isn't Apple also evil?

Re:enlighten us?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Apple products because they work. I know many Apple users that use Apple products for the same reason. I don't appreciate the stereotyping of all of us into one group. We are not some cult that purchases its merchandise to perpetuate the hive. We have money to buy nice things, and we expect them to work, plain and simple. As a consumer, the minute Apple stops manufacturing computers and software that just works, I can and will move on to something else. I don't have time to fiddle with operating systems, and I need something to get the job done.

The some goes for entertainment. I don't have the time to mess with getting a bunch of software working to listen to music. Make it work, damnit, and don't bullshit me with a bunch of extra "features". Apple does exactly this.

As an engineer, people expect me to design machines (industrial) that work, and they pay a premium for this. I expect the same for my money. AAC and DRM are irrelevant to the choices of everybody I know that uses a Mac, which would be everybody at our firm.

Re:enlighten us?

[Moofie]

Ummm, because Apple isn't a monopoly?

Re:enlighten us?

[2nd Post!]

I care because I can't get my $0.49 download damnit :P

That and I disapprove of their using RE while simultaneously using the DMCA to forbid RE of their RA format in the streambox event of 1999.

Re:enlighten us?

[tagbo]

Let me guess....
your a PC user right?
... right.

Re:enlighten us?

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously. i don't have an iPod yet, but i'm saving up for one. but once i get it, i sure as heck won't use ITMS. have people forgotten that they sell DRM files? have people forgotten that non-DRM files are available? ... for FREE? i mean shit i hate to point out the obvious, but all the people saying "yo, all I have to do is burn my AAC files to a CD then rip the CD to MP3s, import the MP3s into my media player, and i can listen to them!" while my response is "yo, i skip the first three steps, and don't have to pay for it."

i mean shit, if i want to encode MP3s off a CD, i can just buy the fucking CD (and, even though this is a platitude, i do own and buy a lot of CDs). as far as i can tell the only thing ITMS offers is the convenience of having tons of music available very quickly -- admittedly a very nice convenience, but not one worth the hassle of DRM, much less the extra monetary cost.

i'll take gnutella until an even better medium evolves.

oh, and gnutella has porn, too.

Move along, nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple users fanatic cult followers, who would have guessed?

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course this was modded down by the Apple zealots who peruse this site. How about opening yourselves up to some valid and intelligent criticism instead of shooting everything down?!

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[rreay]

How about noticing that that post isn't exactly a model of valid and intelligent criticism.

I don't care how reasoned the points are in this or any other argument; when someone uses insults to advance their point people are going to react emotionally and any useful points are lost in the noise of the shouting match that ensues.

Apple's retaliation

[shadowmatter]

I heard Apple put up a big billboard across the street from Real's main office, with only one word in big bold letters across it:

BUFFERING

- sm

Re:Apple's retaliation

[dbleoslow]

Not quite the same thing, but close

Re:Apple's retaliation

[atari2600]

I wash windows on that street - there is no such billboard :P

Re:Apple's retaliation

[Anonymous Coward]

I wash windows on that street

after you wash windows, do you install linux?

Re:Apple's retaliation

[xigxag]

Maybe you missed the sign, just like you missed the joke? :P :P

Re:Apple's retaliation

[minsk]

My god, it must have loaded!

Re:Apple's retaliation

[atari2600]

I didn't miss the joke but couldn't resist replying :P

Re:Apple's retaliation

[xigxag]

I know, but ditto. :P

Many of the petition's responces...

[oberondarksoul]

...have it spot-on. Why should Real have any say in what the iPod plays? They may rant on about it being 'freedom of consumer choice', but that's not a little hypocritical from Real - whose own music store isn't even Mac-compatible yet. Perhaps it Real were to support the Mac crowd, create a player that people would prefer to use, and generally better themselves, they'd have more success in luring people away. As it stands, however, people have exercised their freedom of choice - and they've chosing the iPod and iTMS.

Re:Many of the petition's responces...

[Kiryat Malachi]

Why should Real not be allowed to reverse-engineer a competing DRM format to allow their customers to use devices that require the Apple DRM?

Reverse-engineering is *legal* and good. You're right - people are choosing iTMS and iPod over Real's store. However, you can't blame Real for trying something presumptively legal (if they used illegally obtained info to do this, then they did wrong) in order to try to get people to choose their store over Apple's.

Re:Many of the petition's responces...

[orrigami]

...have it spot-on. Why should Real have any say in what the iPod plays?

Try this on...

...have it spot-on. Why should (Non MS types) have any say in what the (Windows) plays?

Just out trying to have a little fun since it is a boring day.

Re:Many of the petition's responces...

[dfghjk]

They aren't interested in luring mac users away. That's unlikely to begin with. They're interested in users of the platforms they do support. Macs and iPods are not the same thing.

Real doesn't have any say in what the iPod plays. Their trying to make their service compatible with what Apple makes the iPod play. What's the matter with that?

Since iTMS is the only option for iPod that's some freedom of choice people are exercising. Most users, I'd wager, are exercising their freedom of choice to play unencumbered mp3's only. iTMS will never see a penny from me. Real won't either.

Re:Many of the petition's responces...

[FLEB]

Why should Apple have any say in how Real encodes?

Re:Many of the petition's responces...

[gurps_npc]

For the same reason that my TV does not only play NBC (NBC once made TV's), my Radio does not only play one station, and my car can use gasoline from more than one gasoline company.

There is NO good reason for Apple to forbid people from using the MACHINE they purchased from Apple from playing music they purchased from Real.

You have it backwards. Real is NOT trying to control what plays on the iPod, Apple is trying to prevent people from using the device they sold to those people with content not sold by Apple. That is illegal. Anti-trust action. For a long time corporations have been trying to get rid of the anti-trust laws in the US, but they still exist, no matter how much they try to get around them. It is ILLEGAL for me to make a machine and then attempt to prevent others from selling add-ons, including content to the machine.

Re:Many of the petition's responces...

[vena]

Real doesn't have any say, but who should is you and me.

Re:Many of the petition's responces...

[malthusan]

You have it backwards. Real is NOT trying to control what plays on the iPod, Apple is trying to prevent people from using the device they sold to those people with content not sold by Apple. That is illegal. Anti-trust action.

Wow. You must be referring to one of those special-edition iPods that only play Fairplay DRM'ed AAC files from iTMS and nothing else. If you can get one (or have one already) I'd hold onto it if I were you. Might be worth some money to a collector one day.

I, however, purchased a plain-jane iPod that plays mp3, wav, and AAC files. It currently has ~8GB of music on it. Of that, perhaps 100MB of music is from iTMS. The rest I 1) ripped from cd's I owned, 2) downloaded from various legal sources, and 3) copied from friends. Moreover, the few albums/songs I purchased from iTMS were immediately burned to a CD. If I choose, I can rip those tracks back to mp3. Voila! No DRM! It's magic! Given I have these options, how is Apple's "monopoly" preventing me from having a choice?

Oh yeah. I forgot -- because Apple has a monopoly and opposed the altruistic efforts of Real to offer a choice to those benighted iPod owners who are "locked in" to a proprietary format. Perhaps you're only speaking for those who purchased the aforementioned special-edition iPod.

For the rest of us, lack of a single option among many does not negate the presence of a choice. Thus, not being able to play Real songs on my iPod does not remove my choice of other formats to play.

Furthermore, the exercise of choice comes at various stages. The first, and most important, choice is the music player. If one is uncomfortable with the restrictions Apple has placed on iTMS songs/albums or the limited selection of formats supported on the iPod, the one should not purchase an iPod to begin with. Exercise your freedom of choice and buy a Sony player, a Dell Jukebox, or an iRiver instead. What you fail to mention in your ill-conceived tirade is that when I, and everyone else, purchased an iPod, we all bought into the restrictions. We chose to purchase that player with those limitations. For those who didn't realize those limitations were extant when they made their purchase, they have the choice of 1) living with them, 2) returning the iPod for a refund, or 3) selling the iPod.

Apple does not have a monopoly on music players; Apple does not have a monopoly on legally downloadable music. Until such time as the iPod/iTMS combo is the only way to play music, Apple will not have a monopoly.

Re:Many of the petition's responces...

[geekee]

"As it stands, however, people have exercised their freedom of choice - and they've chosing the iPod and iTMS."

NO. APPLE has exercised it's freedom of choice. All iPod users will only buy music from iTMS (to the extent we can keep it this way).

Re:Many of the petition's responces...

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Why should Real have any say in what the iPod plays?

Why should apple have any say in what iPods they've already sold to other people play?

Re:Many of the petition's responces...

[Ilgaz]

Real GM etc are all Slashdot users and they post occasionally I have seen so far.

I think they don't have anything to say to all this spyware BULLSHIT while they did great to opensource community AND (sort of opensource) OSX community. (www.helixcommunity.org)

Some people just don't get it...

Re:Many of the petition's responces...

[gurps_npc]

I see. So when people choose to buy a product with illegal limitations placed on them, that makes them legal? wrong. there are certain rights you can not sign awayFor example it does NOT matter that your children are dying and the only way to get that rich shmuck to give you the healthy spare kidney he has is to sign an agreement where you become his slave. Slavery is illegal, even if you agree to be his slave.

Your logic does not make any sense.

The fact that Apple lets some other formats be used on there machine is irrelevant, the point is that they personally do NOT have the legal right to restrict you from using other services, no matter WHAT you signed.

I am not (as you falsely claimed) stating that Apple has a monoply on legally downloadable music. I am stating that they are attempting to have a monopoly on downloading music to the iPod I bought. And that is ILLEGAL. I OWN MY IPOD, NOT APPLE.

Because I own my Ipod, I have the legal right to do ANYTHING I want to it. Not only can I download music from Itunes to it, but I can burn it, I can chop it, I can crush it, I dissamble it and plug the memory into a hand made computer.

and I have the right to download Crappy junk from Real and listen to it on the Ipod

Real is an evil company. Apple is usually a fair company, but it is ILLEGAL for them to tell me what I can do with my iPod after I buy it, and THAT is what they are doing.

Real, with there crappy service is NOT attempting to do anything but sell me something that Apple does not want them to sell me. But Apple does not have the right to stop me from buying there junk and that means Apple does not have the right to stop them from selling their junk.

People want kings

[Yohahn]

Indeed, Why are people suddenly against reverse-engeneering and freedom of choice?

Once there's an emotional attachment it protects the propreitary vendor. Kind of like victims who fall in love with their captor, people want to
have leaders who use and abuse their loyalties.

Go Real. You've made mistakes in the past, but here's to correcting them. You're doing the right thing.

Re:People want kings

[Anonymous Coward]

Because too many people are drinking the Apple flavored Kool-Aid.

Re:People want kings

[mental_telepathy]

"You're doing the right thing."

Yes, clearly Real is trying to do the right thing. They are repenting their past mistakes and doing what's best for the community at large.

Because the couldn't really believe that DRM opponents would support them in a transparent ploy to rescue their market share and end the downward spiral. That would be ridiculous.

I'm going to go wait for Real's propietary formats to open up.

Re:People want kings

[Yohahn]

If you don't encourage them for what they have done right, will you ever get them to continue on that path?

Re:People want kings

[Coryoth]

Indeed, Why are people suddenly against reverse-engeneering and freedom of choice?

Because there just aren't any parallels. The situations are completely different.

[The Samba Team/Real] reverse engineered [SMB/Fairplay] so that they could serve [Files/Music] from [Linux/Real's Store] to [Windows/iPod Users] but still have it be compatible. Clearly [The Samba Team/Real] are [Good/Evil], as such reverse engineering is [Required for compatibilty/Theft].

The poor [Windows/iPod] users are having choice [Offered to/Forced upon] them, and clearly that is [Right/Wrong].

Jedidiah.

Lessons Learned

[AKAImBatman]

The lesson to be learned from this? Don't mess with Jobs' Reality Distortion Field(TM)!

Re:Lessons Learned

[Anonymous Writer]

Don't mess with Jobs' Reality Distortion Field(TM)!

Trademarked? I thought it was patented.

Re:Lessons Learned

[AKAImBatman]

Something can be both trademarked and patented. The patent describes how it works, and the trademark protects the name. :-)

Also

[2nd Post!]

Another problem is that Real's music store isn't Mac compatible.

Yes, we only have 3-4% of the market, but hello, aren't we also the same market that catapaulted the iPod, and then the Music Store, to success? It's not like we aren't a valid economically sound market.

It's silly to champion choice like Real is if they won't support the platform they are arguably trying to break into: Apple's market. That includes Mac users.

Re:Also

[dfghjk]

I think it's fair to say that Real is conceding the mac market to iTunes. After all, why would mac+iPod users want an alternative to iTunes+iTMS? Since that's clearly the case, not supporing the mac platform is not a problem at all, though it seems to be a rallying cry for zealots.

Re:Also

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually what probably catapulted the ipod to success was an offering on the Windows platform. My friends and I have never touched a Mac before, but we all bought iPods the second we found out they would work in Windows.

Re:Also

[alph0ns3]

Maybe what you (and ton of others on slashdot) is that there is a difference between not supporting something (what supposely Real does to the Mac platform) and arguing/using the DMCA/etc. (what Apple did).

Who cares if Real doesn't support a platform? They just don't want to spend the money to. But I care when someone (Looks like it's more the zealots that the Apple in this case) somewhat find themselves to get modded up for spreading bullshit and zealotry.

Re:Also

[2nd Post!]

Oh, like this?

I honestly do want to see competition and alternatives. I don't begrudge Real their try. However as a Mac user, Real is not doing me any favors by ignoring my platform, and my argument has nothing to do with whatever all other Mac users think. I think Real is just being bitten by the same monster (DMCA) they themselves have used. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Re:Also

[dave420]

The iPods kicked off because they were cross-platform. Even when they said "Macs only", they worked with Windows boxes fine. I used a first-generation iPod with my windows box, with no problems. The same goes for the iTunes music store. It was instantly available on windows PCs, so Macs didn't solely make it the success it was.

After all, 3-4% of the market is still only 3-4% of the market, no matter how important you think it is. They can stay well away from it, and still capture over 95% of the market. It's not a bash at macs, just economics. The tables would be turned if macs were in the majority, you can count on that.

Re:Also

[2nd Post!]

It just chafes that they talk about choice and competition and then ignore Mac users. I mean what they really want then is to draw away PC using iPod owners away from iTunes. It's a valid business tactic, but very aggravating when I want my $0.49 download.

So you see the difference? From the getgo Apple catered to Mac users, and if Windows users tried hard enough they could use an iPod. Real, on the other hand, hasn't done enough to allow Mac users onto their network no matter how hard I try, short of buying a PC.

I also kind of doubt they can capture 95% of the market by ignoring Mac users. Maybe in a few years, but I think right now we are still a significant majority in both iPod ownership and music downloads.

This Pretty Much Sums it Up

[Onimaru]

"I've got to give this particular move a thumbs-up. Proprietary file formats are never good for customers...Anything that opens up competition in the market can't help but be good, even if it comes from a P.O.S. developer like Real."

They're going about this so backwards. Drum up support, then make your move. Follow up doing something nasty with doing something nice, not by engaging in a silly PR war and a completely transparent price-war.

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it.

Let's compare...

[gphinch]

Apple - Software and hardware that is not only intuitivly easy to use, it is also beautifully designed. And of course they were the ones that jumpstarted the online music craze between iPod and iTunes. Not to mention the hoards of loyal Apple fans.

Real - Software that has always (imo) had a horrible interface, rife with ads slapped anywhere they would fit, and a constant nagging to buy their pro version (ok Apple does this too with Quicktime, but you don't need that for mp3s). Add to that their file formats are constantly changing requiring upgrades, and their encoding has always been sub par.Combined with the fact that they basically stole Apple software and you wonder why people are mad.

Re:Let's compare...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good word choice "jumpstarted", because they certainly didn't start the online music craze.

Re:Let's compare...

[Have Blue]

Except that Quicktime does it far more rarely than Real, and there's a very well-known way to avoid it- have it nag you while the computer clock is set in the far future, then set it back.

Re:Let's compare...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I could have sworn that the online music craze was attributed to MP3, highspeed internet connections and P2P. I guess I am wrong. Where are these "hoards of apple fans", are they the same ones who told apple to cram it up their ass until they provided a windoze client?

Re:Let's compare...

[stromthurman]

And of course they were the ones that jumpstarted the online music craze between iPod and iTunes.

That's a lot like claiming Al Gore invented the internet.
Apple didn't jumpstart the online music craze, if anything, Napster did. Apple may have done a great deal to legitimize it and turn it into a viable distribution method for Big Music, but I strongly disagree with the idea that Apple jump started it.

Re:Let's compare...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple - Software and hardware that is not only intuitivly easy to use, it is also beautifully designed. And of course they were the ones that jumpstarted the online music craze between iPod and iTunes. Not to mention the hoards of loyal Apple fans.

Real - Software that has always (imo) had a horrible interface, rife with ads slapped anywhere they would fit, and a constant nagging to buy their pro version (ok Apple does this too with Quicktime, but you don't need that for mp3s). Add to that their file formats are constantly changing requiring upgrades, and their encoding has always been sub par.Combined with the fact that they basically stole Apple software and you wonder why people are mad.

You forgot some stuff:

Apple:
- Steals ideas and UIs from third party developers without compensation.
- Sues third party developers for things as simple as color schemes. They are an archetypal example of intellectual property hypocrites, right up there with Disney.
- Codecs are constantly changing and require updates. I just had to do this yesterday and now QT starts up when the computer starts up, despite the fact I neither want this nor is there any fucking point at all in it doing it.
- Always, always, always asks me if I want to upgrade to Quicktime Pro whenever it's started up as a separate application.

Real:
- In no way did they steal Apple software, they reverse engineered what was necessary to get their codec to run on an iPod. They opened up the iPod a little bit - WHICH IS A GOOD THING.

Re:Let's compare...

[PMM]

- Always, always, always asks me if I want to upgrade to Quicktime Pro whenever it's started up as a separate application.

This is fairly easy to disable. Set your date to some time in the distant future, then launch quicktime. You'll be greeted by the "would you like to upgrade" spiel. Decline their offer to upgrade, then reset your date & you'll never see it again (or not until after that distant future date is reached.)

Re:Let's compare...

[Cyno]

Real - Software that has always (imo) had a horrible interface, rife with ads slapped anywhere they would fit, and a constant nagging to buy their pro version (ok Apple does this too with Quicktime, but you don't need that for mp3s). Add to that their file formats are constantly changing requiring upgrades, and their encoding has always been sub par.

Okay, I agree that Real wasn't the best company for the longest time. I outright hated their software and would have never recommended it. But recently I heard about their deal with Novell and other Linux distros and HelixPlayer, the open source version of RealPlayer. So I decided to check out their website as well as that helixcommunity thing. They look like they did a 180. Its like a completely different company that's interested in providing quality technology as well as some of the commercial media stuff, but no where near as bad as it was getting.

Go check out real.com and helixcommunity.org sometime. Its cool stuff. No really, its actually cool this time. I'm not lying.. Hey, stop throwing things at me..

Re:Let's compare...

[cowscows]

Exactly. We apple fanboys all love our happy geeky utopia that apple products try to project, and we'd like to see it maintained. And it's a common opinion that Real is in no way capable of being a positive contributer to that vision. Their history of shoddy, dishonest software goes totally against the mac experience. They're even hated in the windows world, which is overflowing with crap software.

While Apple is obviously being very careful with licensing in regards to itunes/ipods, they have not been entirely proprietary and lock-in oriented. So Real approached them and said they wanted in on this whole online music thing. Apple said, no thanks, we don't think you're the right people to help us. Real put out press releases declaring Apple to be some sort of anti-consumer juggernaut. Real is trying to force their way to a spot within Apple's grand scheme of things, and Apple doesn't like that. And neither do a lot of other people.

Re:Let's compare...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple - Software and hardware that is not only intuitivly easy to use, it is also beautifully designed.

Wouldn't that rather be "Apple - Software and hardware that is beautifully designed to be intuitively easy to use".

The word design refers to form+function, not aesthetics.

AC

Re:Let's compare...

[Ilgaz]

I watch quicktime content on Realplayer 10 /Mac FULLSCREEN which Apple doesn'T let me without paying $30.

Why $30 bothers me? Two reasons

1) I am a G5 Mac owner (imagine the price)
2) I use licensed OS X, two of them.

Don't try to teach me what QT pro is, I just want to watch a quicktime movie fullscreen.

BTW, mplayer etc, aren't native OS X applications so is beyond me.

Re:Let's compare...

[Felonious Ham]

I got the latest RealPlayer for both Linux and Windows, and I find that the clarity is better than streaming mp3 or wmv (I listen to http://www.kexp.org/ or http://www.wbur.org/). The Linux version has no ads and functions like the best of Gnome software (simple interface, reliable function), and the Windows version has yet to bombard me with any ad-ware (admittedly a _huge_ problem in earlier version). The Windows interface is far from horrible--in fact, I'd say it was "very good".

They're just a company, not a religion, and they make a great product.

Let's put it this way...

[Josh Mast]

To cop a term from Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. Apple has great whuffie. People love Apple. They put out decent products which nullifies some of the more unseemly things they do. On the otherhand, Real has horrible whuffie. Almost none. In fact, it might be NEGATIVE whuffie. They used to have a good bit of it back in '96 but have since managed to piss it all away with horrible software.

This is why there's a 'double standard' at play.

As it stands, Apple has 70% of a 5% market.

[burgburgburg]

That doesn't constitute a monopoly. It's a good head start with most of the race ahead of them. For Real (a company which has time and again shown it's contempt for end users) to act like Apple is an evil monopoly for not licensing to them is ridiculous. Real is a non-starter that is desperate to try and be part of the game. I'm avoiding them like a bottle of Perth Pink. This is not a company for buying from. This is a company for laying down and avoiding.

Re:As it stands, Apple has 70% of a 5% market.

[stand]

I'm avoiding them like a bottle of Perth Pink

Hee hee! Thanks for leading me on an enjoyable Google-quest with that one!

Re:As it stands, Apple has 70% of a 5% market.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ah, I have programmed you well." --Steve

Re:As it stands, Apple has 70% of a 5% market.

[Anonymous Coward]

...ah - spotted it straight away. We are now experiencing Real's (and SCO's) delicious "afterburn".

BTW what Real has reverse engineered is a copy protection mechanism. It remains to be seen whether the DMCA applies to a workround used to lock files rather than to unlock them. ANAL

"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant..."

Duh

[kenp2002]

Real neglected to realize that Mac people are a cult like scientology and the Golden Dawn before them. Cultist get rather pissy like the Transcidental Movement did and while the Mac types try to spiritually levitate while praying to the unnamed spirit guides while pondering astral travel as they launder money by buying parish members $120k cars tax free in Hollywood . They obviously would follow their personal God Jobs commandments all the way to the comet's tail and a new dawn where computer are not mesured by performance and reliabilty but rather by how fruits and pretty they are. Let us pray and ascend beyond the constraints the Demi-Urge has place upon as and reach spiritual purity while crying that the infidel M$ hasn't ported a newer version of office for our perfect OS and condemn the bastards at Real for doing what their God Steve did to Xerox.. Ohh wait.. STRIKE THAT SENTENCE FROM YOU MIND OUR LORD GOD JOBS COMMANDS IT!!

Did that make any sense? Neither to Macs. :)

Best Mac cult sticker: Mac is a console game that plays adobe products!!

Aww we love you Mac your just too cute to hate... All.. hail... Wozniack...... Hail to .. the ... king.............. baby....

Re:Duh

[kenp2002]

Jebus I butchered the spelling on that one. EVEN MORE THEN NORMAL!!

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're unemployed...

Re:Duh

[kenp2002]

not yet, haven't been able to write a script that replaces myself yet, god knows I could use the time off.

Zealots

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon ... call a spade a spade ... just look at the URL : http://news.com.com/Apple+zealots+slam+Real's+iPod +campaign/2100-1041_3-5314753.html

So what? Real ran on Linux when quicktime didn't so I like Real and don't like Apple's products.

Re:Zealots

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically, something is only good in your eyes if it runs on Linux... Talk about being a zealot...

how original!

[Glog]

Here it is - from Real's site - the "real" reason why they stopped showing the names of people who singed up for the petition:

PetitionOnline.com has temporarily disabled the display of email addresses for signatories who chose to make their address public.We have done this to reduce the spread of harmful new viruses which harvest email addresses from the web cache of infected computers. This will also prevent spammers from harvesting email addresses from this site.

No, Siree Bob, it's not because people were signing the petition as "Real sucks"... it's not at all...

So what?

[StevenHenderson]

Who gives a shit about an opinion poll? (Harmony indicates Real does not) Obviously, Real could not dream of converting Mac fanboys. The only thing that matters in the end is if this series of stunts helped them gain marketshare. The end.

What? No Windows Media?!

[Anonymous Coward]

HOW DARE YOU?! WMV is the BEST format for video. It's way better than any other quicktime or real crap!!!! You pathetic loser!

Shit by any other name...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

...is still shit. Cheap and free shit is still shit. Real needs to focus on product engineering, and provide a useful tool free of spy / adware, rather than a PR / FUD campaign to drive sales. People are not quite that stupid anymore when it comes to technology.

Re:Shit by any other name...

[godawful]

that just reminded me of one of my favorite sayings..

You take 4 gallons of ice cream and 1 gallon of shit, what do you get?

5 gallons of cold shit.

Apple should license the technology

[Offwhite98]

It only makes sense to allow the market for portable music to take hold in a big way. I personally would like to be able to host my own iTunes site which integrates with the iTunes software just the same as the current Apple service. I would love to be able to search a much wider base than Apple has provided so far.

But the situation with Real Networks is just silly. I have hardly ever found their products to be little more than mildly interesting and always lacking in quality. They really should produce a worthwhile product and get consumer support before they try to force the leading competitor to make them popular.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Real can kiss my Linux using ass. They come crying to Apple and Linux users for some sympathy after MS knocked them off their teat. Tough shit, you want to sleep with the devil, you pay the price. Adobe and Macromedia will not get any sympathy from us either when their days of reckoning come.

I Want More Expensive DRM'd Files!

[sulli]

Apple fans are nutty.

Re:I Want More Expensive DRM'd Files!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple fans = Apple users (which means they couldn't access Real music even if they wanted to. This is only available to Windows users. Talk about choice. How did they expect not to get flamed?

Re:I Want More Expensive DRM'd Files!

[azaris]

Apple fans are nutty.

I hear they now come in caramel flavor as well.

You got the quote wrong

[2nd Post!]

The full quote is "Competition' doesn't give you any right to reverse-engineer when you feel like it, but come down on those that hack into your IP rights."

The quoter claimed Real had no right to reverse engineer when the company itself will not allow others to reverse engineer. It's not about law, in the quote, but about reciprocity. If they think it's okay for Real Co to RE the iPod and iTunesMS, then it should be okay for others to reverse RA stuff as well, which you didn't pick up.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[ralphus]

Reverse engineering is allowed under copyright law for interoperability. How do you think Samba exists without being shutdown under copyright law? read section 1 closely on this page. Real is completely within their rights.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Apple should port Real Alternative to OS X, and build it into Quicktime Player.

Then all Real content can be streamed to a new Mac, out of the box.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're giving too much credit to that comment. The next sentence is, "It's theft, pure and simple," which is about the most moronic way of summing up the situation that I can think of.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Hobbex]

Real have the right to reverse engineer Apple's products, and Apple (and anybody else) has the right to reverse engineer Real's. That has nothing to do with "hacking into your IP rights", and whoever wrote that is so far removed from reality I wouldn't know how to reason with him.

We support Real's position when real are right. We support Apple's position when they are right. Real were wrong when tried to keep people from reverse engineering their protocols, and Apple is wrong when it does the same.

There is nothing hypocritical about deriding the bad actions of a company, while lauding the good. What is hypocritical is to turn on a penny so as to see every action of a certain company as something benign.

Hypocracy is what one ends up with when one sees the world through Apple colored glasses. Apple is in the right here because Real were in the wrong before (for exactly the same actions as are so right from Apple now). When the MPAA attacked Jon Johansen they were evil, when Apple does it one has to understand that they have to act in the best interest of their stockholders, so it isn't really Apple that is evil (what a company is except for the interest of it's stockholders I'm not sure). When Microsoft builds proprietary DRM systems it is a cynical power grab, but when Apple does it is a wonderful innovation and any control is purely what the record companies fault. When some other corporation pulls a bait and switch it is devious, when Apple suddenly changes the number of copies or amount of computers that you can put the files you (don't!) own on, it is perfectly reasonable.

In Apple fans, DRM finally found it's adapters. Everywhere else it has reared it's ugly head, it has been spat on, rejected, hacked, and mod-chipped. Every type of consumer has rejected it for the power grab that it is - for the fact that control over their information, their computers, and their communication is something they reserve onto themselves. But not Apple fans. For them, DRM came from a higher place, a divine being, something that simply could not be wrong. Turning over control to Apple is as natural and right as anything could be, and they will spit upon those who would reject such an arrangement (not just now, but read the comments that followed Jon's hacks).

What DRM never previously got was it's early adapters. Those who are the first to accept a technology are also the first reject being controlled by: those that want most flexibility, freedom, possibilities. But in the Apple zealots, the music industry finally found it's early adapters: those who cannot see wrong in the company they idolize.

Good for you guys. You will live to reap the sorrows.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[dafz1]

DRM, or better Media Rights Management, has been with us for quite a long time. Most people have given up on the fact that one can't record a VHS movie cassette directly from one VCR to another. Yet you stand up and yell when we can't take our purchased iTunes AAC file from any of five computers to another computer, or worse, to a mp3 player that isn't an iPod. Why? The nasty people at Apple/RIAA took away our fair use.

In the grand scheme of things, and this has been said many times before, Apple's DRM is the best out there. You can play the song on any of five computers(Macs and Windows machines), and any iPod. If you want to get around their DRM, Apple tells you how! Just burn it to an audio CD and rip it into your favorite format. Yeah, I've heard the "losing quality" arguement, but let's be realistic, Apple compresses their files at 128 bits. Not exactly CD quality. The ripped files aren't going to be that much worse than the originals.

Is DRM wrong? Depends. Can I make a fully functional backup to be used in the original target playback device without having to purchase anything? If I can, no, there's nothing wrong with it. If I have to buy something(e.g. mod chip), or I can't make a backup at all, yes, there's something wrong with it.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Just burn it to an audio CD and rip it into your favorite format. Yeah, I've heard the "losing quality" arguement, but let's be realistic, Apple compresses their files at 128 bits.

At first, I thought that would result in loss of sound quality, but if you decompress it to CD audio and recompress it using the same algorithm, wouldn't you end up with the same data? Just without the encryption, that is. Also- burning to a CD and ripping may take time and waste CD's, so would it would be possible to create a disk image of a CD instead and use that?

Re:You got the quote wrong

[djbentle]

I don't think you would end up with the same data. In order to do that you would have to have the exact same start data for the first and second compression, meaning you would have to end up with the orginal data exactly, i.e. lossless compression, after the first uncompression. Instead you end up with a perfect copy of the compressed data, just uncompressed, it still suffers the same degredation as the compressed version though.

Since the start data is not the same, the new compressed data won't be the same and will degrade further. It's like repeatedly saving a jpeg. It gets worse every time.

David

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe people do not see Apple DRM as being evil because the majority of the people who use it feel they still can do what they want with the content they purchased. Do you own an iPod? Have you been encumbered by their DRM in any way? I have had to rip entire CD again because MS's DRM "decided" for me that songs I ripped from my own CD's were not legitimate. I have had legitimate mp3's that I ripped from CD that I bought sound like shit in Windows but play fine under any other OS. I definately see MS brand DRM as being an evil thing because I feel that MS tries to tell me what I can do with the content I spent my hard earned cash on.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Idempotent.

It means you can take the output of of a process and feed it back into the same process and get the same output. In this case the process is:

1) encode PCM to AAC
2) decode AAC to PCM
3) Go to step 1

Unfortunately, the answer to your question is no. Re-encoding, even using the same algorithm, is not idempotent. The reason it is not idempotent is that AAC (and MP3 and Ogg Vorbis, etc) are all lossy formats in that they actively discard information that it thinks you won't notice is missing. But, by the second time around, the easily thrown-out information is now missing. The encoder can try to throw out the now "empty" bits that represent the information is was thrown out the first time, but it can't perfectly identify those bits and so it ends up throwing out some more bits. Repeat this a few times and the sound becomes very, very sucky.

Simiarly, if you go from AAC to MP3 or from MP3 to AAC, you now get an even worse effect - since the algorithms are different they throw out different kinds of bits, the first pass through AAC might discard say 20% of the bits, when you feed the result to MP3 it might discard a DIFFERENT 20% of the bits. So, you end up with 40% missing.

PS, I only wrote this because I LOVE the word idempotent, sounds kind of like omnipotent, except better. (note, sounds) Not too often is it that I get to use it, so I have to grab my chance when I can.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, if scores ever went to 10, you would deserve an insightful +11.

Ipod (or really, iTunes) customers are trading away their and their children's future cultural freedom for the modern day equivalent of a bag of shiny beads.

I wouldn't mind so much if the end result was simply confined to them, but it isn't. In the end, their ignorance and sheeple-like acceptance of the chains of digital restriction mandates is just the foothold the copyright industry needs to fasten thsose chains to our entire society.

Steve Jobs once represented himself and Apple as an opponent to the establishment (remember the 1984 commercial?) but with the ipod/itunes DRM combo he has firmly placed Apple and himself on the side of thsoe who would suck the life out of our culture for their own dubious benefit.

Our only hope is that the copyright industry will overplay their hand, show their true colors, and start trying to charge something ridiculous like $5 for a song, or limit the number of times a purchased song can be played back. Something so utterly revulsive that the RIAA would end up shooting themselves in the foot.

One can only pray.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Hobbex]

Most people have given up on the fact that one can't record a VHS movie cassette directly from one VCR to another. Yet you stand up and yell when we can't take our purchased iTunes AAC file from any of five computers to another computer, or worse, to a mp3 player that isn't an iPod.

The difference is that in the analog age, the stupid copy-control things weren't in your telephone, they weren't in your typewriter, they weren't in your pen, and they weren't in your mouth.

A computer is not just a fancy VCR, and the Internet is not just a thousand TV channels. Our computers are tools for communication, and ever increasingly they are our primary such tools. To relinquish control over our computers to those who wish to control how and what we communicate is something entirely new - even if iTMS is just the first step.

Apologists always talk about practical issues: "Oh, but I can make as many copies as I need", "It allows me to do everything I normally would." But this is not a problem of practice, it is one of principle. By going after the makers of Playfair Apple have showed that they will not tolerate anybody to attempt to excert control over their own computer once you have started using iTMS: that is simply not acceptable.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[jest3r]

But when you visit samba.org do they charge you for the download?

The Real format is closed source as well. What do you think they (Real) would do if Microsoft reverse engineered the Real codec and then used it on the new M$ music store to allow compatibility with the Real player? Its all relative.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people support Apple? It's fairly simple:

Apple rarely fucks anyone over.

Apple has publically stated DRM can never work, it is just a minor inconvenience to prevent casual piracy. They release OS upgrades for free that make their OS faster. They use open source technology which means they not only contribute back to projects but also that anything made compatible with Macs is also likely to be compatible with other things. Apple understands that the goodwill of their consumers is their longterm revenue stream and that selling it for a couple million (billion? Irrelevant) dollars now will eventually kill them. That's why their products are designed to make the user happy.

Now let's look at Real. Real is a joke. They will always look for that extra $, even through means that are barely legal. They are also claiming to have achieved iPod compatibility, which is likely a lie. They have made their currently sold songs compatible with currently sold iPods, but are they using FairPlay or a proprietary format the iPod confuses with fairplay? Knowing Real, I'd guess the latter. One software update and that false compatibility is hosed.

People say Steve Jobs has a Reality Distortion Field because they don't understand why anyone could ever be so enthusiastic about a computer. This is a symptom of using non-Apple computers. The difference between fighting a computer to make it obey and having the computer help you wherever possible is what makes people so enthusiastic, not some ridiculous field projected from an executive.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[stor]

Apple rarely fucks anyone over.

Except their customers of course.

Cheers
Stor

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Hobbex]

They release OS upgrades for free that make their OS faster.

Ah, thank god for Apple with their free $129 upgrades, compared to those super expensive $0 service packs that MS release, not to speak of those Linux updates that are so expensive they not only cost nothing, but you can do whatever you want with them.

Inside the RDF, the above sentence made sense, I promise!

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

First off I am a great believer in freedom of speech and individual liberties, but I can't agree with what you are saying.

Equating the copying of music (or movies or games or whatever) to which YOU DO NOT OWN THE COPYRIGHT to with free speech is ludicrous.

In the context of this discussion, DRM does not limit your freedom of speech or relinquish control (except in limited circumstances) to others.

There are many real threats to freedom of speech around the world, in western countries (USA included) as well as third world countries. These are much more important than if you can pirate a song or movie.

Steve Wadsworth.
(AC, but I don't mind putting my name to this)

Re:You got the quote wrong

[CountBrass]

What complete and utter horsehit.

Without DRM on iTMS music Apple wouldn't be allowed to sell the stuff.

Whilst I agree with your implicit statement that most Americans are dumb morons (hey look at your leader!) who'd give away basic freedoms for a bag of shiney beads you could at least get whose to blame right. Here's a hint for you: it isn't Apple.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[dafz1]

Let's start with an anology. You buy a car. You decide that you want to take that car and drive all over someone else's property. You own the car, you should be able to use it anyway you like. Driving it is within the design specifications of the car. This is illegal. Is it wrong? Society has told us we don't have the right to do whatever we want, especially if it harms others. For society to function, we must "follow the rules". Not only do these rules protect others, these rules protect us FROM others. We buy a car, fully expecting everyone to follow the rules, so that others don't hit/kill us. Don't want to follow the rules, don't buy the car.

The same is true with DRM. If you don't want to follow the rules imposed by Apple, don't buy from iTMS. Every song that is bought from the iTMS is a tacit approval of Apple's DRM. Apple will change when they begin to see it on their bottom line(which, knowing Apple, will mean they will discontinue the store).

In this debate, there are four options. One, do nothing. Don't buy music, don't participate by not voting for legislators who want to preserve "fair use". Two, buy the CD, giving a pittance to the artist, and the RIAA. Three, buy from iTMS, record the AAC to an audio disc, and rip it to an mp3. Four, write you legislators, and vote for those who will support fair use. Remember, U.S. Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Vengie]

20% of 80% is 16% of the original. You now have 36% less bits compared to the original.. ;)

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that would only be true if 20% of the uncompressed bits were to be deleted, not just replaced with new bits.

For example, you start with 100 bits, compress it and the uncompress it, you now have 100 bits, but only (say) the first 80 of them are the same as in the begining. Now you feed those 100 bits into a new codec and then decode that, the new codec took the first 20 bits and replaced them. You still got 100 bits out, but now only bits 20-79 are the same as the original, or in other words, 60%.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Rakarra]

Maybe people do not see Apple DRM as being evil because the majority of the people who use it feel they still can do what they want with the content they purchased. Do you own an iPod? Have you been encumbered by their DRM in any way?

I have. For example, I bought the two Danny Elfman tracks from the Spiderman 2 soundtrack from iTunes. I figured I could then just put them onto my iPod, right? I'd done it before.. didn't work. Wouldn't let me drag the files to my iPod. I tried deauthorizing and reauthorizing the computer.. still no go. I could drag other songs from my library, just not the drmed ones. The problem is my iPod wasn't updated to the latest version that was required by iTunes. Why didn't I update the iPod? Because I couldn't. It won't update. It detects that an update is available and asks to install it, then unmounts the iPod and complains to me that it's unmounted. I suspect that the iPod is Windows formatted and I use it on a Mac. But the iTunes tracks are on my iPod now. How? I downloaded FairPlay and used it to strip out the DRM, then copied as normal. Reinitializing the iPod would be a pain and I'm not going to settle for burning to CD and ripping it again.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Shadowin]

Please stop using plural verb forms when referring to a company name. You are making the baby jebus cry.

Re:You got the quote wrong

[Hobbex]

It isn't wrong to treat company names as being plural. It is a British/American thing.

Being inconsistant about it, like I was above, is definitely wrong though. I shall settle for one some day.

Fuck 'em all

[stratjakt]

Let the zealots win.

Lets have 15 different proprietary "standards" out there for music. That way if you buy a player from Apple, you buy your music from Apple. If a song you like is only available on some other service, why you buy another player.

I don't care. I'm through with music. I wont buy any CDs or download any songs.

In my day, it was pretty decent. I could go buy a CD from any store I wanted, and it would work in any of my CD players. Before that was cassette tapes, before that 8-tracks and LPs.

But I don't care about todays kids. Go let yourself get screwed over by a bunch of corporate assholes. Tell yourselves that the company is some great benevolant force that truly cares about you, if that makes you feel better.

I could give a fuck if iTunes is completely incompatible with Real and every other music service. I could give two shits what kind of DRM Apple or Real or Napster or anyone else want to use. Who gives a shit if you're allowed to burn it to one CD, or only listen to the song on the third tuesday of every month.

Hey, do it to TV too. I don't care. When video-on-demand rolls out, make sure each service is compatible only with a suitably branded TV set or cable tuner. Sony Video-on-Demand only works with Sony sets, etc. Ruin TV. See if you can make a buck doing it.

Have your legions of Sony fans go around swearing and acting like idiots if Phillips starts trying to compete.

Not my problem, and I don't care.

The entire "entertainment" industry can jump up my ass. It bores me. I don't look to any corporate messiah for my entertainment anymore. Fuck em all, and fuck all their fans and zealots.

Re:Fuck 'em all

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, that was awesome.

Re:Fuck 'em all

[Anonymous Coward]

See, you aren't what we call a "target market."

Re:Fuck 'em all

[prockcore]

Lets have 15 different proprietary "standards" out there for music. That way if you buy a player from Apple, you buy your music from Apple.

That's the irony of this whole situation. The market will not stand for 15 different standards.

If Apple refuses to license FairPlay to any other online music store, then FairPlay is going to fall by the wayside and we'll all be using MS's DRM.. since MS will license that to anyone.

Re:Fuck 'em all

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, that was the greatest rant evar dude.

Re:Fuck 'em all

[Anonymous Coward]

Complete agreement. So you wanna run for President?

Re:Fuck 'em all

[TClevenger]

If Apple refuses to license FairPlay to any other online music store, then FairPlay is going to fall by the wayside and we'll all be using MS's DRM.. since MS will license that to anyone.

Apple will license FairPlay to anyone. (They licensed it to Motorola.) But Real decided to skip the licensing and just reverse-engineer it.

Re:Fuck 'em all

[prockcore]

Apple will license FairPlay to anyone. (They licensed it to Motorola.) But Real decided to skip the licensing and just reverse-engineer it.

No, Apple will NOT license FairPlay to any online music store. They licensed it to Motorola so phones can support it. But you can bet that Motorola's license prevents them from using FairPlay on their own content or to open a online music store.

Real *tried* to license FairPlay, Apple said no.

Re:Fuck 'em all

[Lost Race]

I agree too, except that I couldn't give a fuck if iTunes is completely incompatible, and I couldn't give two shits what kind of DRM Apple want to use.

I don't get it

[idiot900]

What's so bad about co-opting iPod's DRM scheme so you can sell music to its users? DRM is evil, remember? I thought we'd agreed on that. Real may suck unmentionable parts of farm animals, but I don't understand the moral objection to their reverse-engineering. What's wrong with with having two music vendors for the iPod? Competition is good, isn't it?

Let it go

[thejoelpatrol]

I'm a big Apple fan, so I don't want Real to succeed in hurting the iTMS and in their anti-Apple campaign, but I don't like the response they're getting from other Apple fans, either. I'm not going to go on the offensive here to hurt a company that is, I would say, playing fair. I don't think Real's strategy is going to work for them, so I would just let it go. You can only sell half-priced music for so long. I don't like Apple's legal approach. Just issue a software update for the iPod that blocks Real's hack.

Re:Let it go

[polyp2000]

I'm a big Apple fan, so I don't want Real to succeed in hurting the iTMS and in their anti-Apple campaign,

So let me get this straight, you would rather one company had a monopoly on music downloads, than several companies competing fairly and squarely in the same marketplace?

Dont get me wrong I like Apple, over the recent years I have warmed to them greatly. However I think that the attitude you are flagrantly displaying. I like Apple so I dont want company X to succeed or to hurt iTunes or Apple. That is such a bullshit thing to say quite frankly. Competition is good, DRM and proprietary fileformats are not good. Desiring the failure of one company just because you are over zealous about another is just plain immature, and thoughtless.

While the legalities of Reals actions maybe in a bit of a grey area, Someone has to fight against these things, particularly when they are abusing customers rights. The main right in question here is who owns the iPod you just forked out for with your hard earned cash? You or Apple ? Imagine the uproar if sony devised a CD player only capable of playing sony formatted CD's. Nobody would buy it. The iPod sells because it is the epitome of cool design and consumer electronics, it is a highly desirable item. iTMS sells tunes because of its ease of use and its integration with iTunes. Apple dont technically own the music that gets played on its iPod or iTunes, and what right have they to dictate that music purchased fairly and squarely not be played on a device that you bought fairly and squarely..

What would happen say, if Real were to release an alternative firmware for the iPod? Apple dont seem to have a problem with the Linux on iPod project, so whats to stop Real from doing that ?

Real seems to have a 50/50 love-hate relationship with people (particularly here on slashdot) so I'd expect quite a difference in opinions. But lets face it if it was another company or some homebrew Open Source programmer that released something similar would you have the same hateful attitude, Most likely no! in fact you would be greatful that some hacker just increased the flexibility and functionality of your iPod/ iTunes program.

IMHO iTunes is all very well at the moment and is probably doing quite well in the market. As soon as the evil beast from redmond gets it equivalent software on all those windows machines, Apple are going to have to rethink the iTMS only strategy, because as much as i hate to admit it M$ will probably be a lot less restrictive on who can sell their DRM'd format, which, naturally will be incompatible with the iPod.

There is a real problem with these companies ... The whole pack of em... They are more interested in money than actually giving customers choice and value.

So ... Think about the broader implications not just you but for everyone before you make such over zealous comments.

Nick ...

Re:Let it go

[thejoelpatrol]

I want Apple to succeed out of gut favoritism. Competition is good. Open formats are good. But in this particular case, I like Apple and I think their products/music store are so good that it doesn't matter if there is competition. Windows has traditionally been complete crap (taking baby steps away from it now), so I want to see more competition for microsoft from Apple and Linux. But the iTMS is really good. The iPod is really good. Screw competition. If the competition can't keep up, so be it. It's not like Apple is behaving illegally or anything like that. I don't like the fact that they are going to sue Real, but the main reason they are dominant is because they are the best.

Another lesson -brand image is important.

[ron_ivi]

Techies like to ignore branding; but this is an excellent example of how hard it can be to overcome a negative brand image.

Real's done lots of decent (appearing, anyway?) things like open-source/helix, etc; but people have a hard time getting over the time that they were the obnoxious-spyware-company.

I think this is interesting because it's a case where Branding is meaningful to techies. A good brand image (Apple) vs. a bad brand image (Real) influences people at least as much as the technical details (yeah, it'd be cool if all content played anywhere).

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Moofie]

But changing the brand wouldn't change the perception.

I mean, Real could change their name to "NotRealNetworks", but all us savvy geeks wouldn't be distracted.

"NotRealNetworks? Oh yeah. They used to be Real Networks. Not gonna buy their crap. You remember trying to install their damn player? Change the state on EVERY SINGLE RADIO BUTTON or it's spam for years."

It's not just branding: It's building a reputation for good products (or failing to do so). Brand is a factor, insofar as a company's product history informs my decision, but it's not at all the most relevant factor.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Techies like to ignore branding; but this is an excellent example of how hard it can be to overcome a negative brand image.

I guess you haven't read much of the KDE/GNOME, Mono/C#, Java/C++, Dell/whoever, Linux/Windows etc wars. Branding gets just as involving for techies as for anyone else.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[EtherAlchemist]

A specific example of this is1 how differently the brands owned by Real are viewed by the user population.

RealPlayer tends to cause immediate irritation in people's minds and postings on the net.

Mention Rhapsody, though, and not a lot of flak is sent up. Why?

Other than the obvious trespassings Real had in the past, they've continued to exhibit ambigous messages to the public. The Helix system is open, but doesn't support premium services the Realplayer does, You have the Realplayer for Windows, Mac and Linux but the majority of servies and features only work on Windows, Harmony loads content onto almost any device (not just the iPod, that's a misconception) but the Real music store only works on Windows PCs, no Macs or Linux boxes. There's the implied message they are universal but in truth they're really a Windows product with some reach into Mac.

With Rhapsody, there's no bad name attached. They've never gotten mixed up in bad consumer practices- due in large part to the fact they listened to their consumers (imagine that!), they have a compelling product but the key difference is that Rhapsody is never marketed in any light other than the one that shines for Windows PCs. There's no ambiguity.

Yeah, Real had made serious attempts to clean up the brand but heavy promotion focused around ads that show a friggin iPod implying universal support but not actual having it is the next biggest hurdle. Mac users who have an iPod can't take advantage of the 49cent service because there's no store for the Mac.

Plus, does Real seriously think that by considering the feedback they received only the work of a "vocal minority" instead of 1200+ (at this writing) comments that might actually have some value, even if it is buried in vulgarity.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what could they do to repair the brand?

Noone trusts Real. Why? We've clicked links on Real's website before, and reinstalled OS's because of it. Rob&Friends have damaged the Real brand beyond repair, to the point that when he does something reasonable he sounds like the guys who say nazis did some good things.

IMHO, the way to fix the brand would be to kill it. Rename themselves UnReal, fire the management team, and publicly state that Real and everything it stood for was a mistake. Then I'll give them a second chance.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[libcoder]

Brand name debates can get crazy passionate. Usually mac vs. PC debates go one for weeks and end with both sides insulting the others' mothers.
I'm not a big fan of either company, but I would agree with Real reverse engineering, if they were actually lenient with their own technology. Meanwhile, this corporate feud has made Gates happy enough already, let's not forget why were here!

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if Real changed their name. Maybe to, oh, I don't know... Gatoria or something...

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[jrexilius]

As the owner of a small software company I have to agree with the reasoning.

Why would you trust a company, particularly a publicly traded company, when it comes to anything relating to profit and market share? Doing a few good deeds when the market is supportive of them (i.e. supporting OS now that its cool) should do little to erase bad deeds of the past.

As this issue is less giving to a community and more trying to steal pieces of that community from another (proprietary) company I would be doubly untrusting.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[ConceptJunkie]

Well, Apple earned their good perception as much as Real earned their bad perception. I for one, am really glad Real is paying the price for being sleazy and incompetent. I'd rather deal with Microsoft than Real any day. The real issue, though, is that lack of interoperatability (is that a word?) only hurts the users. Its true in media and doubly true in the IM world. Don't lock out your competition from your file format, beat them on functionality. But of course, that take hard work and brains, both of which are at a premium.

Of course, that's why all my music is ripped to OGG. That gives me the most choices, and when I get a hardware music player, one that supports OGG will maximize my flexibility.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[BarryNorton]

Unreal Networks...

Like, totally!

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[tambo]

RealPlayer tends to cause immediate irritation in people's minds and postings on the net.

Mention Rhapsody, though, and not a lot of flak is sent up. Why?

Because the reason people are irritated by Real isn't their proprietary nature. That's a business decision that need not directly impact consumers. That is, "prioprietary" does not necessarily require copy-protection schemes, closed formats, monopoly pricing, and tech stagnation. (These things often happen, but not always. Technically, Perl and Linux are proprietary, but they're open-source and free.)

No, the actual reason why people hate Real is because their technology is horrific dogshit.

• Every time you want to view a new Real stream, you have to download RealPlayer version x+1.
• Their player is bloated with ads and doo-dad components you'll never use and can't get eliminate, so the interface is cluttered. It's like poking a tiny hole in a full-page newspaper advertisement, and trying to watch TV through it.
• Their free player is also crippled beyond repair. You can't save streams unless you buy their software, and that is complete bullshit.
• Today's Real streams run like technology straight out of 1994. They're bloated, tinny, and pixelated. They're vastly outcompeted by every other format.
• Their software won't stop f***ing harassing you. It spews links to itself all over your desktop, your start menu, your quick-launch bar, and your notification area. It nags you constantly to upgrade to a more recent version or buy the full version. It keeps installing its beyond-useless agent in your MSCONFIG startup, and won't go away.

In short, people hate Real because Real sucks. They've made a whole lot of awful business and technical choices, and this animosity is the consequence.

- David Stein

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Moofie]

If you think that the Mac vs. PC debate is just about a brand name, you're completely ignorant of the discussion.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[doofusclam]

I dunno. Gator changing their name to Claria seems to have worked - people still slag off Gator, not the new name.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Moofie]

But I (and many other geeks) know that Gator==Claria.

The contention is that geeks are showing susceptability to brand marketing. I am disagreeing. We are not talking about the mass market.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Xtifr]

Every time you want to view a new Real stream, you have to download RealPlayer version x+1.

That I won't argue with, although it'll be interesting to see if it remains true after some of the most recent and obvious changes to their system.

Their player is bloated with ads and doo-dad components [...]

The new one (or at least the beta I have of the new one) isn't.

Their free player is also crippled beyond repair. You can't save streams [...]

That's not true of the new one (or at least of the beta of the new one). I didn't know this until my four-year old niece had saved a bunch of songs from pbskids.org. (Gah! But at least it's not Brittany, I suppose. :)

Today's Real streams run like technology straight out of 1994.

Hmm, ok, but I like the fact that the player now reportedly handles Ogg Theora! (Although I admit I haven't had a chance to test this yet.)

Their software won't stop f***ing harassing you. [...]

Again, not in the new one (or at least the beta of the new one).

I've hated Real for years, and haven't had their player installed since 2000 or so, but when I saw a mention on the Ogg Theora site that Real player could now be used to view Theora streams, I was intrigued enough to give them one more try, and I've been very favorably impressed.

Anyway, I agree that you've probably named the main reasons people have hated Real. I just want to point out that companies can change (in the seventies and early eighties, I hated IBM, and in the late eighties, I hated Apple, and neither of those is true any more), and there are some signs that Real may be changing. Time will tell. Maybe it's because I'm using the beta, and they didn't bother adding the ads and misbehavior to that, and maybe it's because I'm using the Linux version (although with all the ads and malware that come bundled with Windows these days, I'm not sure why Windows users would be upset by Real), but my impression of Real has certainly taken a major change for the better recently.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

He is right! I can't get rid of real scheduler. That alone is good enough for me to hate Real. I never *chose* Real. I was locked down to it.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Mskpath3]

That about sums it up for me. Those bogus 'graphicsy' tarted up windows are annoying and cheap looking, and for all intents and purpose, letting Real on your machine is no different than a virus. Annoyingly hard to remove once you've got it. I had a 'flare up' recently after I caved and installed it to view something or other. As bad and annoying as ever - but like genital Herpes, you can control it with smart living :/

F Real.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[NaugaHunter]

• Every time you want to view a new Real stream, you have to download RealPlayer version x+1.
• Their player is bloated with ads and doo-dad components you'll never use and can't get eliminate, so the interface is cluttered. It's like poking a tiny hole in a full-page newspaper advertisement, and trying to watch TV through it.
• Their free player is also crippled beyond repair. You can't save streams unless you buy their software, and that is complete bullshit.
• Today's Real streams run like technology straight out of 1994. They're bloated, tinny, and pixelated. They're vastly outcompeted by every other format.
• Their software won't stop f***ing harassing you. It spews links to itself all over your desktop, your start menu, your quick-launch bar, and your notification area. It nags you constantly to upgrade to a more recent version or buy the full version. It keeps installing its beyond-useless agent in your MSCONFIG startup, and won't go away.

Man, even Real is better on OS X. I use RealOne Player daily in OS X for a radio show and never get harassed by the program. Technically, the stream is available in all streaming formats, but that was the one I clicked first and is hasn't given me any troubles yet.

Now that I think about it, I'm skewing the numbers in their favor, aren't I? Guess I'll use iTunes tomorrow. Way to make me think that through, Real.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

...under Windows you can install RealAlternative -- which is the latest versions (I believe?) of the Real codecs, and a copy of Media Player Classic (which can be found on Sourceforge).

MPC looks and works like Microsoft's Media Player 6, only it's polished up loads. Tells you about codecs it has a problem with, tells you where to get them if you've not got them. "Does what it says on the tin" -- and does it well... mmmm... open source goodness.

As a companion to the RealAlternative pack, there's a QuickTimeAlternative pack, which -- you guessed it -- is a just-as-legal but fully-working package of the Quicktime codecs and MPC.

Now you can watch both QT and Real stuff without even installing their players!

Oh.. the QT and Real Alternative packages both also have working Mozilla plugins too.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, a Godwins Law post being modded up.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[ebyrob]

Blech. But after cruddy release after cruddy release, why would anyone want to actually install one of their players on a computer unless they were an ad-ware tester?

I know I wouldn't even take the chance of hosing up a perfectly good windows system with any of their carp...

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[aaronvegh]

Sorry if this sounds like a troll, but that is my impression of most Windows software. Doo-dad, unnecessary components, bloated feature sets, unpredictable interfaces. Non-stop harassment to up to the paid version, and shortcuts and "special offer links" strewn everywhere. Anyone ever heard of human interface guidelines??? Real sure hasn't, but they're not alone.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[L1TH10N]

Microsoft is another example of a company that will never overcome its negative hacker-attracting brand name... then again maybe it can after a couple decades like IBM. ;-)

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[mkiwi]

cheers to "horrific dogshit" !

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[King_TJ]

Well, it doesn't help that older system configurations don't die off easily or quickly. When I do on-site PC service (home and small business), I encounter at least one or two machines per week that run older versions of RealPlayer/Real Jukebox and they're as annoying as ever.

Even companies as large as Microsoft have to bow to this problem. (They tried to eliminate Windows '98 support but were forced to extend it, because so many people keep on using it!)

The lesson here is be very careful what software products you put out there. They stick around a lot longer than you might like, even when they're not very good....

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[tambo]

That's not true of the new one (or at least of the beta of the new one).

You know, I just don't care.

I'm usually pretty tolerant of lame software. Adobe Acrobat has always been a Windows-3.1-esque piece of junk; it's probably the only modern viewer-style application that noticeably pauses between page flips. But I will maintain a sliver of patience and hope that Acrobat evolves into a non-annoying product, because (a) I genuinely support Adobe's mission of a general-purpose, cross-platform, academic-friendly document format; and (b) it's really widespread, and doesn't appear to have any decent competitor.

Real - not so. They have completely exhausted my consumer interest in their product. That's what happens when you just blatantly ignore your customer's interests for a long time. Even if their latest rev is analogous to alternatives like Quicktime Player and Windows Media, it's still far too little, far too late.

- David Stein

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[nanojath]

I might actually give them another try at some point based on that testimony. I have refused to bother with content requiring real for a good long while now because I found their stuff so intrusive in the past with minimal reward. Actually needing Real has become pretty rare and I question whether they can really make it at this point. The bottom line is that windows media and quicktime play almost everything and are very minimally intrusive otherwise. I'm still not jumping up to pick up Real.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really funny to me how many people hate RealNetworks for all the spyware crap. I've always hated them because their products were crap.

Same reason I don't like micros~1.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Moofie]

Why can't I hate them for both?

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[crucini]

Unfortunately xpdf and gv (ghostview = ghostscript's postscript viewer) have the same lag. PS/PDF are complicated languages and rendering a page can require any amount of work. A good fix, though, might be to pre-render all the pages to bitmaps in RAM. A smart viewer could even save the bitmaps somewhere so when you open the PDF again it's snappier.

It would be great if a leaner format had become the standard, but it's a bit late.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[umpa]

Their free player is also crippled beyond repair. You can't save streams unless you buy their software, and that is complete bullshit.

So you want to download their player and be able to do everything possible? They should give it to you for free?

How do they make money then?

Don't want them to make money? Don't buy anything.

Quit bein' fuckin' pissed off that no one will give you want you want for free. Write the damned thing yourself.

I mean, what board do you think you're on, anyway?

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Xtifr]

I agree that Windows Media is unobtrusive - if, by "unobtrusive," you mean the vendor would rather pour boiling lead over their own genitals than provide a version that will work on my system!

I find it hard to agree with the claim that it will play almost everything though - unless, by "play everything," you mean, the vendor would rather pour boiling lead over their own genitals than provide a version that will work on my system! :)

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[geordie_loz]

and you can have my nice 3 button scroll mouse when web pages require no scrolling...

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[alex_tibbles]

"Adobe Acrobat has always been a Windows-3.1-esque piece of junk; it's probably the only modern viewer-style application that noticeably pauses between page flips."

Try ghostview + gsview (on windows). On complicated ps, pdf you can see it render :). Ps,pdf is non-trivial to interpret. Im sure that implementing pre-caching wouldnt be too hard though.

"Adobe's mission of a general-purpose, cross-platform, academic-friendly document format"

Minor nit: ps, pdf is for printers. It's designed to be non-editable so is of limited academic use, except for publication. It's a publishing format, not an academic format. (Mathematicians use TeX AFAIK).

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

They could fire some upper management people, divest their departments into little companies, and let them each sink or swim.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Obfiscator]

It's a publishing format, not an academic format. (Mathematicians use TeX AFAIK).

Mathematicians and scientists. I write my papers in LaTeX and it's great. Everytime I have to go back to Word I shudder. I first used it for the equations (I find it much easier to write equations in TeX than Word), but now I'd rather write simple text documents in TeX, too.

It's the same reason I prefer Linux over Windows: the feeling of being in control of the tool you're using, and being able to change everything. Maybe you can do that with Word, too, but I always get the impression Word wants to tell me what to do instead of the other way around.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[jpop32]

Adobe Acrobat has always been a Windows-3.1-esque piece of junk; it's probably the only modern viewer-style application that noticeably pauses between page flips.

Dude, Acrobat Reader 4.05 is where it's at. Loads instantly, has no plugins or shit, displays every PDF in existance. Set it to continuous page view and you're set. Every version after that is just more bloat and crud.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[nanojath]

I'm pretty sure that if it really came down to a choice between supporting your system and boiling lead on the genitals of, shall we say, key players within the vendor in question, you would get support. This being the case I think your course is clear...

(Clearly I was speaking from the disgusting depth of a degraded consumeristic wasteland. What I meant was, 99% of the (non-flash etc) audio-visual content I happen upon on ye olde internette plays on either Quicktime or WMP... And yes, the fact I am using a Mac running OSX makes it accessible. In my defense, in the debate of whether Real will survive or not, the vast majority of potential consumers are in the same boat as me).

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Vengie]

xpdf is free......so is ghostview. gsview32. windows friendly. google for "ghostview"

-br

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

you have the #1 funniest sig in the world

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[tambo]

So you want to download their player and be able to do everything possible? They should give it to you for free?

No. They can reserve advanced functionality for their pay-for-play viewer. Ad-Aware, for instance, offers an Ad-Watch utility that actively monitors your system - but it's only in the professional version. I'm fine with that.

What I'm not fine with is crippleware - free versions that limit or omit basic functionality. I've seen HTML editing documents that prepare a document for you but won't let you save it. That is bogus, because it's not a functional program. It's an interactive demo.

Real does not bill its free player as an interactive demo. It bills it as a free media player. The basic functions that accompany every fully-working media player application are (a) viewing, (b) fast-forwarding, rewinding, and pausing, and (c) locally saving the content. Any media player application that lacks any of these basic functions is crippleware - but it's not advertised as such.

- David Stein

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

"general-purpose, cross-platform, academic-friendly document format"

Hmm... sounds like the exact definition of HTML to me.

Why do you think HTML was originaly conceved?

PDFs are outdated and redundant. Every use for PDFs can be done better with web technology.

Re:Another lesson -brand image is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually mac vs. PC debates go one for weeks and end with both sides insulting the others' mothers.

Yet such insults are strangely on-topic and appropriate, because Gates's mother and the chairman of IBM were both members of the board of United Way, which may have something to do with the reason Bill got the IBM relationship.

Re:Real should put their money where their mouth i

[cavemanf16]

Exactly what I was thinking! They're upset over Apple's proprietary DRM'd codec, and yet no one can play a .rm file without RealPlayer software installed on your *Windows* computer. (and the last time I checked, which was a couple of years ago I'll admit, was FULL of ads and "load on Windows startup" default options that couldn't be changed) So what is this I hear about freedom of music choice??? Who cares about music choice when it's only going to play on one "radio station" (the .rm file format and it's completed dependance on only one software package that can play it) FULL of ads and other crap I don't want to put up with!

It is truly amazing how entire companies can take what appear to be great ideas in one arena of business, or politics, or the internet, or whatever; and manage to completely screw it up when they try to just slap it on their own business processes and products. Blogs are great for consumers, not usually for companies (unless it fits your companies goals and internet focus, of course). In effect, Real just gave investors a direct method to measure customer feedback about their new product. That's totally cool when your product rocks and your customers all agree that it rocks. But if it doesn't, and this apparently hasn't for Real, then you're in big trouble.

You forgot #3

[2nd Post!]

Music store isn't Mac compatible.

Bullshit! That's only a Mac thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiots on Internet! Computer users identify obsessively with their preferred platform, act like obnoxious twits in way they would never dare in real life!

Bullshit bullshit bullshit! Free software open supporters work for FREEDOM and openness they do NOT behave that way its contredactory to they are PRINCAPLES thats only CLOSED POLATFORUM AVOCATES do that becaus theyr soul sold to CORPS for SELLOUT GREED!

As a OSS philosapher and coad poet I AM NOT paltform obesed because thats UNFREE and as a member of the Open Sorce COMMUNITY which runs LINUX OR BSD OR ANYTHING THATS FREE I logically CANNOT be identafyod with a plaffermmem!!!1!! ANd OSS is part of the the green and nanti-globolozotion moments bcuause we are FREE!!!!

AND YES I DO BEHAVE LIKE THIS IN REAL LIFE i bet you donnt have theguts to doit.

Re:Bullshit! That's only a Mac thing!

[andy55]

AND YES I DO BEHAVE LIKE THIS IN REAL LIFE i bet you donnt have theguts to doit.

Then why did you post anonymously, shitcock?

Funny in a sad way

[blinder]

From the article:

Virgin Mega recently took issue with the iPod, saying its proprietary stance was anticompetitive.

Um, yeah, this is kinda funny. So, getting the pants beaten off you in the marketplace is grounds for calling a highly successful device and media format "anticompetitive?"

Ah, but what if the shoe was on the other foot now? Sheesh, the knuckleheads at Real and Virgin need to stop trying to spin the obvious and just get to work on *making* something that can compete.

freedom of choice or send me your customers?

[Roskolnikov]

Apple has spent a lot of time and money on making their store
a seamless part of the iPod, they licensed the fairplay drm,
reverse engineering it for personal use is just dandy, reverse engineering it for competitive gain is theft.

That being said as a Mac user and an iPod owner (on number 2 now) I applaud Apple on having an open product, it plays unprotected AAC (mpeg 4) it plays DRM'd ACC and it plays MP3 encoded audio; what would real add to this for me? zero, Real has done little if anything to support me in the past and I for one intend on returning the favor. I hope they choke on this one.

Because Real would ruin the itunes experience

[littleghoti]

Apple, or rather Steve Jobs likes to control the whole experience. By doing this, it is much easier to make things work well together. If your tunes purchase from real stop working, then people will blame apple for selling a crappy player, although it's an ugly Real kludge to get them selling tunes. And if people start hearing that the ipod experience is crap, apple will sell less ipods. If Real wanted an open system, they would open their codecs. As it is you can't use the real store for macs.

Re:Can you say "astroturfing"?

[jfengel]

This news article isn't about astroturfing. Or rather, it's about astroturfing backfiring. RealNetworks is astroturfing by putting up the petition, which isn't really news. What is news is that people are using the petition to complain about what Real is doing.

So yeah, we can all say "astroturfing". But that's not what this news article is about, unless you want to claim that the counter-astroturfers are being put up to it by Apple.

A few flames on an online petition = newsworthy?

[TobyWong]

If that's what passes for a decent news article these days, add me to your friends list. I will provide you with a steady stream of "content" for your "news stories".

Real's Hypocrisy is what's so annoying

[MooseByte]

Well, their crappy products too, but hypocrisy as well.

"Proprietary is anticompetitive by definition. Apple is banking that proprietary is profitable. I'll guess we'll see if they are right.

Though cross-platform proprietary solutions are not completely anti-competitive. If every service was cross-platform, then you'd be free to choose whatever service simply worked best. That's true choice.

Frankly Real's efforts wouldn't annoy me as much if 1) They hadn't kept their own .rm format proprietary and, 2) Their crappy Rhapsody music service worked on OS other than Windows Not that I'd use it anyway, but it's funny to see them ranting for "choice" and against closed formats when they themselves pursue the opposite.

Real: "Proprietary formats are evil! (Unless they're ours)
Real: "Consumers deserve freedom of choice! (As long as you choose Windows)

Maybe they can strike a sweet cooperative deal with SCO. They could save so much by merging their PR departments, since the overlap is complete.

Re:Real's Hypocrisy is what's so annoying

[cheekyboy]

And apple qt using sorenson and that other audio one isnt proprietry?

Why Reverse Engineer the Codec?

[Anonymous Coward]

iPods play MP3s. So why doesn't REAL just sell MP3s? I don't get it.

hmm

[Opticalsky]

I personally believe what Real Networks is doing is great, as it's just capitalism taking it's natural course. Any company that bars their technology just so they can make the profit is understandable but it's not exactly helping the suffering music industry, what Real Networks is doing is letting consumers to be able to use other services to get their music needs, thus farther increasing the money the music industry is after.

Meanwhile, I don't believe what Real Networks is doing wrong by having their own software that will work with another company's hardware, I believe all interoperability is a healthy thing for the economy.

iPOD is open

[havoc]

Last time I heard, the iPod supported the open and widely used MP3 format, so why did Real need to do *anything* to get their music to play on it? Oh, yeah, they are using a proprietary DRMed format, just like Apple is trying so desperatly to push. I'll stick with my Archos and MP3s, thank you very much.

Real supporting "choice"?

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be the same Real which forbids any reverse engineering of RealVideo, or use of their libraries to achieve decoding outside their own player? (Check that EULA) And in wishing to "extend choice", ensures their own music store is only Windows/IE compatible? This is the set of moves one pundit called "shaking up the music industry"?

This commentary on the affair puts it into as sensible a perspective as it demands.

This is funny coming from Real

[bedouin]

. . . who took the makers of Streambox Ripper to court because it allowed one to convert Real Audio files to WAV, MP3, AIFF, etc.

Hypocrites.

This (along with other questionable practices) is why a lot of people are rooting for Apple, even though Real would ordinarily have the moral high ground.

And well, historically Apple has made some pretty cool and innovative products, while Real has done nothing particularly interesting.

Re:This is funny coming from Real

[Ahnteis]

Difference between removing DRM completely and making your DRM compatible with their hardware. Nice try though. BTW, remember who first did streaming music? It sure wasn't Apple.

People hate those that hurt the people they like.

[Above]

Apple has told people how much money they make on their $0.99 songs. We all know their margins are slim. I think what angers people the most about the Real situation is they are clearly doing one of two things:

• Dumping songs below cost and eating the loss in an effort to get people to switch.
• Getting a significantly better deal, eg, nearly free, from the record companies for the music.

Now, if you're an Apple fan the first is simply anti-competitive. It's dumping, trying to force out a (relatively) fair player. The presumption is if Apple were to leave the business Real would then jack up the price. The second is almost as infuriating to the Apple fan as it means the record companies are essentially doing the same thing at the wholesale level in an attempt to hurt Apple.

So, if you're an Apple fan, both actions root is not to provide you with better music for cheaper, but to put Apple out of business. Presumably the Apple fan likes his iMac/OSX/iPod/Airport/Whatever so he would like Apple to stay in business.

It is also interesting that Real, and company with a proprietary format which it will not release to Apple or the Linux community and that uses copyright patents and trademarks to enforce their proprietary format has no qualms about breaking the software protection of another format. I suspect if Apple say, released songs in .rm format because they had reverse engineered it that Real would be all up in their face trying to use their various "IP" to stop it.

Companies can't have it both ways. They can protect their IP from everyone else, but then not break others IP, or they can let everyone use their IP and use everyone else's. It's not a buffet, they don't get to pick and choose.

Apple fans don't like Real? Gasp

[obsid1an]

This seems to be more of a case of Apple fans not liking Real's campaign rather than all music buyers. It's not like it's unexpected either, even if it does make them hypocrits. Apple fans simply don't like people pushing their company around.

Do you really think the same people would be up in arms if Apple were to make some WMA only player run FairPlay files? Not likely. I am far from a fan of Real but the Apple fanboyism is just all too obvious sometimes.

Re:Apple fans don't like Real? Gasp

[Anonymous Coward]

why is this stuff getting modded down? are comments like this a little too close to truth for the apple zealots?

Real v Apple? On Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Real versus Apple is only ever going to have one outcome. If Real were pledging to feed the hungry, we'd still get disdain and the "BUFFERING..." jokes.

How I wish this was Real V Microsoft... I don't even know who I'd be rooting for!

anti competative? HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPod supports MP3, uncompressed WAV's, AAC, and FairPlay encryption. All of the supported formats are open, just not other companies DRM, which doesn't fit Apples standards as far as useage rights, ease of use, or reliability, any one of those would be reason enough not to support it.

It has been said before..if people have problems, they'll call Apple, not the the company who they aquired the DRM'd song from. I look at it as an untested technology being put in a car, then bitching because it voids the warrenty. Real's hack may screw up other functions of the iPod, who knows, but do you trust Real anyway?

RE: Open Source

[2nd Post!]

I hear all the open source zealots are typing away on PowerBooks and iBooks, now, running OS X.

I also know that Real's music store is Mac incompatible. So much for choice, right?

Best part of the CNET article

[Anonymous Coward]

"tartly worded phrases"

Tartly....Tartly???

Who uses that word?

Why I think Apple can't let Real in

[aptenergy]

Even though the iTMS is not making money, the whole point of the iTMS is brand recognition and iPod sales. Apple appears to be in the digital music business for the long haul. The only thing they can do to stay viable is to make sure that their music store and their devices are forever linked.

If Harmony is accepted, then iPod sales may go up slightly (which is Real's feint), but brand recognition decreases because you don't have to buy from iTMS and use iTunes to use your iPod - you can use Harmony and Real instead. You can even buy from other music stores, and lookie lookie, they'll all work because Harmony is there.

That means increased brand recognition for Real, which is what it needs since everyone hates Real (with good reason, I might add).

If Real takes away from the brand recognition that the iTMS and the iPod enjoy... Apple will be at a disadvantage. At that point in time, other makers of MP3 player hardware can step up (having had some time to play catch up) and hawk lower prices and better battery life and such. I'd be willing to bet that iTMS music files will someday be able play on other music players.

There's an upper ceiling to how much Apple can innovate; it's not like the new 4G iPod had everyone slack-jawed. If they intend to keep going, they're going to have to establish a dominant market share early and quickly and then keep it there. Real's not going to help them stay dominant.

Harmony is DRM Translation, not DRM Removal

[diamondsw]

Let's please get one thing straight - Real is not doing "freedom" any favors with harmony. All it does is reapply the same DRM limitations on the resulting iPod-compatible file. You're still stuck with a hobbled, limited file.

Meanwhile, look at it from Apple's perspective (please, give it a try, just for a moment). User buys songs from Real, with their DRM limitations. User converts them, loads them on iPod, assumedly through iTunes. Now, the user tries to play them on multiple computers, etc like Apple DRM allows... and it doesn't play. Who are they calling? Do they remember which store they bought it from? No, they see that iTunes isn't playing something, and they call Apple. Now some Apple tech has to figure out that this is a Real AAC, not an Apple AAC, and figure out how the hell their DRM integrates (or doesn't) with iTunes, etc. This is a support disaster waiting to happen, and it will be Apple's, not Real's.

And finally, for those who read veiled threats into the press release Apple sent out about the iPod maybe not working in the future with such files - why not take it at face value for a moment? It's widely known that third parties supply the chips and guts of the iPod, so it's not such a reach that one of these new generations of chips and software just won't be prepared for whatever hack Real has done, and it will break. No conspiracy, no revenge, just simple fact of life in development.

Re:Harmony is DRM Translation, not DRM Removal

[prockcore]

Now some Apple tech has to figure out that this is a Real AAC, not an Apple AAC

No! It *is* Apple AAC. That's what Harmony does, it converts from Real's DRM to FairPlay. The end result is identical to what you'd get off of iTMS, except it is higher bitrate.

Re:Harmony is DRM Translation, not DRM Removal

[klui]

This is funny. If it's "identical" how can it have a higher bitrate?

Whatever, this issue has certainly polarized the music community. I personally do not like Real. Their ad-infested RealPlayer was enough to turn me off this company's products forever. And like another person posted, maybe if they fired all their upper management and changed their name, I may give them a second chance... maybe.

Re:Harmony is DRM Translation, not DRM Removal

[diamondsw]

Yes, but are Apple's Fairplay DRM restrictions the same as Real's? And which set of restrictions are in "Harmonized" files? That's the problem.

Flamed out by apple fanbase?

[obli]

Looks like Real got a spanking from apple/iPod fans, too bad they don't have any fans to defend themselves with.

bulletin not bulliten you morons

[atari2600]

I'll bite this - i have absolutely no patience for people who cannot spell. When i see an online website which has content with bad spelling, that site in my opinion is second grade. The word is spelt as "bulletin" - enough morons on slashdot cannot spell for crying out loud - now CmdrTaco doesn't mind the crap in posts as well. Yay!! Stop spelling words the way you pronounce them. Go back to school - take an English course - buy a self-help book - please do something instead of posting on slashdot. I remember a few years back when /. used to be a nice place to visit - all i see now are teen kiddie trolls who cannot spell. Go and mod me as low as you can. Also sadly the people who spell words they way they pronounce them have English as their first language.

Re:bulletin not bulliten you morons

[themoodykid]

I believe 'Bullitten' is what bad guys are after Steve McQueen is done with them.

Re:bulletin not bulliten you morons

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bite this - i have absolutely no patience for people who cannot spell. When i see an online website which has content with bad spelling...

"I".

If you want to criticize, SET the example to be followed. Follow your own advice.

Re:bulletin not bulliten you morons

[nordicfrost]

Even though my spelling is often flawed by the fact that I write fast, I do remember to use capital letters where appropriate. When I had English as my third language (we start at ten years of age here), we learned that names were to have a capital letter ("Slashdot"), as well as "I" when refering to one self.

I am a grammar / spelling nazi at my work, but this is Slashdot. We are free to write a bit sloppy if we want to. Just as you are free to tell everyone that they are morons for not writing properly, while ignoring your own mistakes.

And, oh, commas are nice too.

Re:bulletin not bulliten you morons

[Festering Leper]

The word is spelt as "bulletin"

I'm sorry, did you mean "spelled" instead of spelt? :)

Fuck you, asshole.

[Anonymous Coward]

I need to add some code to a config file to detect if a dir is nfs mounted or not, then source a file if it is. Can this be done in a few lines of bash?

What kind of pansy bullshit is that? Take your goddamn Wind0ze-coddled, no-doubt-well-muscled gym-bunny ass and fuck off to Kur0shi5 or whateverthefuck it is and ask some goddamn girl to hold your hand while you figure out this pathetically obvious bullshit.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO LEARN LINUX IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE IT ALREADY.

Pissant.

Knuckle-sucking butthead.

Epicene freak.

Stupid adolescent flame-artist.

GO AWAY.

Death bed conversion

[Anonymous Coward]

Real becoming the "champion" of Open Source and pushing the Helix community and yelling at Apple has about the sincerity of a death bed conversion to find religion. They ran their game as a proprietary technology for years, and now that MSoft is kicking them all over the place they suddenly feel "we're the little guy working for open standards." BS.

Four years ago my friends in the streaming business said "Real treats you with such contempt they make you feel sorry for Msoft."

Real will be gone sooner than Apple. Real will be gone real soon....

Execution

[Wizard Drongo]

If I were Rob Glaser (CEO RealNetworks), I'd be getting very very nervous. His Steveness doesn't like to be irritated in this way, and He may decide top have Rob executed. For those not in the know, do a search on google of "jobism's". His Steveness is a little bit unhinged, and soethng like this could well result in a team of mac zealot ninja types with little translucent blue apples on their black ninja suits visiting Mr Glaser with a message from the Boss.

no surprise

[IshanCaspian]

Once again, we find that how a company actually treats its users is more important than general principles. Apple makes a quality product that people really want. Real's software, on the other hand, is so bloated and ad-filled, that most people only use it because they have to. The simple fact of the matter is that Apple has been nice to us whereas Real has not, therefore our sympathies are with Apple here.

I want more choice

[2nd Post!]

Real music store is Mac incompatible.

Re:I like the real service

[phuturephunk]

Thats a nice canned response.

Maybe I'm just not understanding...

[Pathway]

Could somebody explain this to me: Why does everybody HATE Real?

I know that Real's format has traditionally had the worst quality of all the other formats, and for that reason, most people dislike using them.

I know that they have had their players have had a tendancy to have "opt out" options which were very annoying, such as spamming your email and giving you advertisements.

I also know that Real is one of the only commercial media formats that has a player for most every platform, including Mac and Linux. They have open sourced their codecs, and made vast improvements on quality. Many of their "opt out" problems are now gone, while some of the nagging ones still remain... but they aren't any better or worse than Windows Media Player or iTunes.

So, would somebody explain to me what the big beef is with Real? I mean, Is there something I'm missing on why most people have such a scorn?

And last, this newest bit: Real is trying to create a music store, but they want the support of the No. 1 music player, the iPod. They begged Apple for a license to re-sell music which would be compatible with the iPod, and only after a complete refusal by Apple, they are reverse engineering the proccess. Do they expect to be sued? Of corse they do, because they think it's the only way they can challenge the legality of Apple's Fairplay DRM.

I think Apple should have licensed Fairplay, especially if their motive is to sell iPods, not sell music.

Dear Apple and Real

[nukem1999]

Dear Apple and Real,

How about, instead of fighting over whose DRM is better or more open or whatever, you stop treating your customers like thieves and let them do what they want with their music? Real, shame on you for locking down your files and then complaining they won't play on someone else's hardware. Apple, shame on you for playing the savior of the little man and then selling out to the media cartels. Both of you, grow a pair and stand up for your customers for once.

Real's Revenge

[TheSpoom]

Apple Zealot: Go away, Real, you're ruining Apple's business plan with your crappy sof[...BUFFERING...]

You know it's a slow news day when...

[writertype]

A media outlet quotes bulletin-board posts.

I wonder if we can get an infinite loop* going, where CNET quotes Slashdot, and then Slashdot posts a story quoting the CNET story that quotes Slashdot, and then there's an update, and ANOTHER update, and then the disembodied head of Tom Pabst bursts from your screen and screams something inflammatory to draw more hits!

*Yes, this is Apple wordplay!

Re:You know it's a slow news day when...

[the pickle]

That depends on how you define "media outlet."

News.com ranks slightly above my own "media outlet" for usefulness, if you get my drift...

p

Why I say NO to this campaign

[NowboyKeel]

I'm all for opening up the ipod to other formats, DRM'd or otherwise. After all, who wouldn't want OGG on an ipod?

The problem is, that's not what real is doing. They're simply adding the ability to play music from their music store on the iPod. In other words, they basically just added a new proprietary format to the ipod for a store that no one likes. So real is now giving me the "choice" to buy from their store? No thanks real, when you hijacked my quicktime preferences, put spyware into your PC version, and made it near-impossible for me to find the link to your free player, you lost the moral high ground. Don't act like you're the good guy. Your store doesn't even run on my mac. Freedom of choice?

Now, if an open source group found a way to add any format of my choosing onto the ipod, I would support that. But when it's a company that's been historically evil, I'll take the chance to give them some bad publicity.

Re:Why I say NO to this campaign

[radish]

OK so you don't want to use the Real product. Fine. Not a problem. But why on earth do you care whether it exists? Let's just say I was an iPod user and I liked what Real were doing, and I bought some tunes off them. Why do you care? What does it have to do with you? Why shouldn't I be able to buy tunes from whoever I damn well please irrespective of whether the great unwashed mass of Apple fanboys like it or not?

Re:Why I say NO to this campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

Bow down to Apple. We rule with our ultimate easy to use GUI and fancy case design kung fu! Bow down, slave!

MOD PARENT UP

[TedTschopp]

I think this is the base reason right here:

Apple did not want to license their DRM scheme (which, by the way, seems awful darn liberal) to Real. I wouldn't want to do business with Real either...they've been making themselves the enemies of their customers for the better part of a decade.

For years we have had to have our noses shoved into Reals crap, and now that another company is having to deal with the same crap we have had to deal with all these years, we are empathizing with Apple. Also, becuase lots of us already own a bit of Apple in the form of an iPod, we feel like we are having to relive a nightmare of spyware and crappy software.

Which leads to another point. We know in the long term Real Software has sucked, who knows what it will look like a year from now, when Apple has added even more features to the iPod.

Ted Tschopp

Reverse Engineering and Real.

[changa]

I am all for reverse engineering and choice...

That's why I run Real-Alternative for playing real files and wouldn't take a song from real if it was given to be for free.

I just loathe Real... and thats my choice.

View "petition" comments

[dynayellow]

The un-censored version of Real's online petition can be viewed here. The link from Real's site offers only the total number of signature.

Free RealPlayer

[lorcha]

intentionally hiding the link to download the free RealPlayer (not fixed)

I can't let you get away with that one. Want to find the link?

1. Go to http://www.real.com/
2. Look for the huge button right in the middle of your screen (you can't miss it) that says "Download RealPlayer FREE".
3. Give it a click
4. There is no number 4, 'cuz yer already done.

Seems fixed to me.

Re:Free RealPlayer

[AKAImBatman]

Joke's on you. That's a free download of the 14 day TRIAL edition. The free player is in the upper right-hand corner in blue.

Re:Free RealPlayer

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how many times you say it; and no matter how many times Rob Glaser says it; and no matter how true it is, we won't believe you.

Why? Experience speaks louder than words. We've clicked links on Real's website before, and reinstalled OS's because of it. Rob&Friends have damaged the Real brand beyond repair, to the point that when he does something reasonable he sounds like the guys who say nazis did some good things.

Re:Free RealPlayer

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 4: Wait for "Buffering..." messages to finish.

my mother taught me..

[Anonymous Coward]

that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all... I guess those Mac zealots posting to the petition weren't raised by my mother...

I like competition

[2nd Post!]

I wish Real would make their music store Mac compatible. Until they do they're being hypocritcal about choice.

Re:I like competition

[Yohahn]

Agreed. But don't confuse this with a different issue. Companies should be allowed to reverse-engineer.

Re:I like competition

[2nd Post!]

Right, as should other entities and individuals. Boo Real.

Re:I like competition

[Yohahn]

Can't disagree:
BOO Apple AND Real.

Re:I like competition

[2nd Post!]

Fair enough :)

I'm not proud or happy when Apple does this stuff either ^^

I'm only happy with Apple products because they serve me better than other's products.

Re:I like competition

[Yohahn]

With the vorbis people doing video/audio streaming, hopefully neither of us will have to deal with draconian licenses for much longer.

HP licenses iPod technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't anyone remember that Apple did license it's iPod technology to HP so they could build and market an iTunes compatible player.

Hardly monopolistic behaviour I would say.

Apple is well within their right to choose who they want to license their technology to. If they don't want to license their tech to Real, they shouldn't have to worry about Real breaking it.

From a business standpoint, it makes sense to license your DRM to players and not to competing stores. As much as we may love open source and open standards, technology companies do need to make a profit to keep operating.

Re:HP licenses iPod technology

[dfghjk]

Real didn't "break" it since it isn't "broken". Real figured out how to make files that contain DRM yet the iPod could play. Why shouldn't Apple have to "worry about that"? Why should the government provide any legal protection for Apple in that case? It's not as though Apple's interest in the matter serves the public good.

Someone's cheating on the petition.

[NowboyKeel]

Mr Real sucks (haha, what a name) seems to have signed the petition over 30 times. While I can understand his urge to open the ipod to other formats, he should really understand what a petition is before signing it.

buy allofmp3.com, support the Mafia?

[FooAtWFU]

I thought that allofmp3.com was the site people keep saying is run by the Russian mafia and is possibly illegal, almost definitely immoral, and is otherwise wrong?

Re:buy allofmp3.com, support the Mafia?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know, there have been no lawsuits filed against them, not any other kind of legal action. You'd think the RIAA would have killed them by now if they were not legit?

Re:buy allofmp3.com, support the Mafia?

[shepd]

>I thought that allofmp3.com was the site people keep saying is run by the Russian mafia and is possibly illegal, almost definitely immoral, and is otherwise wrong?

A lot of unions are/were supported by mafia money (ask someone from New York). Does that make joining most unions illegal and/or immoral?

[Personally, I'd say yes, but that's because my union (OPSEU) basically stole my money. Long story which I'd love to get into detail on if you care to email me.]

Re:buy allofmp3.com, support the Mafia?

[gordgekko]

> Does that make joining most unions illegal and/or immoral?

Ummm, yes. If you know the organization you belong to us supported by a drug dealing, prostituting, murderous group of thieves, liars and scam artists, then yes, you are engaging in an immoral enterprise.

The Original Petition

[Shagz]

That is just PetitionOnline.com's disclaimer about not publically showing email addresses. Real started up a new petition because of how the original petition was going. Funny enough, someone else created an anti-petition which has a fair number of signatures.

Re:Real should put their money where their mouth i

[Anonymous Coward]

And before you come in with Real Alternative, don't bother. I know about it and it's not the same thing.

I notice that you say "I know about it" rather than "I've tried it". Have you tried it? Real Alternative may not be the same thing, but it certainly plays everything I've thrown at it.

Not that I disagree with your main point. Real is being incredibly hypocritical in regard to the .rm format while claiming to support openness.

There's no Mac loyalty for many iPod owners

[Tenebrious1]

If there's one thing that Apple as a company has managed to succeed with for a very, very long time, it is building a fiercely loyal customer base. Apple customers don't jump ship when the company is at its worst, let alone when it appears to be sailing relatively smoothly.

Well, most Apple customers did jump ship. If you ever owned a Performa, you would have too. Perhaps they've built up a loyal customer base again; but seriously, most of the people I know who own iPods aren't Mac users. It's one thing to be able to afford a $250 iPod (refurb) that, pricewise, is reasonably competative. It's another story when you talk about G4 which run 30% more than a comparable Dell.

Anyway, I'm sure that many iPod users, who aren't Mac users, have no Mac brand loyalty, and *would* welcome a 2nd source of songs... especially if the songs are cheaper.

Apple customers also of late really, really seem to want stuff that "just works" without any extra work on the part of the user.

Heh heh heh... no, it's been that way since 1986, it's the fundamental selling point of Macs; it "just works". No fiddling with .ini files, no regedits, it "just works".

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"Astroturfing" is fake grassroots support, masquerading as a spontaneous outpouring of consumer devotion. When a company openly sponsors a petition, there's no pretense there. If this petition appeared on some blog somewhere, still quietly sponsored by Real but purporting NOT to be sponsored by Real, that'd be astroturfing. If Real spent money to create the illusion that customers love them enough to organize a petition on their own initiative, that would be astroturfing. That would be unethical, but they aren't doing that here. They're not lying: They say this is a Real-sponsored petition on Real's web site, and that's what it is.

If the anti-Real posters are in fact in being put up to it by Apple, yeah, that'd be astroturfing -- the point is that they have the APPEARANCE of being a spontaneous, "grass-roots" response to something. IF the appearance is false, then it's unethical.

Personally, I think Apple fans really do love the company enough to do that stuff on their own hook. I doubt that Apple would bother "astroturfing"; they really *do* have fanatical grass-roots support, at least in their own microscopic market niche.

Re:Wrong

[jfengel]

It's clear that it's run by Real, so no, I wouldn't call it astroturfing in the strictest sense.

But it doesn't call so much attention to the fact that it's RealNetworks that I'd call it totally above-board either. Real's site doesn't point to it, at least not on the front page. It uses a different visual scheme from Real. The web site is called "Freedom of Music Choice", which doesn't mention Real by name. More to the point, it's not _really_ about "Freedom of Music Choice". They're not trying to get Apple to open up to, say, WMV files. And they're not campaigning to have Real support the Macintosh.

So I'd say it's a little misleading, albeit not true astroturfing.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Real's site doesn't point to it, at least not on the front page. It uses a different visual scheme from Real. The web site is called "Freedom of Music Choice", which doesn't mention Real by name.

Okay, yeah, if that's the way it is: Sounds like it's out on the way-far-sleazy side of semi-aboveboard, at best. I hadn't looked at it, so didn't realize. My bad.

There isn't a real reason.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just an example of the rabid fanatics making something appear to be true by simply parroting others who agree.

I would like it if I could use my iPod with different stores easily, but Apple does not permit this. They are just as much a problem as Real is, except they have more aggressive "fans".

This is the same 'tude that got Apple in trouble before. "We are better than thou, so SCREW you".

Sheesh, I almost want to cheer MS now :)

Re:Real should put their money where their mouth i

[mgs1000]

Install Real Alternative, and you can play .rm files without installing RealOne or Realplayer.

Only zealots to fight Apple are...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Amiga zealots!

Consumer's freedom of choice

[Anonymous Coward]

now shows that they agree with Apple / disagree with Real's motives more than 3 to 1.

Buffer that, Rob Glaser!

Amen.

[hot_Karls_bad_cavern]

i'm in the same boat i think. i can't recall the last CD i bought...really, no idea which one it was or when. Same for DVD's. i have many of both, but it's been so long since i've put down cash for one.

"Oh, you must be stealing all that then through p2p," some might guess. Um, no. i go see local bands. i buy their homemade discs to help the guitarist buy that new amp he needs. i listen to legal streams from websites promoting small, more-to-my-liking artists.

i agree witb you on the media companies - they can go fuck themselves and the rest with them. When is the last time some worth buying the entire cd for was featured on TRL? Nevermind that it's a 40sec clip whilst some moron talks over the music. i can't stand riding in the car with my gf b/c the radio MUST be on some Clearchannel top-40 station.....all the time. No news, no local stations with local dj's and artists. Nothing, just the shit that gets pumped 3 times an hour in a loop. Tiring and frustrating.

Yeah, i'm sick of all of it too.

Re:Amen.

[jcsehak]

i'm in the same boat i think. i can't recall the last CD i bought..

I can. Modest Mouse's "Good News for People Who Love Bad News." I bought it brand-new for $10 and it's worth 10 times that. I can't even begin to tell you how much I love it. Do I feel bad for supporting the RIAA (in this case, Sony)? Sure I do. But I'm also supporting a reasonable pricing structure (if everyone only bought CDs for $10, they might catch on and make all CDs $10).

When is the last time some worth buying the entire cd for was featured on TRL?

I don't know about TRL, but I saw the video for "Float On" on MTV the other day. It's SO worth buying the whole album. EVERY SINGLE SONG (except maybe Dance Hall) kicks ass.

Sure, I like to support indies too. Especially some of the quality stuff at songfight. But you can't let your principles make you shoot yourself in the foot. Not everything on MTV sucks. Just 99% of it.

Re:Amen.

[Myopic]

i don't understand. you said, in one breath, that you don't remember the last CD you bought and that you buy lots of "discs" (which I can only assume is the same as a CD) from your favorite bands. do you or do you not buy CDs?

my problem with this whole music thing is that i don't, for the most part, like to download individual songs. i prefer whole albums, right, since most good artists put out whole discs of worthwhile music. so if i'm not willing to buy a CD before i hear it, i have to wait until i come across a friend with the disc so i can grab it. even then, the only CDs i buy (i actually buy quite a few) are second-hand, which in some way makes me feel like i'm sending less money to the middle men in hollywood.

my friends and i were wondering recently: if the music industry has to push a small number of artists with a small number of songs, why don't they bother to make them good artists with good songs? i mean, seriously now, what the fuck is this Brittney and Agulera and Lavigne shit? there ARE good artists, there ARE good songs, why not payola THOSE songs onto the radio?

Why is it fair?

[2nd Post!]

Fair to concede the Mac market, but not the Windows market?

I'm a zealot because I love Apple products, but I wouldn't discard the option of Real music. Real wants to compete, then fine, compete. Maybe I'm being greedy, but why shouldn't I want $0.49 192kbps AAC files? You really have to ask, "Why would mac+iPod users want an alternative to iTunes+iTMS"?

I would be using iTunes+RMS because it's cheaper and higher quality. Duh.

*tries to load page*

[Anonymous Coward]

*buffering*.......

Re:Real should put their money where their mouth i

[Anonymous Coward]

i couldn't agree more. real has lost all its credibility through its greed. its intellectual property is mostly licensed, and it has never delivered on its promises - never (helix is teh gay).

now, shuddering in a corner, it looks to jump on any opportunity to re-establish its name. unfortunately, all of its exploits to date have misfired. cash-grabbing advert-laden software, cash-grabbing behind-your-back spyware and now reverse engineering and calling proprietary code anti-competitive.. bullshit glaser! thats been your mantra since the day you opened shop!

what self-respecting coder really wants .rm support in their player anyway?

ok, i feel better now :)

Proprietary == anti-competitive?

[PCM2]

Proprietary is anticompetitive by definition.

I'm sorry, but I just have to take issue with this statement. "By definition"? Whose definition, exactly?

If I'm an auto manufacturer and I put a HEMI engine into my cars and I don't let anybody else put one in their cars, does that destroy the competitive market for automobiles? If Colonel Saunders has his own secret recipe of herbs and spices, does that destroy the competitive market for fried chicken? Ridiculous.

Apple fanboys

[Performer Guy]

Sounds like Apple fanboys tearing into Real for no good reason. Letting you play other sources of music on a device *you own* is a good thing. Attacking Real for this is downright irrational. I guess some people just love vendor lockin. In this case vendor lockin is quite intentional and insidious, there is no good technical reason that an iPod cannot play music from other vendors. Real is only offering competition for music sales and that is a good thing for iPod owners even if the fanboys are too dumb to see it.

I hope Real continues to do what it is doing.

Re:Apple fanboys

[White Roses]

Any place you care to buy a non-DRM'd mp3 download, that file can be played by both iTunes and iPod. Buy a CD, rip it to mp3 with iTunes, play it on your iPod. The only thing Apple is preventing from playing is other non-AAC DRM'd music. I don't play a single DRM'd song from Apple, Real, Sony or anyone else on my iPod. I can play *music* from other vendors such as Target, Virgin Megastore, Barnes & Noble, whatever. The simple fact of the matter is that Real is doing this for a free ride on the iPod gravy train. Why isn't Real reverse engineering to get onto the Sony NW-HD1? Real has the Rio whatevers that are compatible with their store, yes? Maybe Real should work on making those better.

No, it is not a good thing for iPod owners, no matter how many times you or anyone else says it.

And since Real's poxy music store doesn't work with Macs, Real doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to decrying choice and compatibility.

Re:Apple fanboys

[Performer Guy]

Free ride on the iPod gravy train?!! All Real wants is the ability to sell content to an installed base of people with playing devices.

The iPod is a popular hardware device, Apple got their bucks for the sale, and you said it; Apple wants it to be a gravy train for them by vendor lockin. The iPod should be able to play Real's tunes because the platform should be open it can and should be since we're talking about file formats here. DRM is a necessary evil to placate the idiot record labels (despite anyone being able to create non DRM content with better quality from CD at any time). However we're not talking about Betamax vs VHS here, any platform can play the content of any other through software or format changes, so this is entirely artificial lockin to monopolize a user base. It is entirely appropriate that Real can sell content to the biggest installed base of players, to refuse them is like saying only Sony can sell TV programming on people's televisions.

And FWIW the labels won't allow the sale or sharing of non DRM'd content and CDs have a whole album not the songs you want, and they're more expensive paying for the physical media, packaging, distribution and bricks & mortar overheads. That's the whole point of music downloads or have you missed what is really going on here?

Re:Apple fanboys

[White Roses]

Free ride on the iPod gravy train?!! All Real wants is the ability to sell content to an installed base of people with playing devices.

Do I really have to say anything about this? You've just restated my point. Real didn't develop, sell, market, build or promote the iPod, but they want to make money off of it. Is it appropriate to sell to the largest user base? Sure, but to extend your later analogy, if my TV broadcast signal was incompatible with the TV, I don't get to screw with the TV to make it work. Why should Real think they have any right to screw with the iPod? Apple doesn't want to license FairPlay, and Real can't sell mp3s because the labels won't allow it. So, it's tethered swimming for Real: they put themselves in this position. So did Apple, when it comes down to it, but they put in more effort on more fronts (hardware, software, pioneering distribution agreements), so I have no sympathy for Real's "me-too" dealings.

The iPod should be able to play Real's tunes because the platform should be open it can and should be since we're talking about file formats here.

Notice the "shoulds" in that sentence. Just because you wish or want something to happen, does not mean it should happen, that Apple should condone it, or that Real is in the right for doing it. Again, the iPod is plenty open if you use the mp3 format. The lock-in is not only artificial, but avoidable.

any platform can play the content of any other through software or format changes

Really? I can play my DVDs in my VCR? Oh, yes, I can, by DeCSSing the DVD to my HD, then transferring it down to tape. But *not* by reverse-engineering the VCR. DeCSS doesn't hurt the DVD player or the VCR. If Real, or someone else, wants to release a converter to take Real formatted items and turn them into unrestricted mp3s, that's fine, and then I can play them on my iPod. That is not what Real is doing however.

The issue of legal music downloading is one of convenience: you get just the songs you want through a novel distribution model. The trade-off that the labels require of you is that the music is restricted. So, the choice is restricted copies of just what you want, or unrestricted copies of what they want you to have. You're screwed either way, but I choose the latter. Why is my business. If you think I've missed the point, I haven't.

Re:Apple fanboys

[Performer Guy]

You talk about this as if it is technology and not contrived lockin. This is entirely artificial. It can play it so it should. You may be eager to jump into intellectual chains but I'm not. If your mindset prevailed we'd all be buying proprietary gasoline from Ford & watching TV programming from GE, and buying VHS tapes exclusively from JVC, all with no competition and at a huge premium.

You've got it the wrong way round, DeCSS circumvents the DVD format encryption and is illegal under the DMCA. Not that I agree but it's the law. And yes downloads in a format of your choice would be nice but it's impossible, however a choice of downloads after you buy an iPod is a perfectly reasonable. Real has fulfilled this request in a *legal* manner, good for them.

As for cracking iPod or other songs, the labels won't let them do it and it would unfortunately violate the DMCA, however since you know about DeCSS and pretend to follow these issues then you should know what it's author has been up to lately on that front.

Maybe you think playing Real downloads on an iPod is the equivalent of playing DVDs on a VHS but that pretty much illustrates how clueless you are here.

Anyway, it's done, it's legal and thankfully neither you nor the other fanboys get any say in the matter.

Re:Apple fanboys

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Hey, Performer Guy (wow, what a cool name...not) are you clueless or what? There is absolutely no vendor lock-in associated with the iPod.

Re:Apple fanboys

[White Roses]

How many times? I use my iPod with *mp3s*. *MP3S*. *MP3S*!!! I'm not in "intellectual chains." And yet, somehow, I'm managing to use my iPod as I like. Just not as Real likes. Or perhaps even as Apple would most like, since I am not funding their store, nice as it is reported to be. Still, I can avoid the whole issue if I like. It just doesn't have to be easy or convenient, as you would seem to want it to be.

I know that DVD Jon has published software to allow music streaming to AirPort Express from anywhere, which I presume is what you are refering to. Fine and dandy. He makes no pretentions that he should be *allowed* to do this, as Real does. The legality of Real's actions remain to be seen.

As to your first argument, you *can* jump off a very high bridge. But I'm not saying you should. Do you see the difference between can and should now?

Re:Apple fanboys

[Performer Guy]

You're pretty hot & bothered about what other people might choose to do with their iPods. Look, it's not an option to purchase music for mp3 playback, sure you can rip & burn your own, all this offers people with iPods is another option for buying music online. It's also illegal to crack them in the US (DMCA).

You're very egocentric in this. It's not about *your* iPod, it's about freedom of choice for all iPod owners.

As for the '[legality] remains to be seen', I could do the same finger wagging about anything, but it doesn't make it so, we can exercise reasonable judgement in the face of the facts. Real's actions are legal just as cracking a song's encryption is illegal in the US barring DMCA being declared unconstitutional (I can hope & pray).

Eh?!! DVD Jon absolutely thinks he can and should be allowed to do this [are you serious?], moreover he won in court, primarily because it wasn't a US court. He would certainly have been convicted in a US court. DVD Jon is a crusader for your freedoms and absolutely with 100% conviction belives that his activities are legitimate. I happen to think the should be legal in the US too but that's a separate issue w.r.t. what Real has done.

Clearly offering people a choice of download points of sale for a device that is perfectly capable of handling it should be allowed.

Re:Apple fanboys

[Performer Guy]

There is if you want to buy content online because the content providers insist on DRM on all content.

Re:Apple fanboys

[White Roses]

I do begin to wonder as to your constant usage of terms like "clearly", "certainly", "absolutely", and so forth. Do your arguements really need to be bolstered in such a fashion? In any case, nothing is certain, clear or absolute until it's been tested, and none of the items to which you attached these terms has been. As to my egocentricity, at least I am only speaking for myself, not all iPod owners. If other iPod owners want to use this service, fine, but that doesn't make it legal, good practice, good for the iPod in general or prove the inherent righteousness of Real's crusade. Beyond that, if people want to use their iPods as an interesting coat hanger or some form of over-sized earring, that's fine by me as well. The point is, they shouldn't expect Apple to support it, just as Ford doesn't have to support a Mustang with a Corvette engine in it, and Sony isn't responsible when the TV signal is blacked out due to inclement weather. Real is claiming compatibility, but chances are the midden will hit Apple's windmill when it breaks.

All I have been saying, all along, is that my iPod is perfectly capable of playing music from other sources without having to resort to Real's tactics. If it's about freedom of choice for all iPod owners, do please explain Real's unfathomable decision to make their store unuseable for Mac owners. Real's tactics are the worst form of cash grab. With Real, it's about the money. Not that with Apple it isn't. Or any other publically traded company you wish to point out. Your vendor lock-in in this case is misdirected: it's the record companies causing this, and I fully support not using the DRM techology (*ahem* MP3 - Ogg if iPod ever supports it), but Real just swaps one DRM for another. I'm not using Apple's *or* Real's DRM (or Microsoft's or anyone else's) when it comes to music. If there was a way to remove it that was convenient, I probably would. It's just less of a hassle to buy the CD.

What part of Apple has available several legal avenues" don't you understand? That's the basis for my statement on legality. Not some conjured "finger wagging" argument. Real's actions are in a hazy legal area at best, and that's the lawyers talking, not just me, and not just on the basis of DMCA. Spouting that it's legal when it hasn't been tested doesn't make something legal. Beyond that, Real approached Apple on interoperability, Apple said no. Real is fully aware of their tactics, and to invoke "freedom of choice" as a justification is at the very least disingenuous.

DVD Jon isn't selling anything. He isn't required to support his software. If you use his software (and I have and do), and your program/hardware/whatever breaks, it's your problem. I don't particularly agree with Apple's recent cease and desists in his case either, but it's the thin edge of the wedge: if Apple hadn't reacted, Real would have a stronger case. [Again with the can and should?] Perhaps he does feel he is allowed to use his hardware for anything he likes, and he is right. His blog certainly seems to support that supposition. So let me rephrase that: he doesn't *expect* anyone else to support his software. It's only his and my time being wasted if something breaks due to a firmware update, or a hardware change.

Real, on the other hand (here's where the issue is), *is* selling something. Something for which support will be expected. If I buy 300 songs from their store, and the next Apple firmware update breaks the compatibility, I'm left to either call Real for a fix, Apple for more information, or eat the $150 (soon to be right back up to $300 - you'll see). Apple is under no obligation to support Real's Harmony. And Real probably won't help me at all, or at least not until I click through 17 pages of "buy our player instead." If it breaks permanently, I'm out *money*, and if I'm a typical American, I'm going to want it back from someone, even if it means a frivolus lawsuit.

Perhaps we ough

I support choice

[Anonymous Coward]

But what Real did was wrong.

Real went to Apple to see if they could license FairPlay. Apple said NO, yet Real still went ahead and got around the hurdle by hacking/reverse engineering/... Apple's FairPlay. That's what really pisses me off. Apple said NO!

What if I went to Microsoft and said I wanted to license their technology so I could make MS Office compatible with Linux, and Microsoft said NO and I still went ahead and did it by doing exactly what Real did? I probably would have gotten the shit sued out of me.

IMO, Real's just trying to cash in on Apple's success. If the roles were reversed and Real developed the iPod, the iTMS, etc. do you honestly think that Real would have opened up FairPlay to their competitors? For Christs sake, Real won't even open up their .ra format to anyone. Buch of two-faced hypocrites.

Re:I support choice

[RdsArts]

What if I went to Microsoft and said I wanted to license their technology so I could make MS Office compatible with Linux, and Microsoft said NO and I still went ahead and did it by doing exactly what Real did? I probably would have gotten the shit sued out of me.

You mean like OpenOffice.org does? Granted, they didn't ask permission, but it doesn't change anything in this example.

Re:I support choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Re-read the post. The person wanted to make MS "Office" run on Linux, *not* OpenOffice.org. Repeat after me,... MS "Office."

Can you imagine...

[cuerty]

.. if there is a news on cnet every time that someone gets flamed on /. ?

If the situation were reversed...

[vitaflo]

Somehow I think that if Apple had reverse engineered Real Audio and added it into Quicktime, Real would be singing a different tune (no pun intended).

Re:If the situation were reversed...

[Ahnteis]

So would the mac-atics.

Re:If the situation were reversed...

[kidgenius]

Nope, you don't have a correct grasp on the situation. Here's the way you should look at it:

What if Apple reverse engineered the RealPlayer so that they could figure out how to get their codec to play in the Real media player.

They aren't releasing a hacked version of the realplayer, they are offering a way of encoding their media to play in something else.

Real has not reverse engineered something and added it into their product, they have reverse engineered something to allow their product to work in another. Think about this:

If someone figures out a way to get their printer no-name printer cartridges to work in a name-brand printer, what's the problem?

Great Expecttions

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, so they "received the opposite reponse that was anticpated"!

Opposite to what? And why did they "anticpate" such a negative reaction?

To Whom has Apple licensed AAC to ?

[Shivetya]

To whom are they allowing incorporation of it in a music service or device?

HP? They are just another reseller and in HPs case desperately looking for ways to hide from their botched merger.

Re:To Whom has Apple licensed AAC to ?

[Anonymous Coward]

allofmp3.com works fine for me

Re:To Whom has Apple licensed AAC to ?

[KirkH]

You are confusing ACC and Fairplay. ACC is a compression format and is open and available for anyone to use. Fairplay is Apple's DRM and is basically proprietary, just like the grandparent poster stated.

Anyone can put make an ACC file and have it play on the iPod. What anyone cannot do is develop or sell a DRM format other than Fairplay and have the iPod understand and play it.

Apple has no control over ACC or who uses it.

Re:To Whom has Apple licensed AAC to ?

[shotfeel]

Let's also not forget that the iPod also plays mp3's as well.

Re:To Whom has Apple licensed AAC to ?

[plj]

You are confusing ACC and Fairplay.

And you're confusing Advanced Audio Codec and ACC. ;-)

Anyone can put make an ACC file and have it play on the iPod. What anyone cannot do is develop or sell a DRM format other than Fairplay and have the iPod understand and play it.

Although beyond spelling your information is very insightful for all those "never-checked-any-facts" zealots on /.. Someone mod the parent up, please.

The real reason Real had to hack Fairplay instead of going with plain AAC is thus actually pretty ironic: The labels would never let them put the music to any portable players without any DRM, so Real was forced to hack Apple's DRM to be able to keep their own music files DRMed... (On iPods, that is.)

Re:To Whom has Apple licensed AAC to ?

[harlows_monkeys]

ACC is a compression format and is open and available for anyone to use

Well, "open and available" in the sense that anyone who pays the license fee can use it--just like WMA (except that AAC costs more than WMA).

I'd reserve "open and available" for things like Ogg Vorbis.

Re:To Whom has Apple licensed AAC to ?

[matantisi]

AAC is the property of the MPEG group, and if you check their website, the only people who need to license and pay royalties arre people who make and distribute the *hardware* to create AACs. *Anyone* can distribute or stream AAC files without paying royalties. The issue is FairPlay, and Real's need to DRM it's files, *not* any difficulty or licensing issues related to AAC.

Re:To Whom has Apple licensed AAC to ?

[David Rolfe]

Yeah - actually over here http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/lice nse.terms.html it lets us know that Apple spends about 62 cents for each copy of iTunes (or more technically, for each OS X install, since the codec will be a lib framework available to all software and users on the machine). The cost is for software.

Windows varieties will all have this cost covered (and could be even less as MS ships more units).

So, fwiw, your parent poster there was correct when he claimed that Vorbis was the only "free and open" codec, as that's actually the case, it was released to the public domain. Mpeg4-aac is an open spec (not proprietary), but it's not free.

Sorry for nitpicking you... :)

Re:To Whom has Apple licensed AAC to ?

[David Rolfe]

As I was saying to your child poster the royalty for mpeg4-aac is about 52 cents for the codec.

royalties: http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/lice nse.terms.html
spec: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.Cata logueDetail?CSNUMBER=36083&ICS1=35&ICS2=40&ICS 3=

Microsoft's sample product and royalty schedule says 25 cents for audio codec plus another 25 cents to network read (stream).

That's a 2 cent difference.

The licensing agreement also includes verbage that says 'you will also pay a royalty schedule for Plays Windows Media Logo License' ... so maybe that's where the scales tip past the 2 cents.

Anyhow, MS says, "oooo WMA costs half as much as mpeg-4 for video!!"... makes you wonder why it's not an ISO if it's so great and cheap.

If you are a WMA licensee I'd be interested to know what your real costs are.

Re:To Whom has Apple licensed AAC to ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus H. Fucking Christ

Degeneration! Some dipshit claims that such-and-such format is "open and available" and he consistently spells the THREE LETTER ACRONYM wrong throughout his post, and gets modded 5 Informative!

IT AINT ACC AND HOWEVER THE FUCK YOU SPELL IT, IT AINT OPEN EITHER

I am now officially done with reading Slashdot discussions.

why should they care?

[dekeji]

So, 900 noisy Apple users complain, as usual; why should they care? What counts is the bottom line: how many songs is Real selling to iPod users. If that works out OK, they'll keep doing it.

Re:why should they care?

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Wow. You're a genuis.

Hmmm

[Captain Rotundo]

I think that it might have to do with the fact that anyone who recognizes the name "Real" associates it with *really* crappy quality streaming audio/video. I know you may say that was caused but slow connections, and the rm has improved over the years, they problem is their current rm player barely works.

so you either think "Real := looks/sounds like crap" or "Real := runs like crap" - its not exactly a win-win for them :)

Why Apple doesnt want Real selling ipod music...

[Anonymous Coward]

While the iTMS may not generate much profit now, Apple knows the market for selling iPods at a premium price will soon be saturated. At that time, Apple will need the revenue from the iTMS.

If someone else muscles into the market for selling iPod compatible music now, it cuts off that future profit.
I believe that the iTMS had a small profit during the last quarter.

A new petition - Hey real, don't break my petition

[NowboyKeel]

It seems someone created a new anti-real's petition petition, and it's going quite well. 3,000 signitures already. What a backlash http://www.petitiononline.com/notreal/petition.htm l

Apple's success?

[revscat]

Of course I am stereotyping but Apple's success is based in their loyal, vocal, energetic community.

It has been my experience that rarely do product lines develop consumer loyalty unless they are of high quality. After using MS Windows for almost 20 years I finally broke down and bought a Mac, and I have to say that I can see good reasons that some people get excited about this machine. It's a a pleasure to work with.

Is Apple's success due to their loyal user base? Partially. But they also make well-engineered products that have succeeded in the marketplace on their own merits.

Apple is banking that proprietary is profitable. I'll guess we'll see if they are right.

They have been so far. Perhaps it is more accurate to say "we will see if they continue to be right."

Trolls

[nwbvt]

Is the existence of trolls on the Internet really newsworthy? I think there is a difference between a few people trolling Apple's petition and Real's movement having the opposite effect than what was intended.

Imagine the response if this were MS, not Real, posting the petition. It would be full of anti-MS trolls. But that wouldn't mean they wouldn't be getting their message out.

horses for courses

[Anonymous Coward]

This is my $0.02.
I have an ipod and I subscribed to
Rhapsody. So ipod is used in the plane or in the car. Whenever I have an internet connection and
my laptop I listen to Rhaposdy.

I hated CD stackers.. I thought it was such
a cumbersome way to solved a problem. The ipod
is a perfect solution.

Rhapsody solved the following for me.. how
can I sample old albums and new artist so
I get to know more music and music genres
without having huge amounts of free hard disk.
Just think of a song and chances are it is
there. I just wished they had more australian
music but...

You can immerse yourself in the history of the
artist's music and the genre in seconds. I did
not want hundreds of CDs around my room and
anywhere I go I can listen to them.. or play
the song a friend was thinking of.
I had so much fun with it and at $9.00
a month I do not feel the cost.

I wish the two would play better together. At
the moment it is a bit cumbersome.

Cheers,
Aldo

Why is everyone against REAL in this

[fozzmeister]

Sure in the past they have been pretty crappy, but its cheaper and the files themselves are better quality, It's just religious Mac users.

I wonder if Mac users take offence at clone inket refills in the same way, or buy genuine Epson, HP or Lexmark cartridges. It really is exactly the same thing.

Real's mistake

[Lord Kano]

Was in underestimating the Mac Fanatics' loyalty.

Just as an example, I wouldn't say the things that I'm about to in the midst of Apple zealots unless I was armed.

People who were the iPod's early adopters, people who were iTMS early adopters were Mac users. It simply wasn't an option for Linux or Windows users. Apple loyalists will get into a fist fight over someone slighting their beloved company.

If the tables were turned, If Real had developed the iPod and FairPlay and Apple Reverse engineered them, these same people who are flaming Real would be singing Apple's prasises for being so innovative.

It's like watching the bullshit of Washington politics. People are bitching when the "other side" does something that they ignore when their own side does it.

LK

Re:Real's mistake

[2nd Post!]

Actually, Real's mistake in underestimating the Mac Fanatic's loyalty was in not making their music store Mac compatible.

We are the iPod and iTMS early adopters. We (I) wouldn't mind cheaper music. I'm not decrying Real's RE tactic, I'm decrying their hypocrisy in declaring consumer choice and market competition as their logo when it is not.

Re:Real's mistake

[nonsuchworks]

If the tables were turned, If Real had developed the iPod and FairPlay and Apple Reverse engineered them, these same people who are flaming Real would be singing Apple's prasises for being so innovative.

If Apple were so bereft of ideas and direction that it had to resort to reverse-engineering Real's products, it wouldn't have any devoted fans.

People like Apple precisely because it produces so much original technology that other companies try to copy.

Microsoft can now snuff out Real

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Sell your Real stock now - it's going down. MS now has the power to dispose of Real once and for all.

Real is selling these songs at a loss. MS has a huge cash reserve. All MS has to do is hire some temps, give them a company credit card, and have them buy songs from Real all day long. The more they buy, the more money Real loses. Eventually, no more Real!

last.fm

[Henk Poley]

last.fm sells MP3s, FLAC and Ogg Vorbis files of some of the music they 'broadcast'.

Re:Real should put their money where their mouth i

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't work on OS X, right?

Irony

[pigeon]

So I thought, ok, I am an apple user, I have an ipod, there is a valid point about companies opening up their platforms. So I thought, let's try to buy a 50 cents song on the real site. "Mac not supported". Wankers.

Re:Irony

[Malleus]

Irony is a topic of discussion on slashdot titled "irony" that actually contains irony rather than a discussion of what is and what is not irony.

Re:Irony

[sexylicious]

That's ironic.

I don't disagree

[2nd Post!]

But Real is a hypocrite. Also, Real denies me the ability to purchase their music. I'm a Mac user. Where's the love? Where's the competition? Where's the choice?

Real has taken it's stand: They will only support Windows. Apple has taken it's stand: We support both Windows and Mac. I don't think Real is bad for wanting to offer choice, but I think it's hypocritical of them to champion reverse engineering while at the same time relying on the DMCA to protect their own format, and hypocritcal of them to champion choice when they offer no such thing, to me.

Ogg Vorbis

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all. Ogg Vorbis.

Oh, and FLAC.

Quit supporting proprietary crap. Buckle down and popularize the libré formats.

My music collection is digitized and I love it. It's all in FLAC. 400 hours. (Of stuff I *bought* in case you were worried about the stomachs of the children of record industry execs.)

Supporting Apple is good and bad. You're encouraging corporate behavior that you like, but you're still supporting a corporation. That's reformist. What you want is revolution.

http://www.vorbis.com/
http://flac.sourceforge. net/

Re:Ogg Vorbis

[greay]

>That's reformist. What you want is revolution.

Really now?

Ironic

[Krypto420]

I found it funny that one of the offers listed on freeipods.com is for a $0.99 trial on RealRhapsody.

I'm wondering if Real knows this, or if they'll just take it anyway they can get it. You'd think that they would want to steer people clear of the iPod (especially a free one!) with their "Freedom of Choice" marketing and all that...

Apple Wh*res

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surpised this duscussion is focused on the virtue of one company over another. Personally I don't care much for either company. I do believe Real is fighting the good fight on this issue for one reason: they are attempting to break Apple's stranglehold on a technology which has up to now only been accessible to those with large incomes and those with rich mommies and daddies. I don't feel sorry one bit for Apple and their elitist attitude in consumer electronics. If anything both companies show equal contempt for end users. Real for their idiotic adware tactics and Apple for their idiotic proprietary-everything hardware/software. I hope Real succeeds in their current endeavor, because it will show arrogant companies like Apple that good technology is for all to share, and not just for those with deep pockets. Fsck Apple!

Apple does have a future cos it can do no wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christs, Apple Zealot are blind.

How is slashing the price of music downlaods a bad thing for the consumer? And how is it that most people who usually defend the right of others to reverse engineer and not be sued (Samba, which Apple uses) are suddenly so much against this.

The difference is that Apple has become the media's darling and Real has been brandished as the Gator of media playing. That might have once been true, but RealPlayer on Linux rocks and Helix is open source. Where is Apple's open source media player or at least a foundation of a media player even if it doesn't include the proprietary codecs?

Where is Quicktime for Linux or FreeBSD?

Yeah, I thought so.

Re:Apple does have a future cos it can do no wrong

[^_^x]

At the risk of sounding redundant, I second that. I'm no fan of Real, and find myself using their player less and less as it bloats up, but that doesn't change the fact that they have a good point, whoever's interests are being supported by it.

Additionally, I wish Apple would at least try to educate its users about proprietary formats: it's really annoying downloading an album just to find it's in MP4. Thanks, but I'll do without iTunes for now... I guess it's better than FLAC at least.

Re:Apple does have a future cos it can do no wrong

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

I'm not sure anyone is saying that the slashing price of music downloads is a bad thing. You obviously haven't got a clue about this, so why do you comment?

Two Petitions?

[no1here]

If you noticed on the real site mentioned in the article, the petition doesn't let you view the signatures. Yet there is another one that does let you view the signatures. Both petitions have different numbers of signatures, and both list on the bottom page that they were created by different admins of freedomofmusicchoice.org. It seems like they didn't like making the bad comments public so they created another petition and aren't letting comments be listed. Seems funny the lengths Real will go to.

astroturf maybe?

[bferrell]

I dunno, maybe I'm an oddball.. Does it strike *anyone* funny that there is protest over paying less?

And, yes, I don't like apple. Bought one back in the mists of time for who they had been, felt ripped off by who they'd become and swore off then and forever.

I would dearly love to analyze the server logs for the submissions.

You are simply wrong

[lorcha]

There is no link in the upper right-hand corner in blue.

Anyhow, I installed realplayer using the steps that I outlined, and it installed the free version. There is a menu option to upgrade to premium, and it doesn't rip mp3s above 96kbps (it asks you up upgrade to the premium version). There is nothing to indicate that this is anything other than the crippled free version.

I hope this made you feel all smart and stuff, tho.

Re:You are simply wrong

[AKAImBatman]

Very interesting. It seems that Real is showing a different website to Windows and Mac users. Thus we're both correct. Here's what I see on my Mac. I tried it on a PC and received a very different page. It seems that the "normal" page has been replaced for Windows machines while they run their "49 cent" promotion.

I hope this made you feel all smart and stuff, tho.

See? Now we can both be smug. :-)

Re:You are simply wrong

[lorcha]

See? Now we can both be smug. :-)

Well, normally I don't like to share that honor with anyone else, but I suppose in this case it's only fair... ;)

Re:You are simply wrong

[TiggsPanther]

It's location-dependent too. But it's worse than that.

Here in the UK it sems that http://www.real.com/ redirects not just to a UK-version of the site, but it goes direct to their "RadioPass" page ("Radio" tab third in a row of 6). And this only has links to their 14-day free trial. You have to go to their "RealPlayer" tab (first in the row, but not what the site defaults to) to get their "Download the Free Player Only" link

Now having location-dependant subsites is all well and good, but I don't like that their apparent "root" site redirects depending on where you are and what you're running. Especially if they don't all have a consistent way of finding the Free Player that people are most-likely to be after.

Indeed

[tm2b]

Two things:

• Real is trying to shoehorn their own proprietary format into Apple's proprietary hardware. We're supposed to be surprised when proprietary games are played to prevent this?
• The Real Network Music store won't work with the Macs, a pop-up window tells Mac users to get lost. So Real is only going after the iPods that are attached to Windows boxes... I have more sympathy for Apple fighting tooth and nail to protect their windows-oriented product, everybody there lives under the shadow of Microsoft and have to assume that any competitor they try to play nice with will be eaten by Microsoft and be used against them. Apple has to assume that if they allow Real compatability, it'll suddenly end up being Windows Media compatability.

So, no sympathy here.

Awwww. Do I have too?

[boygenius]

It's almost like when you were a kid and were about to run off with your friends and go play in the woods/creek/abandoned wherehouse and your mom made you take your little brother. But you didn't want to take your little brother because he'd get hurt and screw up your fun - but of course mom won and you had to take your little brother along so he wouldn't feel excluded.

And he got hurt, ruined all of your fun AND got you blamed for it.

I think that if I were Apple, I'd be damn scared that Real was going to bust all the damn iPods and I'd get blamed for it.

Re:Awwww. Do I have too?

[eadint]

OK so what you do is tie your little brother to a pole so he cant excape. gag him so he cant scream, go play all you like and have a great time, when your done ungag and untie the runt and simply tell him you will kill him in his sleep if he says anything about it ( hmmmm maybe apple should do the same thing)

Very true.

[TheBurrito]

Like all other hardware, the iPod itself (and other players) will move more toward commodity status, with only the latest whiz-bang 3D-video-surround-sound-and-a-toaster iPods making any real money. Apple obviously wants to lock people into the iTunes store NOW, because in ten years, everyone will own an iPod and the cost of distributing music online will have dropped (as the hardware/pipes required to do so get cheaper). We WILL get to the point where iTunes is the cash cow, not the iPod.

And Apple certainly doesn't want anyone buying music elsewhere, lest they get the idea that music should cost less than 99 cents a track.

P.S. - "Jobs Cave" = teh funny.

OK.

[Shivetya]

Got it.

Then why shame Real for trying to compete with Apple if Apple is essentially behaving the same way? The end result is the same, less choice for the consumer.

In other words, both of them are acting like school yard bullies.

Re:OK.

[caddisfly]

Apple and Motorola reached agreement with itunes and the fairplay drm on Motorola produced hardware, so it has been done.

Apple is in the "value add"/"whole experience" business. Real doesn't add any value to Apple's side of the biz, they just take away. From the consumer side, Apple is betting their "whole experience" solution is more attractive and worth more to the buyer.

If you buy downloads from Apple, you can put it on itunes/ipod.
If you buy audio CDs from anywhere, you can put it on itunes/ipod.
If you get/buy mp3's from anywhere, you can put it oon itunes/iod.

I guess the question is, this short "sale period" aside - if one is willing to buy downloads from Apple, why would anyone buy from Real? and why should Apple let Real "dirty" the "experience" that Apple has invested so much in?

Isn't this like a franchise? if you want to use the ipod, you need to play by Apple's rules and standards....just like Subway, if you want to sell sandwiches in our stores, you need to buy into our marketing/franchise and make them the way we tell you. ...if you don't like it, fine, go setup your own sandwich shop!

I have nothing witty to add

[Anonymous Coward]

that I have not rambled about before.
Throw another "Real sucks" log on the fire for me.

Hello? Reading comprehension?

[2nd Post!]

Did you read my post?

The original quoter is correct: Real shouldn't be exercising their rights to reverse engineer Apple's protected format if they will use the DMCA to prevent someone else to reverse engineer their protected format. It's called hypocrisy. Yes, I agree Real has the legal right to reverse engineer, but I don't think they have the ethical right to pursue it themselves. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, in this case.

Re:Hello? Reading comprehension?

[Ahnteis]

Once more kiddies, there is a difference between REMOVING protection and making a COMPATIBLE protection.

Re:Hello? Reading comprehension?

[2nd Post!]

You're right, there is a difference.

Except that Real is making a compatible DRM wrapper to Fairplay, not removing it. If Real were removing it, we'd have raw AAC, which is no big deal. Real isn't doing this.

Mod parent up.

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy has a point.

The worst thing about being a Mac User...

[huchida]

... Is very often the other Mac users.

Re:The worst thing about being a Mac User...

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Wow, how profound!

Becaos im anonamous in rael life!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why did you post anonymously, shitcock?

AN ANYWAY if you know my names shitcock howcome u say im anyomous!?!?!11?>!>!!1!>!?!?!?!!?!?!!!!!11!!

Re:Becaos im anonamous in rael life!

[David Rolfe]

Now that's hilarious!

YOU are needing my wisdoms BAD!!

apple fans are dumb and rich

[js3]

that's where there are only 5% of them

Re:apple fans are dumb and rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Read what you posted, idiot.

Re:Real should put their money where their mouth i

[Ahnteis]

I'm glad you can play those itunes files on any player you want. Wait. You can't. You have to burn them to CD first just like Real's files.

Counter petition

[JoelC101]

A new petition was started to counter Real's stupid publicity stunt, so everyone please feel free to sign up: http://www.petitiononline.com/notreal/petition.htm l

not really.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we only have 3-4% of the market, but hello, aren't we also the same market that catapaulted the iPod, and then the Music Store, to success?

not really. the iPod and iTunes did not really take off until after they were available* to Windows users. hype was high, but when 98% of the pc market couldn't buy the damn thing, its sales didn't go very far.

* out of the box, not using XPlay or similar MacDrive-esque browser for the early iPods.

Not to this iPod user

[2nd Post!]

The Real music store isn't Mac compatible.

Re:Not to this iPod user

[shepd]

And when the iPod came out it wasn't PC compatible. Tit for tat.

It digusts me!

[Anonymous Coward]

All of these "apple fans" are really just brandname-brainwashed. It is ridiculous, and becoming of a monopoly like the one Apple wants to create, that the iPod can only play purchased music from their own store. Without competition, of course they can charge $1!
In fact, $1 was just a bait and switch offer! Now, we're going to increase the price. The RIAA is making us!

Re:It digusts me!

[eadint]

HMMM
My ipod plays MP3s, Aif's aac and other common formats, about 10% of its music is from the apple store.

Re:that the same arguement that microsoft uses

[youritadvisor.com]

when they attempt justify why they should not be forced to include quick time media player as a default instead of windows media player

Interesting that Apple is using the same justification against someone else

Not against multiple stores

[MachineShedFred]

As an iPod owner, I am not against the idea of there being multiple stores.

What I am against, is Real deciding that they didn't want to negotiate with Apple to license FairPlay (instead they threatened to work with Microsoft, at the same time they threatened Microsoft that they would work with Apple - we see how well THAT play worked out), and instead decided to shoehorn their way in and play the "ohh look at the big bad man who's grinding us down" card. There are a couple things wrong with this:

1. Apple will license FairPlay. They licensed it to Motorola.

2. Apple is not a monopoly for digital music distribution. They just have the market share lead. OD2 has distribution in Europe. Sony is trying their thing. There are other services that have been listed here MANY times.

3. Real hasn't caught on that they have worked themselves into irrelevance. The world doesn't need three formats all trying to be the leader. It really doesn't even need two, but Microsoft and Apple aren't about to kill Windows Media and QuickTime respectively, as they are huge foundations of the operating system capabilities of each platform, for better or for worse.

4. Real has constantly shunned the Macintosh platform, which turns off Mac users. There were versions of Windows Media Player out for Mac OS X before Real - that's pathetic!

To sum up, I don't care how many sources for music there are, but I'm going to put my dollars towards a company that doesn't act reprehensibly in order to get them. Real has done that, and they will never EVER see my money.

AAC isn't what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Free. AAC is not free.

I don't know what you consider to be "proprietary" but you need to be careful what misinformation you spread. Look up AAC and "proprietary" before you make that same comment ever again.

The AAC that we're talking about is MPEG-4 AAC. Reality is amusingly defiant of your assertion: Dolby has an entire independently operated subsidiary that handles licensing of several technologies, including AAC.

http://www.vialicensing.com/
products/mpeg4aac/standard.html

Go buy yourself a copy of the AAC standard at the ISO Online Store, or go get your FLAC or Ogg Vorbis specs for free from their sites.

Then build your device/software to use AAC *after* you secure licensing and arrange to pay royalties, or build your device/software to use FLAC or Ogg Vorbis and then just sell/distribute it.

Re:AAC isn't what?

[nojomofo]

Repeat after me. MP3. Shall we say it again? MP3. iPods play MP3s. That's a standard format that iPods support. Get it? If you read my post, you'll see that I said that AAC is essentially proprietary.

Re:AAC isn't what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeat after us. AAC. Shall we say it again? AAC? I can write C code that can convert your stupid fucking MP3 into an AAC encoded file. I can write a PERL script to do it. Get it? Its a standard fucking format, that you can write a Perl script (using epip) to PLAY. If you shut the fuck up, you'll realize that FAIRPLAY is proprietary and AAC is an open fucking standard.

Oh and jackass...MP3 isnt free. Try "Franhaufer mp3 licensing"
moron.

When will charges be filed?

[kulakovich]

And I don't mean a suit by Apple - I mean the Fed and the RIAA.

What I can't beleive is that we have a company willfully admitting that they went out of their way to crack a DRM related schema, and that no arrests have been made.

Shouldn't Real Networks have its hardware seized?

Kulakovich

Re:When will charges be filed?

[Trailer Trash]

And I don't mean a suit by Apple - I mean the Fed and the RIAA. What I can't beleive is that we have a company willfully admitting that they went out of their way to crack a DRM related schema, and that no arrests have been made. Shouldn't Real Networks have its hardware seized?

Are you joking? They "cracked" Apple's DRM so that they could use it themselves. They're not trying to copy songs; they're trying to protect more.

I'm sure they'll be contacted by the RIAA..... so that they can meet at a bar, have some drinks and high fives all around...

Re:When will charges be filed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting?? INTERESTING?? How does a comment by somebody who demonstrates a clear misunderstand of how Real's reverse-engineering relates to the law (it's quite legal) get modded up as interesting?

Re:When will charges be filed?

[klui]

Yup. They've piggy-backed on Apple's R&D of iTunes and iPod. Real has branded themselves as a leech company.

Re:When will charges be filed?

[kulakovich]

Call it a clear misunderstanding if you like, but that misunderstanding is on the part of law enforcement and the RIAA - there have been plenty of cases of people in the academic arena reverse-engineering to learn, not abuse, and they've gotten into serious trouble.

You can't do it to teach, but you can do it for profit?
I thought these matters were supposed to be "zero tollerence" issues.

You crack a scheme, you break the law.

kulakovich

Re:When will charges be filed?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it at all. Harmony puts Fairplay on Real's songs. That's not cracking the scheme at all. That's using the same scheme that Apple does. People have gotten in trouble for reverse-engineering and finding ways to circumvent protection. Real isn't circumventing it. They reverse-engineered it to use it. Even under the DMCA that's legal.

Re:When will charges be filed?

[kulakovich]

So how is Apple compensated for Real's use of Apple's format, then?

kulakovich

A Transplanted Message, but Still...

[DLWormwood]

I've posted this on another site, but my feelings on this issue stand... especially with regards to accusations of Apple being "closed" technologically...

[BEGIN QUOTE]

I Want Apple To License The DRM, BUT what Real is doing is tantamount to slander.

The iPod works with MP3s, ripped CDs, as well as lossless formats like WAV and AIFF. John Gruber's been acting the "Scott McCloud" role of late with regards to the Mac platform, but he's right on the money about the popular media's misconceptions about Apple's music player. (He's been posting articles on Daring Fireball for the last week on this topic.)

The conspiracy theorist in me is starting to think that the RIAA let Apple "get away" with their more forgiving DRM just so Apple can get battered in the popular press since the Apple modus operandi is to be less promiscuous with their tech than Microsoft is. This way the public will be suckered into backing the more restictive (yet more "free") WMA format.

[END QUOTE]

The only part of the whole "AAC" deal that's Apple/iPod specific is the DRM, which due to industry politics must be proprietary. The codec is not Apple's to license, the file format is no longer under Apple's sole control. (They "released" the QT container format to support the MPEG-4 initiative.) My understanding is that Apple didn't even do the intial research into the DRM, but had it forced upon them by the recording industry.

Apple's "closed" nature is simply a manifestation of their understandable defensiveness in the industry. They once had an "open" platform, the Apple II. They once tried to open the Mac as well, only to be raked over the coals financially. Apple now uses commodity hardware like PCI, DDR memory and even USB. Their current OS is built over a BSD/Open Source core.

What does Apple have to do be considered a valid firm in this industry?!? Admit it people, the hatred you had for Apple during FSF and GNU boycott last millenium never went away, did it?

Re:A Transplanted Message, but Still...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...the Apple modus operandi is to be less promiscuous with their tech than Microsoft is."

Is that the new euphamism for "irrelevant niche market" people are these days?

Re:A Transplanted Message, but Still...

[TiggsPanther]

Yes, it would be nice for Apple to licence FairPlay. But as to whether they "have" to some questions need to be answered.
The most obvious one is the "But can you play music from other stores on the iPod?" which has been answered. But Real seem to make that out to be the only question. And the others are ones that I'm personally interested in knowing, for curiosity's sake more than anything as being a UK-based Linux ocnvert kinda limits my choices in online music at the moment.

• Can DRM-protected music from other stores play on other players?
• Can iTMS purchases play directly on other players? (The "Burn and re-rip is another issue - see below)
• If Rhapsody/Harmony is all about "freedom of choice", will their purchases run under Linux, on my MuVo or on any other cheap player?
• Can Real-purchased songs be burned to an audio CD for use in CD players or to rip to unencombered formats?

I'd love official iTunes/iPod support under Linux. Do I think Apple should do this? Yes. Do I think it's gonna happen any time soon? No. I don't agree with their choice, but it's their choice. As such it means that when i can afford a hard-drive MP3-player it won't be an iPod. That's my choice.

It's the same with the DRM. Would it be great if they licensed FairPlay? Yes - in as far as licensing DRM goes anyway. Is it likely? No. It is Apple's decision to make, even if they make the "wrong" one? Ultimately yes.
If people really want to purchase songs from elsewhere for play on the move then there are a host of other players out there - ones that support other formats too, and often at cheaper than the price of an iPod. It really is a "vote with your feet" scenario. If you have to compete with an all-in-one solution like iPod/iTune/iTMS then you just have to try all the harder to win people to your side.

Is it right for Real to support "freedom of choice"? Yes. Is it right to reverse-engineer FairPlay to support their own format if refused official licensing? Questionable - there are good arguments on both sides. (And bad ones on both sides, too.)
Is it right, though, to break someone else's DRM and then announce plans to license the workaround - probably profitting in the process? Now that is the key question.

Re:A Transplanted Message, but Still...

[Pahalial]

Admit it people, the hatred you had for Apple during FSF and GNU boycott last millenium never went away, did it?

Oh, you mean like the current Apple supporters never got over hating Real?

Re:A Transplanted Message, but Still...

[DLWormwood]

Oh, you mean like the current Apple supporters never got over hating Real?

Funny, I thought everybody hated Real. Real didn't single out Mac users out for suffering; Windows users had to cope with the hard-to-find "free" player and to deal with the "spyware" attributes of the player... In some ways, Real's poor support for the Mac OS was a blessing, since we didn't have to deal with same intensity of cutting edge "marketing" that Real was infamous for.

My beef with the Linux/Open Source community and the reason for my initial rant was that I've been observing a deterioration of culture among Mac users online, as they have been having to compete with the culture of Open Source advocates.

Among other things, I've been noticing a virtual jihad declared on the Mac shareware market. I've been seeing too many jabs at shareware developers and unwarranted criticism on sites like MacUpdate. I've been a long time supporter (read: I pay my fees!) of shareware; it's literally been the only thing that kept the Mac OS viable during the OS 7/8/9 era. To see garage developers condemned for not releasing their efforts and work for "free" (as in beer) sickens me; it's a complete misapplication of the "free software" (as in liberty) ethos.

~500 flames is hardly "a few "

[Anonymous Coward]

There were over 500 posts on the original petition before Real started the comment-free one. I was bored at work yesterday afternoon and read most of them. The ratio of flame posts to supportive posts was at least 50 to 1, if not more. I didn't count, but the posts supporting the petition were few and far between.

what do you expect from rabid

[Archfeld]

apple fans who in the face of facts prefer manufactured "I switched propaganda" I would not be in the least suprised to find out many of these so-called fans were in fact apple employees posting under false names. While the same people scream hysterically about M$ and other vendors, if apple pulls a boner, and they DO, the apple fanboy club is busy screaming its a feature....

The road goes both ways and apple is no more our friend than MS or HP is. They all want your money, and would like to ensure they can get it in the future in any way they can. Morals are foreign to a corporation.

Re:what do you expect from rabid

[eadint]

Im sure that the apple fanatics have their share of posts but im also sure that real has allot of enemies no matter what they do. too many people have been burned by real
\

Now this is irony for you

[Zareste]

REAL, of all companies, is trying to sell their stuff under the domain name 'freedomofmusicchoice.org'

I don't need to rant about how they'd instantly jack up prices and lock down the industry if they got the lead in it. Oops.

Now let's think for a nanosecond: If they were so interested in 'music choice' then wouldn't they have opened the encryption method for iPod a long time ago? Exactly.

Suggestion

[freeweed]

You know how people write obscenities in the dirt of car windshields?

I leave the rest to you. Please provide some pictures in your next Slashdot post :)

Re:Suggestion

[Pentagram]

I believe this link might be relevant considering he's a window cleaner - reverse graffiti

LOL

[2nd Post!]

You're mistaken if you think I somehow disapprove of Real's actions. I call them a hypocrite because they happen to 'champion' choice and competition, except they don't.

The Real music store is Mac incompatible. Good going. So much for consumer choice. Where's my $0.49 downloads?

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

How long did it take Apple to develop a windows client for Itunes?

Huh?

Can I put my ripped MP3s on an Ipod and transfer them to a friend's computer?

If I remember correctly, some company was supposed to help people think different. That is, as long as you are still thinking Apple and AAC. Forget about your other songs that you already own, they are unimportant.

Re:LOL

[GreenKiwi]

[quote]Can I put my ripped MP3s on an Ipod and transfer them to a friend's computer?[/quote]

Very easily! The iPod just shows up as a hard drive. Sure you have to let the computer know to show it, but once done, you can easily share the files. There are even some programs available that help you do this.

Re:Real should put their money where their mouth i

[Anonymous Coward]

VirtualPC

Re: People hating real.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't.
I used to before using the new linux realplayer.
It's almost as nice as mplayer, though it does not play as many files, and realplayer does not play rm files as well as mplayer.

But, with that and helix player, I reackon they are doing alright. Give them a break!

Mod parent up, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

People need to say these things, and then say them again. There's a bagful of reasons why people perceive Slashdot as a big room full of idiots, but this semi-literacy thing is not the least of them.

Thanks in advance.

I don't understand all the fuss

[Anonymous Coward]

For me - choice isn't about where I buy something, it's being able to choose what I buy. ITMS offers the selection I want, at the price I am willing to pay, with a reasonable DRM, in a format that is as easy as walking into a regular store and paying for a hard copy.

Let me ask you this - does the Rhapsody catalogue have titles in it that are exclusively available from Real? This is not a rhetorical question, since I am locked out of even looking through the site (I proudly drank the kool-aid in 1985). The ITMS has over 1 million titles - how does Rhapsody stack up?

If it doesn't have a different selection of music, then what is the point?

As for non-ITMS users who complain about the so-called lack of choice - there is plenty of choice out there. Check out http://magnatune.com - DRM free music downloadable in many different formats and bitrates. Fully compatible with your iPod and iTunes. Great motto too "We're Not Evil." Streaming as well, though iTune and Shoutcast (John Buckman's a god!)

And all this fuss about the bit-rate encoding - I use a rather fine set of BOSE headphones with my iPod, and frankly - I can't tell the difference between my ITMS AAC files and my 192 bit-rate encoded MP3s - and for that matter - I can't tell the difference between the quality from my iPod and from a CD in a player (which actually sounds a bit worse, since some of the whirring from the CD's motor seems to pass through). Since I have a 1st gen iPod, space is at a premium - I'd rather have more tunes than an imperceptible difference in quality.

Well duh!

[Anita Coney]

Attacking Apple and expecting kudos from Apple fanatics is like a waiter spitting in his patron's face and still expecting a tip.

And it does NOT matter if Real was giving Apple users MORE choices at LOWER prices. It is quite clear that Apple fanatics care neither about choice or price. If Apple users wanted more choices and cheaper prices, they'd use IBM compatibles!

I get the impression that those in charge of Real have NO clue about reality.

Re:Well duh!

[methangel]

I am an Apple user myself. Do I wish there were more choices/cheaper alternatives to the Apple G4/G5 product line? A resounding YES.

I am an Apple user and I say I want more choices.

Granted, there are ways for people like me to get what they want at a cheaper price ... this is what I did:

G4 Dual 533/Studio Monitor was purchased at a computer auction for 200.00 ...
PC Geforce3 that had been flashed with a Mac ROM for 53.00
512 meg chip of 64X4 RAM (note: 64x8 does NOT work) 80.00

Total paid: 333.00 very reasonable IMO.

Another company offering an additional means of playing back music on an iPod should increase the VALUE of the iPod device, if nothing else.

Does this mean that my using a PC Geforce3 card flashed with an Apple ROM is spitting in Apple's face? I don't think so.

Re:Well duh!

[Anita Coney]

You're an admitted "Apple user." I know people like you. You use Apples because you consider them the best tool for the job. I have no problem about that. I was refering to Apple fanatics. Those are the people who considering paying more and having less options some soft of virtue.

There really isn't anything wrong with that either, I guess. If I wanted to buy some music, and my choices were an overpriced John Coltrane CD and the entire Kenny G collection for free, I'd gladly pay for the Coltrane. I guess that makes me a fanatic in a sense too.

Re:Well duh!

[rentedmule]

So tired, so very tired of explaining it all...

IBM compatibles were some of the choices when I went to buy a new computer. So was Apple's DP 1.8 G5.

But after spending my work days on an HP and dealing with XP and it's quirks and watching my family and their shiny Dell's go through the virus and spyware shuffle, I went with Apple.

And to keep at least slightly OT, there aren't a lot of "more choices and cheaper prices" music stores (including Real) that also WORK AS WELL as iTunes and are compatible with OS X.

Re:Well duh!

[Anita Coney]

Are Apples more expensive? Yes. Does the Apple platform offer less choices. Yes. Need I say more? Nope.

Re:Well duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple users wanted more choices and lower prices, they'd...let's see...use the same platform that everyone else uses? That somehow makes for more choices?

Sorry, can't follow the logic there.

Lower prices...well, Apple's aren't any higher than Dell's for comparable hardware...I guess if I wanted to build my own computer I wouldn't go with Apple...

Have you tried buying Real music for your Mac?

[2nd Post!]

I've two Macs and an iPod. Real cunningly enough has made their music store incompatible. Where is our $0.49 downloads?

Don't mistake me and think I disapprove of Real's RE tactics. I don't. I disapprove of their hypocrisy in championing choice and alternatives when they fail to do so themselves.

What I am curious about is...

[ModernGeek]

...if you visit real.com on a Windows machine, if you see the message showing about Real 10 for Linux. I don't have a Windows box to test it on.

Re:What I am curious about is...

[Anonymous Coward]

on a Mac, you see a message about Real 10 for OSX

What, two wrongs make a right now?

[2nd Post!]

Before the iPod, how many things exactly weren't Mac compatible?

The point is NOW, not past or future. Real talks about choice, competition, and alternatives, and fails to provide choice by only targeting one platform; Windows. If they do believe in choice... if they do believe in alternatives and competition, make their product Mac compatible so I can listen to it in my iTunes.

The world goes down in flames if we live a tit for tat philosophy. Look up the Prisoner's Dilemna, and then consider we don't live in a zero sum world. My gain is not your loss. Real wants a chance, well, give my a chance to. Until they can, all I can do is slam them for not producing a viable competitive product.

Re:What, two wrongs make a right now?

[shepd]

No, two wrongs don't make a right. It is never "wrong" to be selective about what system you decide to code for. That's the company's choice.

Since Apple users "respected" that Apple inteded for the iPod and iTunes to be Mac only when it was released, I think it's hypocritical that Apple users would whine when software from another company that interworks with the iPod is released for windows only.

>Real talks about choice, competition, and alternatives, and fails to provide choice by only targeting one platform; Windows. If they do believe in choice... if they do believe in alternatives and competition, make their product Mac compatible so I can listen to it in my iTunes.

Look, you don't get to complain about that as long as OS X only works on the Mac, ok? It's just total hypocrisy to want it both ways.

>The world goes down in flames if we live a tit for tat philosophy.

I agree. That's why it's wrong for Apple to make so much non-Windows software. I still recall Steve Jobs saying how hell would freeze over when iTunes was released for windows.

>Real wants a chance, well, give my a chance to. Until they can, all I can do is slam them for not producing a viable competitive product.

I did the same thing about iTunes when it was Mac only and got marked troll. Consider that for a minute.

Re:What, two wrongs make a right now?

[2nd Post!]

Why is it hypocrisy both ways? Is Apple selling OS X as a viable alternative to Windows? No, Apple is selling a Macintosh as a viable alternative to PCs running Microsoft Windows.

In this case Real is championing the Real store as a viable alternative to the iTMS; except for some non-trivial population it isn't. I mean, if you're a PC using iPod owner, it's great. If you'r a Mac using iPod owner, it's nonexistent. Real is championing choice, but failing to provide it. Apple never championed consumer rights when selling their software. All they ever said about it was, "It is better," and "It is easier."

Look, I never slammed you as a troll. I understand why you want OS X and Apple software for the PC, as I would too, but since I couldn't I bought a Mac. It would be great if Apple did sell these things on Windows, but they don't, and it would be great if Real sold their music on Mac, but they don't.

Re:What, two wrongs make a right now?

[shepd]

>Is Apple selling OS X as a viable alternative to Windows? No, Apple is selling a Macintosh as a viable alternative to PCs running Microsoft Windows.

I have to call bullshit on that. Remember the "switch" ad where a Microsoft network engineer told windows users how much better he prefers OS X, and so he's switching? Yeah...

>If you'r a Mac using iPod owner, it's nonexistent.

C'est la vie. Just the same as OS X.

>I understand why you want OS X and Apple software for the PC, as I would too, but since I couldn't I bought a Mac.

Well, I'm not all *that* interested in OS X. I'd like to try it, but I simply can't afford hardware to run it. It doesn't make a cost-effective environment for me to use. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it goes.

Re:What, two wrongs make a right now?

[2nd Post!]

Isn't the whole point of the switch ad buying a Mac? Yes, the network engineer did say that... but that's exactly the same reason I did it; I wanted the software, so I bought a Mac. That's how it works. Maybe it's not so clearcut that you buy the OS or buy the hardware, since you are getting both. I guess I won't be able to convince you that Real is being hypocritical where Apple isn't, since you see both as the same.

I suppose I just want my $0.49 downloads, and you want your yearly $129 OS releases.

Re:What, two wrongs make a right now?

[shepd]

>I wanted the software, so I bought a Mac. That's how it works

Exactly. That's how it works. Now people seem to want (or, well, in the case of certain Apple users, not want) Real's software to work.

So, just like you made a decision, they'll need to make one. Buy windows or don't run all of Real's software.

>I guess I won't be able to convince you that Real is being hypocritical where Apple isn't, since you see both as the same.

No, not as long as you consider it OK for Apple to sell OS X for Apple hardware only (*NO* it is *NO LONGER* part of their computer "package" -- they definately charge for it separately now. I can provide places to buy copies.) I probably won't be convinced, sorry... Oh well.

>I suppose I just want my $0.49 downloads, and you want your yearly $129 OS releases.

There you go! But I thought $129 was the price for Jaguar, no? It seems that's what Amazon was selling the 10.3 (or whatever it was called) upgrade for way back when...

Have your music, and listen to it too!

[hudsong]

Ever heard of P2P? Sorry apple and real, but no matter how "revolutionary" your ideas are, you will never stop people from simply starting up a P2P and downloading it all for free! I recently lost a few albums that I bought from the music store because of hard disc failure. When I came back to the Music store, looking for rebates on my lost songs I found none! Thanks alot apple.

I feel bad for Real...

[Jeppe Utzon]

Seriously!

Astroturfing all around

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

Real launched a campaign to astroturf Apple (and the press) to sell its songs. It sure looks like Apple hired a bunch of its own astroturfers to post anti-Real comments on Real's bulletin board.

A pox on both houses, I say. There's no higher ground in claiming greater rights to screw consumers with DRM. (but on the narrow point, reverse engineering is a good thing, which must be protected... so Real is narrowly right on this thing, though wrong on most everything else).

Re:Astroturfing all around

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

What a ridiculous assumption.

Re:Astroturfing all around

[the pickle]

It sure looks like Apple hired a bunch of its own astroturfers to post anti-Real comments on Real's bulletin board.

...except unlike Real, Apple didn't need to hire those folks. Mac zealots work free of charge.

p

Russians, the new Italians

[poptones]

"People say" all kinds of stupid shit and always have. Niggers are lazy, Mexicans steal - and now Russians have become the new Italians. "Oooh, they're Russian - they must be in the mafia!"

Russia has different laws than we do. Whoopee. It's their fault, I suppose, for looking like westerners but being part of Asia. You can go into a store in Japan, plunk down a few bucks and "rent" a CD to copy and no one bats an eyelash, but just let those Russians try to make a legal buck on the internet and suddenly it's all mired in allegations of criminal intent.

Quite frankly, I hope the site is run by some Russian mob. I'd sooner give those folks my money than the parasites in Ho-town.

Rhapsody

[SatanicPuppy]

I was debating throwing down some money for perpetual streaming internet radio and downloadable songs, and ended up giving it up because every one of those services is locked into a player that I can't freaking stand.

Checked Napster, but that's Windows Media Player. When I saw that Rhapsody was based around Real, I ditched it too. The music isn't all the great either. You'd be surprised how much bad crap can be included in "millions of songs".

I'm not hostile to the idea of a modest monthly fee paid for unlimited access to music---seems like a fair way to go really...Much better than buying a piece of something and storing it on a perishable medium. It certainly makes more sense than "buying" DRM'd MP3s from a provider like iTunes.

At the same time, all the offerings suck. They're offering limited libraries locked into a handful of the worst media players on market. Against that competition, iTunes looks great.

Re:Rhapsody

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment reads like a well-composed marketing pitch for an Apple product.

All the way through, from the 'I was debating throwing some money down for ... downloadable songs' to the bottom, where you concluded 'iTunes looks great.'

Did you write it yourself, or copy it from the email from Apple Marketing that you subscribe to?

Re:Rhapsody

[nolife]

I was debating throwing down some money for perpetual streaming internet radio and downloadable songs, and ended up giving it up because every one of those services is locked into a player that I can't freaking stand.

Confused on this one, are we talking about the player needed to listen to Rhapsody or a player needed when you pay 79 cents to download a song? When you buy a song from Rhapsody, it gets burned to a cd, you need an extra step of converting to another medium from there but it will play on any media player at that point. I am not saying the Rhapsody online player application (that runs in Windows only) could not be improved some but I find it very odd you felt inclined to not use a specific subscription based unlimited streaming service strickly because of the interface that you did not really ever use. Streaming and non streaming each has pluses and minuses but they are two completely different models of delivering and paying for music.

At the same time, all the offerings suck.

Care to sight some examples? I've only used Rhapsody so I can not compare it to other services. What exactly do you feel is missing? Maybe we have different tastes.
Your claim of millions is not true as Rhapsody does not claim that and if you are turned off about "weeding through crap", I have no idea how you are searching for something that all that comes up is crap. It is not like they have a flat list of several hundred thousand song you have to go through manually to find one you want.

Bottom line, some people like streaming services and some don't. It appears you do not and are trying to talk others out of that based on very little facts or experience with a single one of them. You are not comparing Apples to Oranges ;)
IMHO, this is far from you current mod of "Interesting".

Re:Michael Jackson

[Anonymous Coward]

I would bet Apple would be a little leary about Michael Jackson coming to their defense. That could be a PR nightmare - "Apple says to think different. Like how I think about little boys. Hey little boy, want to touch my iPod? It's 'purple'"

More than just the iPod?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once upon a time streaming audio was available on many sites in both Quicktime and Real. Then several major radio sites (notably NPR ) made the decision to drop Quicktime coverage, If I was Steve Jobs I'd really want to crush Real just to get a bigger market share for Quicktime. And Quicktime has got to have a huge profit margin compared to a piece of hardware. So maybe this battle is about more, and subtler, goals than just the iPod.

Re:More than just the iPod?

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

I believe you are correct. It is about QuickTime.

Can someone explain how this is different from...

[Ahnteis]

Can anyone explain how this is any different from the following hypothetical scenario? Lexmark produces inkjet printers. Lexmark ink catridges have a special chip identifying themselves as "Lexmark Brand" and the printer will work only with those chips. Bob's Cheap Ink attempts to negotiate with Lexmark to produce compatible cartridges. Lexmark refuses to disclose the technology. Bob's reverse engineers the chip to make their own compatible ink. Lexmark sues Bob's under DMCA. In my mind, there is only one difference, and that difference is negated by RIAA-imposed restrictions--the ability of the ipod to play MP3s. As noted, that option is NOT available because DRM-less files are a deal-breaker for the RIAA. Therefore, this option is not open to "Bob's" or "Real". Now, granted, Bob's cartridges may or may not be as good as Lexmark's, but that isn't the issue here is it. So what's the difference besides the lack of any Apple-level Lexmark fanatics?

For a moment...

[ESqVIP]

...I thought I could hear Apple... "Why don't you just Think Different, goddammit!"

All of this whining .....

[methangel]

Ok, first of all, even if Real Rhapsody or Jukebox or whatever was available for the Mac platform, most Mac users probably wouldn't use it.

Now, who does this interoperability "improvement" benefit? Windows users of course. iTunes and iPods both work well with Windows. Real is simply undercutting the iTunes song prices. I really see nothing inherently wrong with offering a lower price, it benefits the consumer.

In my opinion, why not buy some albums you wouldn't ordinarily buy for 4.99? I am sure the whole reverse-engineering of DRM will be taken to court. May as well benefit from the lower prices while you can. I am sure Real's Rhapsody/Jukebox files sound just as good on your iPod at half the price.

Keeping a business like Apple alive simply by running a "music" store seems like a flawed way of operating a hardware/operating system business.

Re:All of this whining .....

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Whatever, dude! Real can't support those low prices for long. I'm sure they're taking a heavy loss on that. Then what? My guess is that most iPod owners are perfectly content buying from the iTMS since it is the only one that works seamlessly with the iPod. Plus they're nearly have twice the content of Real's offering. "Keeping a business like Apple alive simply by running a "music" store seems like a flawed way of operating a hardware/operating system business." Save your money and buy a clue!

Re:All of this whining .....

[the pickle]

even if Real Rhapsody or Jukebox or whatever was available for the Mac platform, most Mac users probably wouldn't use it.

Yeah, because knowing Real, their software would suck ass. You think Windoze users would still use RealPlayer if someone could write a free or low-cost alternative that worked better and didn't have spyware? Let me let you in on a little secret: Mac users use iTunes because virtually every other MP3 player on the Macintosh sucks in comparison. Not because it's the only MP3 player -- there are plenty of alternatives -- but because it's the best. And do we have ANY reason to believe that in a truly competitive market, Real could write the best piece of software? No.

Keeping a business like Apple alive simply by running a "music" store seems like a flawed way of operating a hardware/operating system business.

Which is why Apple makes money selling computers and iPods, and doesn't make (much) money selling music. How difficult is that to understand?

p

Sorry, I changed to Real...

[Anonymous Coward]

This was the convincer for me. When Apple fanatics start bashing on it, then hell man, I'm In Like Flint.

First off, I'm not using a Mac... Mac fans: Nobody supports your machine because it's only like 8% of the market. Deal with it.

Songs are cheaper, they switched to have a purchase model instead of only subscription based nonsense, it works with my iPod... Hell, you just can't beat that.

Interface still sucks, but it's no worse than iTunes is. I can live with it.

Vive la Real!

3 great points in parent

[javaxman]

Seriously, if I had mod points, you'd be +1 insightful, right now.

The support-call explaination of the DRM-wars is spot-on... what exactly *are* the limitations of Real's AAC files, does anyone know? Since they look like Apple's AAC files, does the Windows system they presumedly reside on simply treat them as Apple's files, or does Real's software somehow monkey up the works with stricter/different rules?

Same analysis goes for your iPod compatability comment- plenty of folks loose site of the fact that inside the iPod is a set of off-the-shelf components that Apple really doesn't control... compatability could be an issue, and not just with firmware updates, especially if the DRM is anything more than reverse-engineered FairPlay.

Re:Real should put their money where their mouth i

[X]

How about opening up the .rm format first so that I can use any player I want. Then we can talk on the same terms.

Umm... done.

Sadly, they've done exactly what you are talking about, but somehow Apple is the good guy anyway. Just goes to show that being cool is sometimes more important than being right.

The article is right.

[rspress]

I might support real on this matter but I don't because they shot themselves in the foot so many times, just on this issue, that they have no credibility.

The claim that this is all about freedom of choice but the real.com music store does not support Macs.....so much for that freedom of choice. Real has always been slow to offer any of its products on the Mac and some are not offered at all....again, so much for that freedom of choice. Real has continued to lose market share because their product which worked so well with old, slow dial up accounts looks horrid on broadband. Also most good content cost an arm and a leg to view. So much for Apple business model and their bitching about it.

Real has always sent out their 600 pound gorillas to stomp on anyone reverse engineering their intellectual property but they think it is OK to do it to Apple.

Real, get real, three strikes and you are out. I hope Apple sues you and puts the final nail in the coffin you have been laying in for years now.

Rob Glaser is a socialist

[Anonymous Coward]

He just loves Al Franken and he just hates Bill O'Reilly.

I hope all you liberals on this board take note. Glaser is one of your own.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You people suck so bad!

LOAD OF SHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

FLAMEBAIT? How so? I don't think I read very many positive coments here about Real, so just WHO is the parent "baiting"?????

Perspective is skewed..

[Archfeld]

Apple is a good brand ?!?! Err if you are a fanboy, otherwise they are a hugely proprietary, offensive company that regularly sues and threatens there own support base and customers.

Now they DO make some SOLID hardware, and have a decent return to the community policy, but they are proprietary software on a proprietary hardware platform, and even more closed than M$.
Note : I don't really like either company, they've both gotten greedy and think they DESERVE to make a profit rather than have to work at it. Neither entity is above utilizing the DMCA or any ohter method to ensure there continued profit, at anyone elses expense...Corporations and MORALS are mutually exclusive...

Re:Perspective is skewed..

[Nexum]

Apple not working at turning a profit.

I think the hundreds of people who practically pulled a month long all-nighter to ship the Tiger seed for WWDC would object. Or the same teams that have been working their asses off to give us first access to many technologies, especially GPU accelerated GUIs etc.

It's true most companies these days are rather legal-happy, but the Apple engineers work hard and I think that's pretty obvious.

Re:Perspective is skewed..

[javax]

woha, hold on pal! even more closed than M$???

I dont know where you took this wisdom from, but Apple's base system and kernel are open source, they released e. g. Rendezvous as open source, help sqash bugs in e. g. mono etc.
But that gets beaten by M$ releasing a Windows installer thingamabob as open source...

Re:Perspective is skewed..

[slipstick]

Not trying to be negative, but is the base system & kernel open sourced from Apple or didn't Apple take somebody else's work and lock it down?

In other words I have the understanding that Apple took FreeBSD which is somebodyelses hard work and added their own stuff on top without releasing the stuff on top or how it interacts with the stuff provided by FreeBSD, or any changes they might have made to FreeBSD to make it better.

While this is certainly valid given the license of FreeBSD, strictly speaking that's just being a thief as far as I'm concerned.(Yes I know MS has done this too with it's Unix Services layer).

I also understand however, that Apple has given some changes back to the KDE community for the web browser, locking up other changes however behind a proprietary license. In other words it looks to me like Apple is trying to garner some favor while stealing the "open source" community blind.

I know where from Microsoft comes from, they don't even attempt to curry favor so at least it's obvious they can be "hated". But Apple is trying to play the "get away come closer" game which I detest even more than the "piss off I don't like you" one. With the latter I pay no attention, with the former I waste time looking to see if it's actually any good before I find out all the really good stuff is off limits.

Anyway, this is just the impression I get, I could easily be wrong.

Re:Perspective is skewed..

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh another clueless windows fanboy. Actually Apple took the Mach core, the commercial BSD kernel and added their own enhancements to it. Unlike MS, Apple believes in supporting other (even competitor) businesses in the same industry without the underlying goal of squashing them. Even though Apple is still a proprietary company and realeases a proprietary product (sinnful by opensource standards), they believe that and are able to compete in an open market. Unlike MS who only knows how to wage war on their competitors, not cooperate and compete to improve the marketplace. By the way it was MS that stole the freeBSD tcp stack and gives no credit where credit is due, but of course MS nitpicks the fact that the BSD license allows them to do this, it just shows the unbridled greed and underhanded business practices they love so much.

Re:Perspective is skewed..

[hunterx11]

The changes they made to BSD minus the Cocoa (i.e. NeXTSTEP) API and Aqua are part of Darwin and it's free software.

Besides, they stole from Mach, too :)

Re:Perspective is skewed..

[Anonymous Coward]

While this is certainly valid given the license of FreeBSD, strictly speaking that's just being a thief as far as I'm concerned.

Nice logic there, Pancho.

Re:Perspective is skewed..

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is a good brand ?!?!

Yes, in brand-impression surveys. Apple is knows for interesting aesthetics, good TV comercials, and the ability to charge a healthy premium over similarly powerful systems. BMW 3 series's suck too (I had one), but because BMW has a strong brand (based on really nice high end cars, really nice motorcycles, and a cool logo) people buy them and they can charge a nice premium for the cheapo-cars too.

Re:Perspective is skewed..

[Spyritus]

Not trying to be negative, but is the base system & kernel open sourced from Apple or didn't Apple take somebody else's work and lock it down? In other words I have the understanding that Apple took FreeBSD which is somebodyelses hard work and added their own stuff on top without releasing the stuff on top or how it interacts with the stuff provided by FreeBSD, or any changes they might have made to FreeBSD to make it better.

Apple bought a company called NeXT that had a proprietary BSD386 based OS running on the Mach Micro-Kernal. In the company was an employee who had done a large amount of the original work creating the Mach Micro-kernal. Apple took the NeXTStep / OpenStep operating system as the basis for its Mac OS X operating system. Apple ported it to the PowerPC Chip sets, fused it with knowledge gained from Apple's earlier Unix OSes A/UX and MkLinux and then re-synced the userland with FreeBSD 4.x (now they sync the userland to FreeBSD 5.x).

This might need more explaining. Unlike Linux where all each distribution has the same Linix kernal (sometimes compiled in different ways, but still the same kernal code), BSD branches do NOT have the same kernal. NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD and Darwin(Mac OS X) are each different kernal code bases. Sometimes they share components / code, but mostly they do not. The different branches are designed to provide the same working userland to users and applications. By "re-synced the userland to FreeBSD" Apple did little more then confirm their OS is compatible with FreeBSD and either updated their own /bin and/usr/bin applications to feature / function compatibility with FreeBSD or ported the FreeBSD apps over, whichever made the most sense. Again all work was done by Apple Engineers.

So what Apple did was not "take somebody else's work and lock it down" but rather take the work Apple Engineers and the Engineers of a second company Apple bought (and retained the employees of) and release the code for no cost onto the internet.

OpenDarwin.org

While this is certainly valid given the license of FreeBSD, strictly speaking that's just being a thief as far as I'm concerned.(Yes I know MS has done this too with it's Unix Services layer).

If someone gives something to you for free, it is not stealing. The only people who are allowed a moral objection to how you use the freely given object are the ones who gave it to you. Far from being upset at it, BSD users "shouted for joy" that Apple choose to base their new OS on BSD. Daemon News: Apple -- What's in it for BSD?

I also understand however, that Apple has given some changes back to the KDE community for the web browser, locking up other changes however behind a proprietary license. In other words it looks to me like Apple is trying to garner some favor while stealing the "open source" community blind.

Every single piece of OpenSource software Apple has used (irrespective of the license it was released under and the requirement, or NOT, to release the code) they have release the code to. The code is available either through the Darwin OS , one of the other Apple Open Source Projects, or by giving the code back to the original developers. In addition to that Apple has also released code that was never before opensource, with projects such as OpenPlay , Darwin Streaming Server and

Re:Perspective is skewed..

[slipstick]

Like I said I could EASILY be wrong.

I'm big enough to admit when I was, although I was only claiming "my understanding" and was hoping for clarification.

You've provided it.

thanks.

Re:Perspective is skewed..

[slipstick]

"Ahhh another clueless windows fanboy"

Hee,Hee,Hee...Hoo,Hoo,Hoo...

Regardless of the truth or veracity of the rest of your claims, this in itself was worth any Karma I might have burned.

If you only knew...

Re:Perspective is skewed..

[Anonymous Coward]

good response. it's rare to find a nerd admit that he was misinformed about something. a stubborn bunch we are.

Re:Perspective is skewed..

[Spyritus]

Sorry about any personal slurs on your actions. I just get fed up with this shading? of the history, and you repeated it when I finally had enough time to respond. Some of my frustration at earlier statements was directed unfortunately at you. Again I'm sorry.

APPLE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE DRM.

[mcc]

You can go out-- *now*-- and buy music from the Warp Records Music Store, and download it right onto your iPod, and it will work. And Apple doesn't mind. Ever notice that?

You know why that is? It's because when you buy from the Warp Music Store you get ordinary mp3s.

Meanwhile, what this Harmony thing is has nothing to do with Real "figuring out how to play .rm files on the iPod". We all know how to play music files on the iPod: You put them on the hard drive. What Real did was figure out how to hijack Apple's DRM restriction system so that Real could put DRM-restricted files on the iPod and they would be DRM-restricted, just like the files you get from the iTunes Music Store. In other words, even without Harmony Real can already put their music on your iPod, but that's not what they want, what they want to be able to put their music on your iPod but still limit what you do with it.

This is the problem I have with what Real's doing. It's disingenous. Real isn't fighting to make the iPod more "open". What Real is doing is fighting for the right to limit your consumer choice on a device that Apple attempted to design in such a way that only Apple could limit your consumer choice on it. This isn't consumer advocacy, it's two wolves arguing over whether or not the first wolf has to share the sheep he's about to eat with the second one.

Nope: Mac yields mac ad

[ccoakley]

I'm guessing no. I just visited in both safari and mozilla on the mac and got the Real 10 for OS X.

I actually like the real codec. A pity nobody likes the company.

actions speak louder...

[grainofsand]

From the story:

"The deluge of anti-RealNetworks sentiment prompted the company to take down the original petition and replace it with one without a comment section, but where the names of those who signed up were visible. Most signed up as 'Real sucks' or something similar. The ability to see names was then removed."

Does this sound like the actions of a company you want to trust?

Why even care?

[Yaztromo]

Personally, I can't get worked up over this. If Real wants to offer a service to cater to iPod owners, and want to chase every firmware update -- fine with me. Consumers can choose who they want to buy their online music from, and given a choice I'm sure I wouldn't buy from Real (being a PowerBook user in Canada, however, I don't have a choice between either of them, so it's moot).

What I did get a chuckle from was this:

We're asking that you...support the right of your own customers to make their own choices about where they buy music for the iPod.

I did -- I bought a song online a few weeks ago from a non-Apple online source: The Might Be Giants sells their songs for $0.99 USD -- get this -- in MP3 format! What a concept! And they play on my iPod!

The only company preventting Real from selling music to iPod users is Real. Apple supports a number of non-DRM'ed formats -- they simply have to pick one and use it.

Yaz.

Re:Why even care?

[Ahnteis]

Incorrect. Real does not own copyright to the music they sell, so they CAN NOT choose to use a non-DRM format. There IS a reason Apple AND Real use DRM on their files.

Re:Why even care?

[^_^x]

Does the iPod support a DRM format that Real can use without reverse engineering?

THERES THIS THINK CALLED BACKUP.

[eadint]

If you backup your songs, theres no problem.
apple lets you know right up front that you need to make an archive copy because you can only download the song once.

At least Real Supports linux, Mac's iTunes won't.

[sir lox elroy]

Mac's iTunes won't run on linux unless I buy third party software. Apple says they support OpenSource, well why don't they release some of their apps for other OS's than just Mac, Or is Apple only OpenSource if you buy all your stuff from them? Like I said at the begining Real Supports Linux, Apple Doesn't, that makes my decision easy.

DaringFireball's

[goates]

http://daringfireball.net/ has a good article covering this. Look for the Monday, August 16th article.

While it is well within Real's rights to reverse engineer something, this feels a lot like a struggling company trying to piggyback off of someone else's success. If Apple doesn't want to let Real use their software, then that's their choice. Whether it's the right choice or not, nobody will know for while yet.

Why didn't they support Mozilla?

[Anonymous Coward]

They would have gotten lots of support if they'd adopted Mozilla.

Re:Why didn't they support Mozilla?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Mozilla weren't a disgusting tangled mess, they would've adopted it.

REAL usable...

[Big Sean O]

The BBC made a deal with Real to dejunk their player or else the BEEB would ditch Real.

The dejunked player is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/audiohelp_install.shtml

So, if you must use Real, use this one and thank the BBC.

Re:REAL usable...

[NeMon'ess]

you sure? Now because of Real Player 10 it goes from the BBC's site to Real's and it tried to get people to sign up some radio service. the only option is to go back to reals regular realplayer page, which probably has junk in it.

Re:REAL usable...

[BeCre8iv]

Google for 'realalternative' if you just want the win32 codec.

Crack the DRM

[GoldenWolf]

How about somebody from the open source community cracks the iPod DRM, GPL the code, and let people from every platform use their iPods how they want.

That would be better than Real trying to sell their own half-baked software to Windows users.

Re:Crack the DRM

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

I've got a better idea. Why don't smartasses like you develop your own digital music system. Then, you can do what you want with it.

Re:Can someone explain how this is different from.

[Twench]

The biggest problem I have with this is the hypocrisy of Real's stance. Applying your example to this scenario, Bob isn't really Bob but Epsom. In this case, Epsom reverse engineers Lexmark's ink cartridges. Epsom then lets out a press release claiming Lexmark is being "unfair" by keeping their ink jet cartridge technology proporietary. Meanwhile, Epsom sues HP for doing the exact same thing. Real is not concerned with openness or fairness. If Apple doesn't allow any other proprietary format to work, Real doesn't care. They just want to make sure their own proprietary format works on a product they don't make.

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I use Linux, it's only good if it runs on Linux. If it doesn't run on Linux, it's no good to me. Apple could have supported Quicktime on Linux but they didn't. Real did support Linux so I could develop apps on my computer that ran on Mac and Windows also. Is this zealotry? People bitch and moan about Realplayer but it's been a good citizen when running on Linux.

I have some GREAT news!!!

[fz00]

I just saved $10 by buying my music from Real! Seriously though... I just bought an old Soundgarden album I've been meaning to buy for $4.99! Who could complain about that? Yeah I tried the p2p networks but I could never find a complete album. For $5, it's worth just buying the thing!

Re:Real should put their money where their mouth i

[Anonymous Coward]

All I see on that page is a little marketing blurb about the codecs and information on how to license them. I see nothing about downloading source to the codecs.

Can you provide a link to a download or point me to something I'm missing? Otherwise, it seems like your last little statement there needs some revision.

Re:At least Real Supports linux, Mac's iTunes won'

[2nd Post!]

Fair enough.

Apple's claim to support open source means Apple contributes back to open source.

IE, they give strictly as much as they take. When they use KHTML, the also contribute code to it. Same with CUPS, *BSD, and every other open source program they use.

In this case your logic is similar to mine: Real doesn't support Mac, I don't support Real. For you, Apple doesn't support Linux, so you don't support Apple.

AAAhhhEEEHEEEHHEEEYYYYIIIAAAHHHH!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the most silly but funny-deadpan comment I've read in ages. And yip, I really pissed my pants laughing. Damned coffee!

False!

[SPYvSPY]

Proprietary is anticompetitive by definition.

This is not correct. Proprietary formats can be competitive amongst one another. A proprietary format is only *anti*-competitive if the format is unlawfully imposed upon a market by a dominant player in that same market. I think you know this, but you chose your words poorly.

You're wrong about one thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple doesn't pay for astroturfers. In fact, Apple astroturfers pay them.

Fuck the itunes music store

[JThundley]

Fuck the Itunes music store altogether, it's bad for musicians: http://downhillbattle.org/itunes/

Re:Fuck the itunes music store

[presearch]

Like you really care...

Re:Fuck the itunes music store

[JThundley]

I do. So there.

try magnatune

[chocolatetrumpet]

magnatune.com

A growing, but very high quality collection.

Listen to everything for free in mp3 format.

If you enjoy it, pay for a download in wav, mp3 high bitrate, or ogg. You may pay from $5-$18 per album, your choice. Artist gets %50 of what you pay.

I am only posting as a fan.

REAL consumer choice

[lipbone]

I believe iTunes and the iPod product family can play formats other than Apple's AAC. If not, ignore rest of post. If Real was really interested in giving their customer's a choice, they'd deliver their music in a variety of common formats. Customer's could then download the format that worked best on their individual system. Instead, Real is targeting the Music Store format only. GEEE, I wonder why? You can bet it's not about giving their customer's a choice.

Re:Can someone explain how this is different from.

[Ahnteis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple hasn't made their songs play on the "RealPod" and there is no court case. Real's "hypocrisy" is completely irrelevant because they don't MAKE a media player.

If Epson made cheaper cartridges for Lexmark printers, I'd have to say, "More power to ya".

And EVERYONE, including Apple wants to make money.

In other news

[Nailer]

Sony got a tech support call about a discman someone was trying to play an EMI disc on.

How unreasonable that they should have to support this.

Re:In other news

[Datafage]

The Sony Discman has the Compact Disc Digital Audio logo on it. This certifies that the player has been tested and will correctly play any CD bearing the same Compact Disc Digital Audio logo. Please show me the equivalent logo on an iPod certifying that it will work with any purchased music file.

I'll give you a hint: it's not there. This would be no different from expecting the Discman to play a DVD-R of music because it's music on a disc that fits in the Discman.

real is the france of media codecs

[Anonymous Coward]

I've no sympathy for real, strictly based on their history. Their .rm and .ram formats are end-user only, and they "update" the codec as needed to keep anyone that has licensed one version from using the next.

real can die. real needs to die.

Huh??

[Ohreally_factor]

Perhaps you should share with us your definitions of "thief" and of "stealing".

Then, maybe you should enumerate in detail which instances stealing you are referring to in your comment. Charges of stealing are pretty serious. The least you can do is back up those charges with some facts; otherwise you're just trolling.

Perhaps you should learn a bit more about Darwin and other OSS initiatives of Apple before condemning them? Then you could see if your original impression was correct or erroneous.

Re:Huh??

[slipstick]

As I attempted to make clear in my post I said "these are my impressions", "this is my understand", "if so this is how I feel". Someone else has kindly pointed out the errors in my understandings and I have admitted to being wrong, I don't see there's much more I can do there.

On the other hand, I would like to comment on my comparison to being a thief. Clearly I made this as a moral judgement as I'm in a blog on the net, and not meant as a legal assessment as to them having to be charged with a crime. As such I equated them to the moral equivalent of a thief for taking something, earning good profit from that something, and than not returning any benefit back to the original owner. Just to be clear I'm not claiming Apple did this here I've been thoroughly corrected on that, I'm simply stating this as an example to clarify my position on "thief".

I equate the above action to someone who has been on welfare, ate at soup kitchens etc., finds some way to pull him/herself out of the gutter, possibly with the help of a charitable organization. The person goes on to making a nice living and never once turns around to give back to the people who helped him/her. Certainly this is "legally" acceptable. The churchs/charitable organizations do what they do out of the goodness of their heart, but regardless, this person is a dispicable ingrate and I would feel no qualms in classifying that person as the moral equivalent of a thief.

Anyway, this is offtopic now so I'll just quit.

Re:At least Real Supports linux, Mac's iTunes won'

[grrr223]

Apple is hardware company. The reason they make great software is to sell more hardware. The iTunes music store and iTunes even exist so they can sell more iPods and Macintoshes.

They are a corporation who's goal it is to make a profit. They don't get anything from giving away their software to people who will run it on other people's hardware, so why would they do it. They give iTunes away for free so that more people will buy iPods.

Real on the other hand is a pure software company. They don't care what hardware you're running. Real supports Linux because they give away a free software application to entice you to buy a not-free software application.

But I'm sure you know all of that already.

I may be wrong but...

[Anonymous Writer]

... wasn't the iTunes/iPod bundle the first mainstream way of legitimately getting RIAA music onto an MP3 jukebox? Sure, Napster was the first big music downloading phenomenon, but it pissed off the recording industry (like I care). However, Apple managed to get in there and do a proper setup of how new technology and the old recording industry business model could work together. They made a tightly knit system for purchasing music from the net and getting it onto the iPod, secured with DRM, so the RIAA would go along with it- it doesn't even go through a web browser or third party media player. They have even encrypted the wireless audio setup between iTunes and AirPort Express to please the RIAA. Real's tinkering with the DRM could make the RIAA jumpy about the security of the Apple music distribution model. Maybe that's what pissed off so many people. They probably didn't see what Real did as an alternative source for music, but as a threat to their current access to music. The way Real went about it wasn't very nice either. They wanted to join Apple, were rejected, then they forced their way in. People who were pleased to finally be able to legitimately harness the full potential of computers and portable players for mainstream music wouldn't be pleased with an uninvited guest crashing the party.

Sounds like hypocrisy from both ends

[Agram]

This will surely to some look like a flamebait, but honestly it is not intended as such.

Please consider the following:

Some years ago, Microsoft held a browser monopoly (arguably still does) and pushed out Netscape by implementing all kinds of nasty stuff into their Windows service packs. Netscape did some annyoing things too but in the end IE prevailed. Sometime later, there is a lawsuit against Microsoft for uncompetitive practices as it became clear that they at that point held a monopoly on both the browsers and the OS.

It is probably not surprising that Real during this time resorted to all kinds of ways to gain attention as they were likely also being pushed around by Microsoft and its at that point rather cludge-like Windows media player. So in that respect they perhaps simply tried to stay afloat. Nonetheless, I still would not call their actions right nor desirable. They should have taken their fight to the courts, rather than hampering end-user with their crud. But, at least understanding the situation they were (and likely still are) in, we can at least consider to forgive them their trespasses of the past.

Now, let's look today's online music store market: Apple is clearly monopoly here with likely 80%+ of the market. Real is trying to penetrate market and at the same time cannot do much as it is unable to provide DRM'ed format that will play on most widespread media player (please remember that RIAA will not allow any online music sales unless they are somehow protected from unauthorized reproduction -- so no matter how much we, the end-users do not like the fact that the stuff we buy is "crippled" by DRM, we need to understand that no online sales will ever be allowed by RIAA if they do not have the protection in the first place as that would be almost as bad as free sharing of music via P2P). In this respect that Apple can be accused of similar wrong-doing as Microsoft during the browser wars: while Microsoft could claim that other software browsers could run on Windows (or in the case of Apple one could run other music formats on iPod), there are in both cases similar limitations which prevent the competition from penetrating into that market (in the case of Windows there were and to some extent still are obfuscations which made Netscape run like crud, while in the case of iPod you can play other file formats but none of them are DRM-ed so none of them could be used by competition to target Apple iPod/iTunes customers).

So, what is my point then you ask?

While we had a lot of people scream bloody murder during the browser wars era and the Microsoft did eventually get into the court (although it also got away relatively unscathed, but that is beside the point), and people were and still are screaming bloody murder over Real's past record, there is awful lot of people defending Apple in the current situation. At best I would say that while Real's actions were certainly unconventional perhaps even illegal (something that courts may get a chance to decide upon in the recent future), Apple has been certainly doing all it can to maintain and even further expand its monopoly (something that even Jobs admitted to having in one of his interviews), so in that respect I think that in this situation Apple is just as bad as Real and that it's only a matter of time before someone decides to sue Apple for uncompetitive practices.

Now, many Apple followers will not admit to this and likely find this post a flamebait, and believe me, it is not my intention to trash Apple. But, you'll have to agree with me that being on top (in Apple's case this being in respect to online music and media player market) brings with it some of very unwanted "benefits" and "responsibilities," such as how to continue expanding the market and making the stock owners happy, while trying to convince both people and the government that you are not a monopoly. Considering that Apple historically does not have much experience in this department, boasts a very short fuse in terms of tolerating intrusions of other companies into its market, is lead by an impulsive Steve Jobs, and holds 80%+ of this market, the best thing I can do at this point is to quote good ole' oddtodd.com: "good luck with all that!"

Re:Sounds like hypocrisy from both ends

[schuster]

well, it's not quite that simple...

First of all, Apple is not a PC maker, they are a systems maker. They are a vertically integrated company. They control the whole platform and they're completely upfront about that. When you buy a mac, you know what you're getting. In the case of Microsoft vs Netscape, that was about embrace and extend. Microsoft started out as being compatibile but added their own extensions which they kept closed. mix that in with a crappy html rendering engine, shady businesses practices and add a dash of Netscape incompetence and you have our present situation today.

Apple does not do this. They are "closed" and they make no bones about it. Also, because Apple makes its money from hardware and adds value via software, it also allows them to open-source some of their code. Anyway, because iTunes/iPod never started out as "open" to begin with, they can't be sued for anti-competetive business practices.

In the meantime, wrt the curent Real/Apple thing, I think it helps to look at the iPod as just a plug-in for iTunes. Anybody can download and use (as long as you use either OS X or Windows) iTunes and use it happily. I don't think most people would want to try using an iPod w/o iTunes however. Regardless of how this all plays out, you will not be able to sue Apple b/c the iTMS/iPod combo started off "closed" and stayed "closed". That's perfectly legal. What you're seeing here are the advantages of developing both the hardware and software. Real has plenty of time to catch up if they want. They can go build their own iPod killer and integrate that with their on-line music store.

Re:Sounds like hypocrisy from both ends

[Agram]

You are right on the distinctions between the two examples but they do not negate what is essential in both cases and that is that a dominating company is exerting pressure to lock-in users to their product and therefore shield their dominance from competition. This simply spells out anti-competitive practice and as such poses as a monopolistic situation prone to lawsuit, regardless of who designed what and how. Once you are on top you are a target for this kind of development and it's only a matter of time before either Apple starts losing its market share (unlikely at least in the short-term), or is sued for uncompetitive practices due to fact that they own vast majority of the online music market and are suppressing other companies from penetrating the largest slice of it (namely iTunes/iPod users).

Re:Sounds like hypocrisy from both ends

[schuster]

I have to disagree. There is such a thing as a legal monopoly. Apple has not pressured anyone to use their products. When you buy a mac, it doesn't come with an iPod (though I wish it did). Those who buy iPods are already buying into a closed system. As I said before, they know what they're getting. What would be illegal would be if iTunes/iPod started out open and then, after taking the market over, Apple later closed it, thereby killing their competitors. That's a major difference. It's not illegal to have a monopoly. It's illegal to abuse a monopoly. If Apple is going to be sued for anti-competitive practices, the plaintiff is going to have to say more than just "Apple is being anti-competitive". If the plaintiff doesn't have a leg to stand on, then Apple will counter-sue, and they'll probably win too.

Re:Sounds like hypocrisy from both ends

[Agram]

According to your statement, Microsoft would also be classified a "legal" monopoly. To use your analogy, no one is pressuring you to use Windows OS and hence it should not be considered a monopoly (even more so as you can install other OS's on the same hardware quite easily). Furthermore, Apple _is_ already killing competition by holding a significant portion of the market with its media player which is strongly tied with the iTunes software (and/or store), while preventing the competition (or in this case at least trying to) from using its proprietary DRM knowing that no other company will be able to distribute mp3's just to make them playable on iPod, as this format does not offer DRM and as such is a copyright liability.

Coming back to my original claim, just like Windows did not start off as a "standard-setting-OS" (here I do not mean through innovation) to which many others would be compared to and arguably try to conform to, but became exactly that through its market dominance (i.e. KDE tries to emulate Win desktop to make user experience easier even though there is no proof that Win desktop should be considered the best way to organize desktop, yet it is considered a standard because majority of users are using it and are accustomed to it; even the innovative Apple caved-in under its pressure with the OSX's dock and its taskbar-like behavior), Apple's DRM has become a standard-setting DRM of choice for online music simply due to its dominance and as such introduces Apple to the aforementioned liability. And as someone else has already pointed it out somewhere in the discussion of this topic, Apple is likely waiting for opportunity to sell this stuff for big bucks down the road when they really pinch the market with their dominance.

Finally, an argument that Apple cannot be a monopoly because any other company could, if they wanted to, come out with a media player and music service to compete with Apple's is as laughable at this point as saying, if we want to break Windows monopoly we should get another company to create an alternative OS (please notice that I said "company" not the open source community, as the two are not the same). Even if someone releases cheaper and better alternative to iPod, they will at this point have to live with multi-million losses for many years before they turn profitable. Consider that even with all the sales iTunes/iPods have had, this division of Apple is barely turning profitable today. In addition, iPods are much cheaper to manufacture due to their sales volume, so for someone to catch-up now with Apple would have to have as deep of a pocket as Redmond giant (consider just how much money Microsoft lost before making Xbox more than just a console wannabe, but while doing so also consider the amount of influence they have as well as the similarity with the PC architecture which must have greatly helped them bring Xbox much faster on its own feet than any other company ever could -- it is conceivable that they might be still losing money from it). Now, how much chance does one company like Real stand against Apple? Little to none. That pretty much sums-up a legal definition of anti-competitive monopoly right there.

I guess that this issue is really more about the Apple's Fairplay than the iTunes or iPods. Nonetheless, in the end the result is the same: less choice for the end-user = higher prices = anti-competitive practice.

Re:Sounds like hypocrisy from both ends

[schuster]

You are right, that this is about FairPlay, but there's still a ton of time for others to catch up. The online music business is tiny and it's not Apple's fault that it simply has the better business model. Jobs doesn't think there's money to be made in online music, the others disagree. We'll let the market decide. It's also worth mentioning that Apple wasn't the first to the table with this stuff and when the iTMS and iPod did come out, they were very different than everything else.

Just remember, anti-trust law doesn't exist to protect consumers, it exists to protect companies. This will be an interesting situation because, assuming that they don't do anything preditory, it would mark the first time that one company gained two related monopolies at the same time. This is going to be fun to watch. Not only will Apple have to walk a fine line between iTunes/iPod integration, their competiors will also have to be very very specific if they're going to sue for anti-trust.

Real has already met with success

[Anonymous Coward]

For a company that was slipping into obscurity due to lack of any significant new products, they have created more media buzz with this Real/Apple war than they could have paid for with their entire yearly gross cash flow.

Apple has been silent except for one press release. They clearly can see that this is a mechanism for free publicity to build awareness of Real's products. And Real is gleefully looking at all the buzz and waiting for Apple to respond in such a way that the war is elevated to new heights.

Any apple fanboys should immediately cease and desist. Indifference would be your best defense.

For me, I think Real's strategy has been genius. Real was well on their way to becoming irrelevent!!!!! But look at the publicity this campaign has acheived.

Oh and BTW, I don't think real gives a tinkers damn about freedom of choice. I do think they care about their falling market share.

Re:Real has already met with success

[GirlieMan]

Dear AC: As someone(s) pointed out, it will take but a mere brushing acquaintance with any of Real's annoying tactics/products to permanently build disenchantment, dislike and total disdain. It would have been one thing if Real had tried to compete with quality and innovation, rather than a limited half-off offer from a company most of us have learned to distrust. I own two i-Pods and have had my issues with Apple(battery life, etc)--but the fact of the matter is, the music sounds terrific, is convenient to carry & organize and the company does not nag you until you hate them as does Real. I am also not likely to buy a Mac, nor have I ever bought a single tune from i-Tunes. GirlieMan

Real's Motto (was Unlucky)

[A_Non_Moose]

"Load gun. Point at foot. Pull trigger. Repeat.", should be their motto.

It is, but the lesson lost meaning because it goes more like this:

"Load buffering gun.
buffering
Point buffering at foot.
buffering
Pull buffering trigger.
buffering
Repeat."
{unexplained pause, stutter}
CxO's brain registers extreme pa...buffering {connection reset}.

I've always boycotted REAL

[paranerd]

This does my heart good! I've boycotted REAL for years. I've participated in my own letter writing campaigns informing content distributers that I wouldn't watch a manned landing on Mars if I had to watch it with a REAL viewer. I chose a long time ago: I chose not to download media content rather than be forced to install REAL software on my computers.

Sorry, but it's not 'Blink Love'

[itistoday]

Apple does not have its loyal fan base because of "blink love". There are very legitimate, and valid reasons that people adore Apple, and that should be respected.

Apple has been struggling for the past couple of years with its small market share while manufacturing the "Ferrari" of computers. The company has received countless rewards (grammies, etc) for its pioneering work with various forms of technology: The optical mouse, FireWire, breaking away from floppies, Final Cut Pro, iTunes, iMovie, iMac, Wireless standards, iPhoto, iPod, iThis-and-iThat, pioneering and helping the Open Source movement.

Now that Apple has decided to let the Windows world in on just a sample of what it has to offer, it is not surprise that it has immediately jumped to the #1 position in that market niche. Obviously Apple wants to hold this position it so rightly deserves. And it seems as if they're making all the right moves, because the iPod and iTunes have remained #1 for several years now.

I furrow my eyebrows at anyone who is surprised by people's responses to REAL's vigilantism. Apple just doesn't receive the credit it deserves, and sadly many do not understand that.

Believe it or not, and no matter how hard it might be to accept, there are legitimate reasons for the existance of Mac Zealots, and though we hate them for their gusto, we should not judge Apple based upon their actions.

Re:Sorry, but it's not 'Blink Love'

[squiggleslash]

I furrow my eyebrows at anyone who is surprised by people's responses to REAL's vigilantism

I may have missed something but what vigilantism?

Actually, that's another thing that pisses me off, the zealot's insistance on using the most extreme language to describe something they'd never normally describe that way. Real has, on a basic, technical level, worked out how Apple's only available DRM scheme works so that their software, under the control of an iPod's owner, can use that DRM scheme and put music on that iPod without it being easily transferable (and hence without the music industry throwing a hissy fit.)

That's all. Hardly "vigilantism", "stealing", or even "raping" (as one swivel-eyed zealot claimed on one forum I read - what is it with computer users that they insist on devaluing one of the worst crimes short of killing someone can commit against another human being?)

Re:Sorry, but it's not 'Blink Love'

[squiggleslash]

BTW what the hell is "Blink love"? I thought you were pointing out some typo in my message until I did a search and couldn't find it anywhere.

Re:Sorry, but it's not 'Blink Love'

[itistoday]

Actually... I mispelled it... twice. :-p

an inside-out view

[Macgrrl]

Down here in Australia, we don't currently have access to the iTunes store - well unless we pull some dodgy to get a US credit card account and billing address. iPods are still selling well, and the default format for files on my iPod is AAC.

From down here, the DRM restraints mean nothing as we don't have access to a DRM source anyway. Distance can give perspective sometimes.

I will admit to being an Apple advocate, so my opinion in this is likely to be significantly biased, but as I understand it, the situation is something along the following lines:

Steve et al. spent a lot of time and effort wooing the record labels negotiating a way of selling downloadable music online legally.

It was a requirement of the Record Labels that the downloads have some form of DRM or they would not permit Apple to make the files available.

For the DRM to be meaningful in any way, it has to remain at least partially secure, which probably means closed. While it will be broken inevitably, keeping it closed source gives at least an appearance of trying to keep the code out of prirates hands - something Apple needs to do to keep the Record Labels on side.

Realone is feeling petulant that it's been left out of this great deal. It didn't negotiate with the Record Labels, it didn't create and test the DRM that would meet their requirements to allow the service to start up - it's success being the spur for other companies to enter the legal music download business. Having whined to be given a seat at the table and been refused, Realone have decided to force their way in by riding on the back of the format Apple built for the Record Labels.

I accept and understand that under US copyright law, Realone have the right to reverse engineer the Fairplay DRM, provided they are not using it to decode someone else's DRM protected content. But that's not the problem.

The problem is if Realone's reverse engineering of FairPlay leads to the Record Labels renegotiating thier contract with the iTunes Store and either forcing Apple to change the FairPlay DRM so that it doesn't allow you to play files unless you player is connected to the internet to validate the file onuse every single time OR they restrict it so that you can't burn an audio copy OR they prevent you from playing the file on another computer OR any other restriction which would reduce what you can do now. Apple would likely have no choice but to comply or lose the iTunes Store altogether.

Apple HAS to protest this, if they aren't seen by the Record Labels to defend FairPlay, they could very well lose it all.

Re:an inside-out view

[base3]

Apple HAS to protest this, if they aren't seen by the Record Labels to defend FairPlay, they could very well lose it all.

Huh? Real's paying the record labels, too.

simple, it's called "trusted computing"

[mojoNYC]

...and we trust Real about as far as Jobs can throw Rob Glaser;>

seriously.

Isn't Real the company that...

[Anonymous Coward]

...makes a media player that, if it discovers a preferred port is blocked, proceeds to walk huge port ranges until it finds a way to communicate with the mothership?

Or is Real the company that tried to trick users in to installing what amounted to spyware?

Or is it the company that would let you disable new version checking, but only for a month at a time?

Or is it the company that was so greedy, stupid, and arrogant that it tried to turn its player interface in to a "push" media portal of obnoxious crap (like, let's go sit down and turn on real player for the evening)?

Or is it the company that tried to trick people in to buying its commercial players by going to extraordinary lengths to hide its free player (that was all almost anyone needed anyway), and that invariably moved the commercial version's special features in to the next release of the free version?

Or is Real the company that did its best to hide opt-out options to bombard you with junk?

Or is it the company that makes a shitty media player that is damn near impossible to completely get rid of?

Or is Real the company that would install a shortcut in every imaginable place to every imaginable "feature," advertising blitz, and content partner under the sun, including at the top of the Windows start menu?

Or is Real the company whose media player assumed that I'd want to play absolutely every media format ever devised by human kind in that shitty bug-ridden program?

Because I know I'll never get near any product from any of those companies!

I think the reason is this...

[DavidBrown]

Real has the reputation of being jerks.

Why? Because their software has a very annoying nagware component. The default real player installation leaves a blinking and blinking icon on the Windows toolbar. Even the new real one player that came on my Dell computer attempts to modify the registry every time it runs to add a "realsched" program of somesort that takes up my precious CPU cycles.

Thank god I 1) don't use real products all that often; and 2) have a nice utility pop-up that warns me whenever any software tries to add to the registry (I wish I could remember what the program is, and where I found it).

To me, even as a Windows user who bought an iPod and will never ever buy an Apple PC, Apple has been for the most part a class act. Real has not. Although, admittedly, quicktime does the same thing... Why can't they be more like Adobe Reader, which has the common decency to check for updates only when it runs, rather than wanting to do it every time you turn on the damn computer?

Re:I think the reason is this...

[dreamer-of-rules]

Nagware alone isn't why they have a bad reputation. Real Player also used to send your system stats and unique id back to the home base along with every stream you played. After playing the denial game for a while, they finally fixed it by letting you turn it off in the options. This was a few years ago, but I still avoid installing Real software today.

My opinion? It seems like iTunes is more important to Apple than they're letting on. And Real would have a fit if someone turned the tables on them. Legalities aside, the consumer will probably benefit.

Why doesn't the Apple Music Store Offer Samples?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every other online music selling point has offered clips of the songs you're going to purchase. Why hasn't this idea translated to the Apple Music Store? Sometimes I'd like to hear a clip of what I'm about to buy before I buy it.

I just cancelled my account

[kidventus]

I hope I don't get flamed or modded down, but this is real.
I have paid for RealOne since 2001. I love CNN and ABC News on-demand, and also BBC. I am willing to pay for content understanding that it cost money to produce, and it is the same reason I purchase iTunes songs.
I have to use the RealOne player to watch CNN and ABC on their website.. It is a closed licensing deal. I understood it was a closed system using Real's interface and I was ok with that. I cannot copy CNN newsfeeds and put them on my PocketPC, I can't watch RealOne content in Quicktime. That is their right.
However, now they are wanting to preserve that right they have with their content providers yet seek to access other closed systems through inflammatory websites that only quote people that agree with them.. it's not even a feedback or debate site but a propaganda website in it's purest form..
I cannot give my money to a company that would use my money to be so low and dispicable. This isn't a battle for fair-use, this is a business bully taking their desire for marketshare to the consumer thinking they'll buy that it's "just about consumer choice"
I guess I have to get cable now...

Re:I just cancelled my account

[TiggsPanther]

However, now they are wanting to preserve that right they have with their content providers yet seek to access other closed systems through inflammatory websites that only quote people that agree with them.. it's not even a feedback or debate site but a propaganda website in it's purest form..

I think that's my main problem with the whole issue. It's Real going on about "freedom of choice".

When it comes to media formats and players I've always seen Real And Apple/Quicktime as being two sides of the same dark coin. Both use closed formats with proprietary players with increasingly slow and bloated interfaces.
OK, I admit both are probably getting better. But back when my only PC was a P200 I found that keeping up with the latest version to watch the latest encodes was giving me applications from both companies that were slow and took up too much of my meager little 800x600.

Bith formats were closed, and with probably lucrative deals for exclusive content. Streaming content all seemed to be RealAudio or RealVideo, and movie trailers were always in Quicktime. And it was annoying - I didn't want either palyer on my system.
Of course movie trailers often got reencoded to MPEG within a day, so that solved that. But there wasn't that option with Real.
The amusing thing was that of the two items of actual software I found Quicktime played friendlier. The only things I didn't like about it (apart from interface-bloat) was that it asked me about upgrading to Pro every time I ran it, oh and that it wouldn't go fullscreen. My opinions on RealPlayer tended to agree with the majority that get expressed here whenever a story about Real crops up.

But basically to me both formats mean "closed" to me. Hell, when I was still using Windows I was using RealAlternative for RealMedia files. Not sure how legit it was, but it worked. And even now under Linux I tried the RealPlayer. Actually it "played nice", which was a pleasant surprise. But for whatever reason it wouldn't play files smoothly on my system - but a quick search for the codecs to download and Xine was running them better than ever.
Never had the problem with Quicktime, simply because I've not found anything yet where I couldn't find an alternative format.

What this all adds up to for me is that both Real and Quicktime are closed systems in my mind. But at least Apple seems to play nice. Anything from Real has, to me, meant having to find less-than-official means of playing back the content. And I'm reasonably sure that Real isn't too fond of these methods.
I just find it somewhat slimy of them to then break someone else's format (Apple always having seemed the lesser of the thwo evils), and then say it's all about "freedom of choice". Real are definitely not the company to talk about that.

If they were really about this "freedom", then they'd release official codecs for every major media-player going.
And I still think that whether you agree or disagree with Apple's licensing terms for FairPlay, Real basically just turned about and said "Fuck you, then" and went ahead, and are now surprised that they don't receive universal thanks for their actions.

nevermind...

[Anonymous Coward]

nevermind ... i'm an idiot.

Re:At least Real Supports linux, Mac's iTunes won'

[__aaxpkq8573]

So then, why doesn't Real support the Mac from their music store? But you know that already.

You forgot

[Anonymous Coward]

It hijacks all of the popular audio and video formats to play with its spyware and ad-ridden player.

It also spams your registry in windows.

bleep.com sells mp3s

[xenlab]

and i've heard of every band on it

Apple is still in control

[Anonymous Coward]

"The major issue I have with Real is that they tried to cut a deal with Apple and *THEN* decided to go and 'hack' the iPod."

Actually, they've been working on this for awhile. They tried to get an agreement when they were successful. When Apple refused, they decided to go with it anyway.

Many companies do this. You develop something and then worry about getting the rights. If you can't get them, you have a decision to make and the lawyers get involved. An example would be "one-click shopping."

"It seems to me that Apple has no problem with an agreement with Motorola -- so what did Real do wrong?"

Keep in mind that Apple is still in charge with the HP and Motorola deals.

The HP device is an Apple iPod with different branding on it. It is not a device developed by HP. Apple is still in control.

Apple's agreement with Motorola states that Apple will create a new iTunes mobile music player. Again, Apple is still in control. They're not licensing their DRM code to Motorola, but they're building an iTunes which uses it.

In other words, Apple will not license what Real wants--namely, the DRM code. Yes, Apple has every right to not license it. But Real has every right to reverse-engineer it (depending, of course, on how it was done).

Ahhhh yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another story to browse at +3 at.

um, anyone ELSE notice the sharp decline in /. quality over the last three years or is it just me?

It's the Network Effect!

[WaltFrench]

The iPod was a godsend: it put my briefcase full of CD's into my pocket. Not only that, the full package with iTunes was twice as good as the subsequent competition. No surprise that it became an instant hit for mobile lifestyle types who could afford it, and that soon became almost everybody.

Now there are other good jukeboxes, other good portables and the download store genie is sorta out of the bottle. As long as Apple can keep critical mass with its store (which only sells music that iPods can play), iPods will continue to have the lion's share of the player marketplace. As soon as there are stores selling a good selection of music that works on WMA players, WMA players become more attractive. Apple is not about to subsidize the high-margin player marketplace by encouraging a competitor into the already low-margin store business. There's absolutely no business sense for Apple to break up the empire into little pieces that can be picked off one by one.

And the idea that I, a Mac user, would endorse making the iTunes music store unprofitable, in the hopes that Real would pick up the baton, is laughable.

you might be a hypocrite...

[geekee]

If you think Apple is right on this one, but cursed Lexmark for not allowing other people to sell compatible ink cartridges.

News.com is anti-mac

[Frobozz0]

I'm sorry, I love my mac but the next time someone thinks the average Mac user is a "zealot" I'm going to hurl. Seriously. The frickin' title of their article:

"Apple zealots slam Real's iPod campaign" ... I've always know their bias against the Mac. It's thoroughly documented. I guess this just goes on the stack with anything by John C. Dvorak.

Re:News.com is anti-mac

[ArcticCelt]

I was going to moderate this post Mac Zealot but I didn't found it in the drop box! Any help someone? ;)

Apple FairPlay DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been several comments in the lower threads stating that those who use iTMS are accepting the Fairplay DRM. There is also the misconception that this DRM impacts non-iTMS purchased songs.

Allow me to Pontificate for your Edification:

1. AAC is an open MP4 compression standard it is not DRM. You can rip any audio CD you own and store it as AAC. It allows a file to be ripped at 128 bit but sound more like a higher bitrate. You get a much better sounding audio track for the storage of a 128 bit MP3. You can also rip to MP3 if you so desire with iTunes.

2. iTMS sells songs for 99 cents a piece. You download them and they are protected AAC mp4p files instead of the unprotected mp4a files. Only these files have limitations of being played on more then 5 computers (Win/Mac). You have unlimited CD burning ability with these mp4p files. You just can't burn too many of the same playlist. You can of course, backup these files any way you wish.

3. Shortly after iTMS launched the FairPlay DRM was hacked by DVD John. At first he just figured out how to copy an mp4p to an mp4a and stripping out the DRM code in the process. This is not really stripping the DRM because you need a valid key to unlock the DRM in the first place. So all it does is use the key you paid for to unlock you music files. Once the file reaches mp4a you can convert it to MP3 or put it on systems that can handle AAC but not the DRM.

4. The http://hymn-project.org/ distributes the DRM unlock utility Hymn for free. It works very well and started as a commandline tool but now has a drag and drop GUI as well. It keeps the metadata intact so don't think about distributing the mp4a files over P2P or it will be traceable back to you. There are utilities to strip that out but Hymn holds the party line that they are only allowing you to use your own key.

5. DVD John released another utility to download your DRM keys to store them on your hard disk so you don't need an iPod to unlock the DRM. (Windows users had trouble with Hymn and were required to have an iPod (which stores the keys) to unlock the DRM, even though iTunes could do it.

I've got an iPod, 2 Mac's, and 5 other systems ranging from the wife's XP box to Linux to a Sun Workstation running Solaris. I don't copy my mp4p files to mp4a to steal music. I do it solely to get the music to work on other devices like TiVo and the Linux server. Also to backup the songs I paid for in a more portable format so I don't have to worry about the future so much. Apple's DRM is remarkably easy to get around. Job's even said they fully expected it to be hacked no matter what they did to try and stop it. It's intended to keep you honest and to keep the average user from stealing the music and distributing it. All I care about is I no longer buy CD's with 30%+ crap and I get what I want. All I care about is finding what I want easily and quickly. Apple is the only one selling music online that makes it quick and easy and reasonably priced and who has a player that isn't complete crap.

The price is fair, $.99 is a fine price. Don't care if Real sells for $.49 or whatever it is; Real Sucks Monkey Balls and always has...

View the Signatures(link)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi? r4apple&201

Re:Real should put their money where their mouth i

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you completely stupid? If you don't like Real, don't buy their stuff. Don't let Apple use vendor lockin to ruin it for the rest of us who aren't total morons.

Re:Can someone explain how this is different from.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone explain how this is any different from the following hypothetical scenario? Lexmark produces ink jet printers. Lex mark ink catridges have a special chip identifying themselves as "Lexmark Brand" and the printer will work only with those chips. Bob's Cheap Ink attempts to negotiate with Lexmark to produce compatible cartridges. Lexmark refuses to disclose the technology. Bob's reverse engineers the chip to make their own compatible ink. Lexmark sues Bob's under DMCA. Here's a more appropriate scenario: Lexmark produces inkjet printers. Lexmark lets you use generic ink cartridges, or Lexmark's own special cartridges which are impossible to refill via those infomercial refilling products. Bob's Cheap Ink attempts to negotiate with Lexmark to produce cartridges that use Lexmark's technology to keep people from refilling them. Lexmark refuses, and so Bob reverse engineers Lexmark's cartridge. Lexmark sues Bob for violating Lexmark's unrefillable-cartridge patent.

Clearer?

Mod up to 20

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the most intelligent post I've seen on the subject. I don't give a rat's ass if Apple fans want to keep paying for overpriced products, but don't suck the rest of us into your nightmare world. The rest of us want choice.

Give me a break

[thatguywhoiam]

In Apple fans, DRM finally found it's adapters. Everywhere else it has reared it's ugly head, it has been spat on, rejected, hacked, and mod-chipped. Every type of consumer has rejected it for the power grab that it is - for the fact that control over their information, their computers, and their communication is something they reserve onto themselves. But not Apple fans. For them, DRM came from a higher place, a divine being, something that simply could not be wrong. Turning over control to Apple is as natural and right as anything could be, and they will spit upon those who would reject such an arrangement (not just now, but read the comments that followed Jon's hacks).

You know I agree with a lot of your points - but the above is way off the map, man. Besides simply conflating all 'Apple fans', you've revealed a little bias of your own with that flowery divine-being rhetoric.

Let me put it this way - I know a lot of people who are new to the iPod, love it, and - here's the very crucial bit - they have not noticed the DRM. It just has not come up. They buy music they like off iTMS, selection is not bad, they don't have more than 5 Macs and they've been burning CDs of everything to their heart's content. I had to tell a lot of these people that there was, in fact, DRM.

So while the people you speak of certainly do exist, what do you say to the VASTLY larger proportion of PC and Mac-based iPod users who just haven't noticed the DRM because it doesn't get in their faces?

You will live to reap the sorrows.

Ha! Woe, indeed. Please.

Re:Give me a break

[Hobbex]

So while the people you speak of certainly do exist, what do you say to the VASTLY larger proportion of PC and Mac-based iPod users who just haven't noticed the DRM because it doesn't get in their faces?

iTMS is no longer new. It is dominant. Entrenched. It is the early adapters among the Mac zealots who made it possible to pull the blinds over the non-technical users entering now.

Why do you think it was around so long without a windows version? Why do you think there wasn't a single crack for the DRM until it was ported?

Re:Give me a break

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think there wasn't a single crack for the DRM until it was ported?

Because Mac users did not find it necessary in terms of the DRM being restrictive, and Windows users are predisposed to cracking/running pirated Windows, Office, Photoshop/not paying for shareware/...?

No, seriously.

Re:Give me a break

[David Rolfe]

I hate to make posts like these ... but you are repeatedly using the word 'adapter' incorrectly.

What you are trying to say is "early adopters". You know 'adopt' to take on, not 'adapt' to change.

Grammar aside, it was not the Mac zealots that brought iTMS to where it is today. In truth it was really just regular old consumers. From your fiery rhetoric of the past I'm sure you will spit on those advertising-manipulated sheep as being just as worthless as "Mac zealots". The point you have to recognize, however, is that the mass market is what drives the success or failure of new technology.

If the mass market is ok with Fairplay, it will 'win', for better or for worse.

We're all holier than they -- but the little minority that bitches and moans on slashdot does not swing world markets.

Re:Give me a break

[Hobbex]

What you are trying to say is "early adopters". You know 'adopt' to take on, not 'adapt' to change.

Thanks. I knew that of course, but...

In truth it was really just regular old consumers. From your fiery rhetoric of the past I'm sure you will spit on those advertising-manipulated sheep as being just as worthless as "Mac zealots". The point you have to recognize, however, is that the mass market is what drives the success or failure of new technology.

There is no doubt that Apple were a lot smarter about how to get people into using DRM than previous vendors. They learned the lesson about how to boil a frog: make sure he doesn't jump out when first put in the kettle. By making sure that right now, normal consumers can do the things they were doing before, Apple made sure that people who don't question the consequences of these things would accept the new regime of control over their files and computers. This leaves the oh-so-mentioned circumvention of burning to disk wide open for now, but I have no doubt they will close that eventually. That iTMS was launched in coordination with the RIAA suing file sharers to scare people away from peer to peer networks certainly helped [1].

Attacking Playfair shows that Apple will not tolerate iTunes users who want to be in control of their own computers. It may allow people to jump through hoops to extract the plaintext - but it will always be on their terms.

Now, regarding the role of the Apple "zealots" - no, they are not the only people who have accepted Apple's DRM. But they are it's defenders. It's footsoldiers. It's guerilla marketing. Normal users got started with iTMS because they had Mac fanatics telling them how wonderful it was. It is the Mac zealots who are here on Slashdot defending Apple, attacking Jon Johansen, and moderating comments reminding people that Apple DRM is the same fuckware we have been fighting all along as troll (for some reason I was spared today). The fact is that they have played an integral part in perpretrating this mess on mankind.

[1] Part of my harsh reaction about this whole thing is just guilt. I know how to make a p2p file sharing network that is more or less impervious to such attack (I know a lot of people say that, but I really mean it. And none of the Freenet type babble either - I mean simple real solutions) but real life has kept me from spending the months needed writing such software. The world needs file sharing networks not because I think copyright infringement is great (I really don't care) but because they offer an option to DRM. Napster is the only reason why we aren't already living in a DRM society.

Re:Give me a break

[David Rolfe]

Attacking Playfair shows that Apple will not tolerate iTunes users who want to be in control of their own computers. It may allow people to jump through hoops to extract the plaintext - but it will always be on their terms.

Laws in our country make Playfair illegal. They are obligated to fight it. If Playfair had stayed under the radar and wasn't blasted out all over everywhere maybe Apple could have ignored it. Once you are flouting the removal of the DRM that allows them to run a business, you can bet their lawyers will be looking for remedies. But there's already a solution to this problem ... if you want legal DRM free digital content (as you put it "to be in control of their own computers") you must buy CDs. Not to sound like a whiner or anything, but no one is forcing people to use iTMS. It's just simple economics, people (not me, I have yet to buy a tune from iTMS) are saying "I don't mind the restriction, or lack of ownership, or account management that comes with saving five bucks on a record." People are saying "I will accept DRM in order to save a little money and have the music now, rather than waiting for a very flat cylinder to come in the mail."

In defense of iTMS, I do like to shop around, and watch the movie trailers and enjoy the samples, but I've just never been compelled to purchase. I haven't really loved some song so much that I would buy a one off track, I'd rather own the whole record. I know iTMS sells albums, so no need to remind me. I'm saying the economics is what motivates me... I don't mind to pay a little more and get all 44 thousand bits of every second.

Now, regarding p2p etc... I know I've talked about fair use and all. P2p is great... I use it, who doesn't, but the fact is copying (note I didn't say stealing or pirating) something to which you have no right is illegal. I mean, it's the law. Until the law is changed copyright holders pretty much have an obligation to protect their material.

So anyhow - the bad guys see how easy it is for us to get something for nothing, it steams them up and they resort to DRM. You think they could just ask us to stop? "Hey all you teens sharing your Timberlake mp3s, will you please stop? You're forcing us to enact copy control regimes..." As long as it's legal to buy DRM free digital music your argument doesn't hold up. As a thought experiment - maybe we should be talking about movies instead... maybe there's a fair use argument to be made about downloading a movie ... since there is no drm free outlet for digital movies. You'd still have to own a piece of plastic in our current regime.

The problem is behavioral as much as it is legal and technological.

Read Lessig's book if you haven't. It's here if you like.

So that's where the spam comes from

[Sophrosyne]

...I was always wondering where my spam came from.... well that sucks.

Mod up insightful and funny

[Anonymous Coward]

nuff said

Re:Can someone explain how this is different from.

[darkstream]

I don't think you'll find the difference so clean cut. Real didn't just reverse engineer FairPlay. That alone might have ticked off Apple, but been a fair move that Apple couldn't do anything about. Windows iPod users would get to buy from more than one store, Apple would sell more iPods. This news caused Mac guys to raise their eyebrows, but since it only affected PC users, who cared? We waited to see what Apple would do.

However, as I said, Real didn't just reverse engineer FairPlay. They also announced the very next day that they were going to license their own FairPlay compatible DRM to other businesses. Now they were encroaching upon Apple's business. Mac zealots still sat back and watched to see the fireworks. Most Mac guys had personal reasons to despise Real having used their products and having been left out in the orphaned cold one time or another, but this issue still didn't affect them. Only Windows users could use Real's online store.

But when Real foisted a propaganda website in the guise of a grass roots movement slamming Apple in the name of music loving people netwide, Mac users took notice. Mac users were the ones who put iTunes and the iPod on the map. Did you read the "interview" with Devo? It read like a commercial. Everything on the site was about choice, but Mac guys were once again left out in the cold. Where was the choice? Mac users couldn't access Real's Rhapsody. It was clear this was a manipulative, corporate powergrab benefitting only Real and Windows users. So most Mac guys laughed at it as some sort of joke. But if some of them were immature geeks with no self-restraint then try to forgive the Mac population as a whole. You don't write off all of /. as bigots because of the GNAA do you? Neither should you clump all Mac owners in with the pottymouthed zealots.

What I find interesting about this whole fiasco is the absence of Steve Jobs. If he hadn't had cancer surgery this month we would most likely have seen some strong action by Apple. And his one month hiatus is half over, so look for the real fireworks in September.

In the meantime, give Mac users a break. Not all of them plastered four lettered insults all over Real's music site. And if Apple spent time and money licensing and developing FairPlay, iPod, and iTMS, don't be so surprised they might take issue with some third party coming in and trying to make money off their labor. This issue isn't as clean cut as the Lexmark issue. Unless Bob's Cheap Ink was also licensing their cracked ink technology to third parties...

It's a criticism of Apple Astroturfing.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad. ./ used to be pro-Linux.
Now it's Apple apologists.

REVISIONIST JERK !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where was Apple when Linux first started leading the charge against Microsoft??

Where was Apple's support for Quicktime on Linux?

Oh, Apple as taking investment money from Bill Gates.

Oh. I forgot.

Re:REVISIONIST JERK !!!

[transient]

Read it again. I did not make a judgment on Real's behavior all by itself. My point was that they aren't consistent in their condemnation of this behavior.

Furthermore, Apple has been fighting Microsoft for much longer than "Linux" has (whoever that is; I thought Linux was just a kernel).

I'll talk, you listen

[Anonymous Coward]

Enlighten me is such a provocative term. It implies that you will openly accept criticism and wish to learn and improve yourself. So now, will you listen when someone responds?

There is love and appreciation of Apple and general disgust with Real. Put the two up against each other, especially when Apple's finally shaken off the term beleaguered, is acting like a gentleman, and Real goes into morally questionable ground with the defiant tie in to the iPod when Apple already said no in clear terms ... it's as plain a good vs evil battle as Linux coders who code for free fighting against SCO execs who want money for nothing. That's where the emotion comes from. That's why the comments are slanderous and loud. But the general opinion is reasonable and justified.

Apple provided the instant download panacea in every way reasonable and then some. You whine about DRM, but Apple doesn't lock you into much of anything. You can make your redbook CD's from music you've downloaded, which gives you a clear copy of the original. You can put this into mp3 or ogg if you like. It's not even hard, it's damn near documented for you. If Apple had done any less they wouldn't have the labels on their side letting them sell music. If you don't like Apple's DRM, it's because you are an anti-DRM zealot. While there is a time and place for that, it certainly doesn't make any pro-Real statement in this debate. Apple may have locked their music down, but they give out the key.

Apple found a balance and delivered. It was an obvious market. Everyone else made empty promises and Apple delivered. The product is good. I like competition, but let Apple take their slice of the pie first. They earned it. It's the karma version of patent law and copyright. Be nice to the good guy.

As for why I don't want choice for my iPod? Well, I have a mac and don't actually own an iPod. I was actually going to look around the Real store until I found out I couldn't. I was going to try to purchase a song and see if I could decypher it into a redbook audio CD for my car, and then consider additional purchases. I'm betting I couldn't even if I had windows. Since I have a mac, I can't even browse.

That's just the confirmation I needed to see Real as the bringer of empty promises. Real is lying about what they are offering, and are looking to break into a market to make money rather than create a market that's worth money. Now they're lying about why they're lying.

Yes yes, businesses all want to make money, but the difference lies in how they make money. And while Apple may be amoral, Real seems to be intentionally immoral. They can take their ball and go home now, we don't need them.

-theed

Charges of abuse

[inkswamp]

I keep hearing charges against Apple (some here, some on other forums around the Internet) for abusing its position. Well...

Hold on a second. Apple isn't abusing anything. They went forward into a market that just about everyone on the planet, including a lot of people posting here, said was foolish. They did so at great expense and at great potential embarrassment to themselves should it have failed. They developed iTunes, the music store, the iPod; they negotiated probably pricey agreements with music labels and more lenient DRM than most of us would have assumed possible; they sell songs, paying for the massive bandwidth, and just about break-even. They dumped cash into the R&D for this and they did it right and made a massive success out of something that everyone else had written off largely because nobody thought the P2P networks could be beaten or than nobody was interested in music that wasn't on CDs.

And now, because Apple doesn't want to let lazy, visionless competitors in on that for almost nothing, I hear claims that they are abusing their market position. Huh? If Apple had appropriated all these great ideas from a little company and used its influence and power to take over things and lock everyone into their standards, then there would be a legitimate gripe. Apple did ALL OF THIS on their own. It's their pie. And it's wrong because they won't let Real have a free slice of it? What did Real do to earn a seat at the table? Nothing.

And then I hear the argument that the iPod/iTunes is a closed system and that Real is just doing what's best for the market. That's terribly over-simplified. Until the day comes that I can't play mp3s or import CDs into an iPod or iTunes, then that complaint is meaningless. Look at Sony's music player and then tell me the iPod/iTunes system is a closed one.

Re:Charges of abuse

[bar-agent]

Heh..."Apple Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

http://www.enotes.com/atlas-shrugged/8052

Re:Real should put their money where their mouth i

[X]

All I see on that page is a little marketing blurb about the codecs and information on how to license them.

So... you read this page and you came to the conclusion that they are licensing the codec, but somehow this doesn't allow for other players to support the codec?

I see nothing about downloading source to the codecs. Can you provide a link to a download or point me to something I'm missing?

Hmm... Well, that's because the Real guys provide the link under the misleading text "the source code site for RealAudio and RealVideo". Despite appearances, that actually points to a site where licensees can download the source code for RealAudio and RealVideo. ;-)

MOD PARENT UP!

[phillymjs]

It's too bad you're so late to the party with your comment that many people will never see it. It's the most concise and convincing pro-Apple post I have read in any of the /. discussions about this Real vs. Apple matter.

I applaud you, sir.

~Philly

So, what, Apple's not going to benefit?

[2TecTom]

I thought competition was a good thing! Oh, and if Apple is such a great company with such great products, why do people feel such a fanatical need to constantly defend them, eh? I say, let Apple stand on it's own reputation, for whatever that's worth.

Actually, I like a lot that Apple does, but there's a lot that I don't like either. For what it's worth, I wouldn't trust either of these two meglomanical corporations to put my needs ahead of thier own, ever. So, I'm certainly not surprised by all this.

My best advice, however, is when two rhinos fight, don't get caught in the middle.

The Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong.

All I know is Rob Glaser told Steve Jobs, "work with us or we will work with Microsoft." Steve told him to fuck off and we now have this situation. Does Real have a legal and moral right to try and get their songs to play on an ipod? Hell yes. Is Real doing this as a Microsoft proxy. Hell yes.

Here is the plan.
First attack Fairplay. Technically this has already been accomplished. The next goal is to use a combination of a large enough user base and public pressure to keep Apple from disabling Real's DRM hack. This is why we have 50 cent songs ("bullet proof that bitch and I'm gone", OK not him) and "grassroot" movements.

Second. AAC becomes Windows Media. By dropping their own codecs, Real has conceded that game to Microsoft. The only reason they are using AAC is because it would over complicate the first goal and also reveal the true plan.

Microsoft wins the music battle and Real becomes the Dell of online tunes.

I don't know if this will work, but remember you read it here first.

intheknow

Re:The Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

First attack Fairplay.
Second. AAC becomes Windows Media.
Microsoft wins the music battle and Real becomes the Dell of online tunes.

Forth: Profit!

Think outside the box you live in

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that iTms isn't in canada, australia, japan and has only recently made Europe. if the the ipod only played fairplay tunes, why does it sell thousands of unit in all these locations or anywhere else in the world people can get there hands on them?

the answer is your mis-informed.
maybe you buy an atlas, get a passport, and travel.
the ipod make a great travel partner, load it up with all your local bands, make them popular world wide.

OT: Re:REAL usable...

[Big Sean O]

My experience differs from yours. But of course I'm using Mac OS X.

Who knows what crap Real will peddle to Windows users...

pardon the anecdotal evidence but...

[Anonymous Coward]

in a quick survey of 10 ipod owners, i found that of the over 25,000 songs they had on their ipods, ~85% were purchased (yes purchased!) from sources other than the itunes music store. additionally, there was never an effort made by their ipods, their computers or by apple to keep them from using these songs in conjunction with their ipod.

while i'm sure that apple would like for all music be bought through them, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that they require music be bought from them. it's interesting that so many whine about vendor lock in, when ipods are so obviously agnostic to the source of the material put on them.

there are certainly limitations to the formats available on ipods, but then again what isn't that true of (ever try to put a beta tape into a vhs player?). fortunately, though all formats aren't available, the most popular are (or at least enough to satisfy their target market).

the question of whether music purchased from real should be allowed on an ipod is moot. the ipod doesn't care one whit where the music came from. just provide it in a format that the ipod can play and it will be happy to do so. of course there are some boneheads that will immediately point out that this is what real appears to be trying to do. however, what onus is apple under to protect files that they have nothing to do with? why should they support these files when they have no control over them? why should they facilitate the business of others at the expense of their own? why should real be given the right to use the intellectual property of others without right, license or permission? while it may appear that real is just trying to provide music in a format available on the ipod, they are looking for much more. they want to increase their business by leveraging the market leading device. they want to control the manner in which their products interact with this device. they want to maintain the copy protection measures they have in place. they want to use someone else's technology, though they have no right to it. they want their cake...

it's sad that so many have missed the salient points (or have been swayed by the media, who had missed them). in short, they are:

1) ipods play songs regardless of where they were purchased.
2) real is attempting to have music purchased from them playable on ipods, while having apple protect them.
3) apple has no obligation to protect or support them.
4) in the future, songs purchased from real and transfered to an ipod may not be protected and/or may not play.
5) real has no interest in consumer choice.

It's not that we're too dumb to see it...

[2nd Post!]

Do you believe it, that Real's music store is Mac incompatible?

So all these 'Apple fanboys' can't join in on the party.

So much for choice and competition. Where's my $0.49 download?

No, Apple won't benefit.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many support calls will Apple have to take because someone's Harmony software fucked something up? If something doesn't work right on their iPod, even if it's because of Real, the user will most likely call Apple because they'll see it as an iPod problem. And even if the Apple tech just says, "Not our problem" and hangs up as soon as he hears the words 'Real' or 'Harmony,' that call has still cost Apple money.

Even worse, if Harmony proves somehow problematic, the word of mouth from pissed-off users may very well translate into bad publicity for *Apple* that could negatively affect iPod sales.

So because of Real, Apple suddenly has more to lose than a few iTMS sales.

People are not defending Apple here, they're attacking Real for their bullshit publicity stunt and completely unbelievable "We have the consumer's interests at heart" stance on this.

Competition *is* a good thing. But Real is not competing here, they're trying to horn in on someone else's success. If they wanted to compete, they'd create their own portable music player to play their music store's songs. But why take risks like that when you can just be a parasite to another company who has already taken all the risks, and who will probably take the blame if you fuck up?

Re:No, Apple won't benefit.

[2TecTom]

Sure, like Steve Jobs can't afford it. Sigh

Oh, by the way, if Apple hadn't gotten greedy and used a proprietary format, this wouldn't even be an issue. So Apple shares some of the responsibility here, even if some people refuse to acknowledge it.

Personally, I'm just so tired of watch big corporations acting in an irresponsible and manipulative fashion. What's even worse, in my opinion, is all of the overly affluent people who rush to justify obvious and abusive corporate behaviour.

Actually, however, in this case it was kinda of worth it just to see two pigs wrestling in the mud. However, it got boring real quick.

Re:No, Apple won't benefit.

[valkraider]

For the billionth time. Apple didn't use a propietary FORMAT. iTunes by default rips CDs to AAC which is not propietary. In fact, it is part of the MPEG 4 standards. iTunes and iPods also support MP3 and uncompressed music. The iTunes music store exclusively sells music encoded using AAC, again - MPEG 4 STANDARD. Apple's FORMATS are not propietary.

Apple DOES use a propietary Digital Rights Management (DRM) scheme for songs purchased at the iTunes Music Store , and ONLY for songs purchased at the iTunes music store. These songs can be used on up to 5 computers and along with that up to 5 iPods (one connected to each computer - not exactly but basically this is the idea). Apple HAD to include the DRM to sell music online, or they would not have been given the license to sell the music. The DRM requirement is NOT from Apple, in fact the Apple didn't want to use DRM in the first place. But it is a necessary evil for legal online sales from the big record labels.

There is nothing propietary about that. AFAIK there is no DRM standard that works across all platforms and players. If there is ever a DRM standard developed I would bet Apple would support it the same way they support MPEG 2, MPEG 3, and MPEG 4 standards.

Re:No, Apple won't benefit.

[2TecTom]

For the billionth time. Apple did use a proprietary standard. Here's the "licence"

http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/stan dard.html

AAC, MP4, whatever, it's owned.

By the way, it's spelled "proprietary".

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stag e=1&word=proprietary

Before you post, perhaps you might consider checking out your assumptions and spelling.

REALly?

[El Camino SS]

Real has always treated the Mac has second class.

She looks down on you? Funny, as a windows user I always see her as the ex-girlfriend skank that everyone knows and has passed around at one time or another.

When I am cleaning my friend's computers, I always see her in the tray and say to my friend, "You've been @#$%ing that? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR DAMN MIND?"

But you made a choice

[tkrotchko]

"I have had to rip entire CD again because MS's DRM "decided" for me that songs I ripped from my own CD's were not legitimate"

If you had chosen to use MP3, a format not encumbered by DRM, this wouldn't have happened. You made a decision to use DRM's restricted music, and you got burned by it.

The real question is whether you learned from your experience and chose a format without DRM, or did you keep doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result?

Re:But you made a choice

[Anonymous Coward]

iTunes doesn't add DRM to CDs you rip yourself in AAC/M4A. Only the iTMS tracks have DRM.

Anti-Real Petition

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone want to express how much Real's new ploy sucks should head over to http://www.petitiononline.com/notreal/ and sign the petition.

It's already gained more signitures, but a good slashdotting should sort things out.

Two points then

[2nd Post!]

Real has used the DMCA in 1999 to threaten Streambox because they reverse engineered RA compatibility into their product.

How is that different than Apple using the DMCA in 2004 to threaten Real because they reverse engineered Fairplay compatibility into their product?

Real lives by the sword and dies by the sword. If they want to disallow others to reverse engineer the RA format, why is it wrong for Apple to disallow Real to reverse engineer the Fairplay format. Of course I think it's stupid and Real should be allowed to, but hey, I'm not the one who voted for the DMCA.

Second point: Your analogy is flawed.

Lexmark makes printers that are Mac and PC compatible.
Bob reverse engineer's and sells ink, but it's only PC compatible.
Bob argues that his sales should be allowed because it's about giving Lexmark's consumers choices, while he denies half of Lexmark's users the ability to use his product.

Half of the customers therefore demonize Bob for ignoring them.

Re:Two points then

[Anonymous Coward]

Lexmark makes printers that are Mac and PC compatible.
Bob reverse engineer's and sells ink, but it's only PC compatible.
Bob argues that his sales should be allowed because it's about giving Lexmark's consumers choices, while he denies half of Lexmark's users the ability to use his product.

Shouldn't that be more like 5%?

Re:Two points then

[Ahnteis]

Streambox? Is that the same people that everyone keeps bringing up that were REMOVING the DRM, not making a compatible DRM of their own? I'm guessing yes. REMOVING DRM is different from making COMPATIBLE DRM.

To my knowledge, NO ONE has tried to make a real-compatible DRM, and I'm guessing no one will. If they want to, they should be able to, but since real doesn't have proprietary hardware, I doubt it will happen.

Bob's ink is only LEXMARK compatible if you want to go that way. We'd have to assume in the analogy that Lexmark ink worked in both Lexmark and Epson printers but that Bob's ink was compatible with only Lexmark printers.

As pointed out, Mac users are hardly 1/2 the target market. Sorry, you ARE outnumbered by that much. Sometimes it doesn't make sense to support that small of a market segment. I'm sorry you feel slighted, but you chose to use a Mac. You can't force developers to bow to your choice.

Re:Two points then

[2nd Post!]

You can't force developers to bow to your choice.

Of course we can. It's a free market isn't it? Let's see how successful Real is without Mac support, mindshare, and goodwill :)

Just like MS!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The OS? Posix compliant, pretty fair standard."

Wow. Just like every OS from Microsoft! They're all POSIX compliant too.

"The hardware? It's all stock parts and OpenFirmware. It doesn't get much more open."

Whoa. Dude. You're talking about my Dell now!

"How about we attack Cocoa's underlying window system, Quartz Ex? Bzzt. While the source isn't open, all the APIs and the supporting protocols are."

Exactly like Win32! And DirectX!

"Sure, Eric S. Raymond can't hack Quartz directly, but you'd be surprised how little that matters."

Windows must be opener, because there are about 50 times as many programs for Windows as the Mac. Whoo-hoo!

Re:Just like MS!

[Paradox]

MacOS X is Posix compliant in spirit and in letter, and is "Unixy". This is a no brainer. Crawl back in your hole.

As for custom ROM images, dude, everyone does that. You're holding Apple to a standard no one else meets. It's not even fair, every motherboard needs detailed and specific configuration.

Comparing Quartz with DirectX isn't terribly unfair. It's also one of the minor sticking points. Quartz, incedently, is based on an Open Standard, OpenGL. DirectX is a standard unto itself. It's pointless to bitch about it anyways, though, since the underlying drivers are ALSO closed source. Get the hardware comapnies to open up first, otherwise the software being open is pointless.

As for your crack about 50x more programs, it's a cheap shot. I was referring to a specific comment Raymond made.

Apple has opened the OS. Apple has opened Rendezvous, which is a freaking crown jewel of the mac experience. Apple has advanced GCC tremendously. Apple is leading the way on next-gen web applications.

What more does Apple have to do. It seems like the only way to win with some folks is to not make any money at all.

Just find a keygen

[Anonymous Coward]

There are mucho keygens for Quicktime. Only an idiot actually pays for stuff that apple by rights should give you with the OS.

Another reason why I hate Apple fanatics.

You support a ruthless mob either way

[Anonymous Coward]

You buy from iTunes, you support the RIAA. You buy from allofmp3 and maybe you support the russian mob. THere's no much difference from where I sit.

Re:You support a ruthless mob either way

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least the mob doesn't knock on the door of children, demanding money for "stealing profit"

Wait until Microsoft arrives...

[Anonymous Coward]

The war hasn't even started yet. Microsoft will be laughing all the way to the bank if Real manages to splinter the market before they even show up. Microsoft is going to bundle with Windows and say 'As good as iTunes'. You know what happens after that. If you're having trouble deciding who to root for and you don't like Microsoft, that should help you.

RE: Apple and popularity, DRM, and more

[King_TJ]

I agree with a portion of your post... Apple does often do "the right thing" for their customers. I think a prime example is the way they sell "family packs" of the OS X operating system, so you can install it on several systems for much less money than buying all the individual copies of the OS. (If only Microsoft would be so generous!)

On the other hand, one big reason Apple products are so enthusiastically welcomed by some of their fans are because they've won over a segment of the population that places a high value on style. For years, PC users have included the folks who don't care in the slightest what the machine looks like, or even what features it has, as long as it's as CHEAP as possible and can get the task(s) done they need done. PC users have also included the "power junkies" who are all about "substance over style". (It takes 6 noisy case fans to cool it down, but it'll outperform anything bought "off the shelf" by another 15 or 20%? Let's do it!)

Apple never really wins over many people from either of these crowds.... Instead, they cater to a group that's largely ignored in the "Wintel" PC world... People who insist on a beautiful-looking and thoughtfully engineered computer, even if it means a little less performance and a higher price tag than the competition.

The joke about the "Reality Distortion Field" has some validity. What I mean is, Jobs is a great public speaker and knows how to build up lots of excitement and hype over things that probably aren't nearly as big a deal as he builds them up to be. Look at the amazement/excitement he generated over the new 30" Cinema displays, for example. Before they were even available, you could get a 32" LCD display already from other vendors like NEC. Not to mention, as pricy as they are, not many people will ever really buy one for their Mac anyway. (Why would you, really? You can buy two of the 23" models and put them side by side for less money, and have more overall screen space.) Ok, let me answer my own question. It all goes back to "style over substance" again! Some people will be bothered by the fact that there's a small border between 2 monitors placed side by side, and want the "bragging rights" that they have the largest monitor Apple offers, etc. etc.

Re:Michael Jackson

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, that's just an iPod mini!

This is stupid

[DaveCBio]

If anyone goes after Apple they are the bad guy, but if they go after anything MS does and crack it it's fair game. Sometimes the hypocrisy on this site is astounding. If you are going to cry foul over Real then you have to cry foul over anyone that does this type of thing.

no real effort from Real

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that real's open source Helix hasn't overcome their negative image. It's that they're not really serious about being part of the open source community, so they're sabotaging themselves.

Many people have asked real why they don't contribute to the already happening gstreamer project, rather than trying to establish their own product at the expense of standardisation. Their answer? No answer at all; it's as if you never asked.

Real CAN sell music that runs on the iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called MP3. Or WAV. Or unprotected AAC.

Their whole argument about "open formats" is flawed. This guy said it best:
http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/2004_wont_be_lik e_1984/

Apple Zealots?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are all of those posts from Apple Zealots? It's always simple when it comes to Apple to blame it on teh zealots, but from what's coming over this board, I'd say a lot of windows users are pretty frustrated too.

I'm sure there are a few zealots out there posting vulgarities, etc., but to blame all the bad content on mac users goes a bit to far.

I don't agree with Apple's stance on the issue, I think they should open the iPod up (as bad for their business as it may be), but since Apple controls hardware and software (iPod/iTunes), I think they will always have the best solution, like the do now. People can try and copy it, but Apple's will most likely maintain it's status.

I don't agree with Real either, they just wan a piece of the action (like everybody else), and they are being pretty obvious about it. It serves them right for putting up a free comment board to anyone with anything to say.

Like it has been pointed out before, you have to hand it to the mac zealots, they have got us to where we are today, with a promising future for the music industry and for the end users.

I still don't understand why people get so angry about this. Yes, I have an iPod, but the reality distortion field hasn't penetrated me deep enough so that I begin having online tempertanturms...

While we're dissing Real...

[Anonymous Coward]

...shouldn't we be dissing the guy who created DeCSS, and the people who clone the Windows interface in *nix, the people who clone TiVo for *nix based PVRs, etc.?

For the record Apple did not develop FairPlay

[David Rolfe]

Just for the record: Apple didn't develop FairPlay with "[their own] R&D money and facilities". Apple bought the technology outright.

Yeah, "bring it on..."

[Anonymous Coward]

God I'm glad I don't have to live with a Bull Shit IP war on my devices.

Just say "NO!!!" to DRM..

RIght on!!!

[JackAxe]

You've hit the mark so precisely. :)

Word choice

[David Rolfe]

That's all. Hardly "vigilantism", "stealing", or even "raping" (as one swivel-eyed zealot claimed on one forum I read - what is it with computer users that they insist on devaluing one of the worst crimes short of killing someone can commit against another human being?)

Without other facilities to emote (facial expression, body language) users of textual mediums often use loaded words. These words are powerful tools to evoke emotion. Hence peoples insistence on using terms like 'nuke', 'rape', 'own', 'whore', 'nazi', 'kill' in the most innocuous discussions.

If I say "your in it for the money" but you can't hear me shouting and turning red and shaking my fist, I better just resort to calling you a whore.

Frankly, I hope that question was rhetorical. In short, people use the word rape for the same reason they use the word fuck.

Re: Pesky Kids!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pesky Kids!

Real Vs. Apple

[Brummmm]

Lets see. Trying to subscribe to Real:

Your billing address indicates that you reside outside of the United States. Currently, we are only able to offer RealRhapsody to customers within the US.

Ok, lets se what apple can do:

The iTunes Music Store is not available in your country yet...

So, fsch 'em both. I'm taking my action to alloffmp3.

DEVO sells out (again)

[Anonymous Coward]

"I do hope that RealNetworks prevails in their quest to bring the consumer true freedom of choice."
(Now where's my check??)

Quicktime isn't closed...

[Cadre]

When it comes to media formats and players I've always seen Real And Apple/Quicktime as being two sides of the same dark coin. Both use closed formats with proprietary players with increasingly slow and bloated interfaces.

If by calling Quicktime closed/proprietary you mean completely open and documented, you'd be right. Quicktime is a container format. Quicktime supports many many completely open codecs. In fact, here is a GPLed Quicktime Player for Linux! It's the codecs that are closed. If you want to bash Sorenson then bash Sorenson.

Also, if you don't like the Quicktime player interface I suggest you try one of the alternatives such as Multiplex or NicePlayer (the later of which ranks in at 80K, how's that for not being bloated?)

Re:Quicktime isn't closed...

[TiggsPanther]

I'd bash Sorenson if the sites the movie trailers and the like were on said "Requires use of Sorenson Codec", with a link to Sorenson's site.
They don't, however. They state Quicktime, and use a codec that's only bundled with Quicktime. That's no less useless than if Quicktime were closed.

Besides, as I said earlier I don't need it anymore. Nothing I access anymore is Quicktime/Sorenson format.
When I used to, however, it wasn't the player I wanted it was the codecs.

Having an Open player that doesn't contain the closed codecs often associated with a player/format is useless. It's the same as the problem I have with Helix player. It's probably a great media player, but it's not the player itself I want or need. I simply need the codecs to allow it to play in the player of my choice.
So even if the Quicktime wrapper "official" Quicktime player isn't actually closed, the fact that most "Quicktime files" used are encoded with a codec that's only bundled with Quicktime itself means it's as good as being a closed format.

On the other hand if the Sorenson codecs are availble seperately then I'll gladly both take back my words and stop avoiding "Quicktime" files.

Re:Quicktime isn't closed...

[jbtule]

"are encoded with a codec that's only bundled with Quicktime itself means it's as good as being a closed format" Yes, Sorenson 1 & 3 were implemented in the open-source FFMPEG, thus you can watch it in MOV files in your player of choice. EAT YOUR WORDS! EAT IT! EAT IT! http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/ffmpeg-doc.html#SEC1 9

Re:Quicktime isn't closed...

[TiggsPanther]

Duly noted, checked, and words taken back.
Always useful 'cos Enhanced CDs with video content nearly always used to use Sorenson-encoded Quicktimes rather than MPEGs. (And typically when I looked for content to check with it seems 2 recent ones were MPEG)

schizophrenia, honesty

[cynic783]

We love free open source, e.g. Linux, but hate commercial closed source, e.g. Microsoft. Unless of course the commercial closed source is Apple. So let's be honest about this: we like the underdog! It's kind of a "flip the middle finger to the man!" attitude. So please lose the open-source-do-gooder veil. We're really just a bunch of teenage punks listening to Marylin Manson because it pisses off our parents. It's really just a question of your honesty, Slashdot community.

Re:apple fans (you

[danigiri]

"[...] Apple offer proprietary formats [...]" WRONG: They also offer many open ones too: check out the MPEG-4 standard (open does not mean free in all cases, amigo).

"Apple AAC" - WRONG: check out DOLBY's AAC licensing page, you'll see the list of licensing prices anyone can pay if he/she so desires and has the funds.

"[...] the problems Apple AAC [...] files do" - pure FUD: which are those problems? State them or shut up.

2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a PC user, and I fiercely hate both of these companies. Real for being evil, and Apple for being gay. Well, for their users, or fans, being the way they are, always nagging and touting Apple and OS X, blindly buying anything that's put out. I have nothing against the machines and software itself, other than the fact that it's proprietary. But I really dislike the Apple herd.

That said, this is competition. Fuck Apple and their iFans for being such losers. Of course it only affects them, but it's disheartening to see people who [stupidly] defend companies. They must have a false sense of being part of the company or something. "Not thinking" also comes to mind.

Re:Real should put their money where their mouth i

[mgs1000]

MPlayer for OSX plays alot of realvideo files, but not all.

My email to Real Tech Support

[fuerstma]

I have never been more enraged at a computer in my life.

Just as some background I am your target customer. I own an iPod and have purchased multiple CD's online from both the Apple iTunes Music Store and buymusic.com. I am the person you want out there yelling from the rooftops how great your product is. You're going to hear quite the opposite.

I bought into the hype from various press outlets about Real offering $.49 track downloads and $4.99 CD's. I visited your site and searched your media catalog without downloading your software. I was very impressed by the quantity of artists in your catalog. It seemed too good to be true. Mom told me what to expect when I had that feeling, but, like an idiot, I ignored mom yet again.

First, I downloaded your software. The installation can, at best, be considered painful. Two reboots! C'mon! I am doing this at work! I am supposed to put all my important projects on hold while I reboot twice just so I can start my computer again to give you money. Ridiculous. The worst part is I knew Real was likely sinking their greedy hooks deep into my system with evil DRM type underpinnings. But, once again, I ignored mom's advice to stop before I was "too deep" and continued down the path of Real evil.

So I decided to purchase a Godsmack album. $4.99. I created my Music Store account and paid for my purchase. I was pretty excited as I saw the file sizes were relatively large (as opposed to buymusic.com which obviously have fairly low bitrates). The files came down quickly from your servers.

I excitedly went to burn my CD to a CD-R. Bzzzz! No rights! No freaking rights! Yes, I am sure that is buried deep within some subclause of some clause of some crappy contract I "OK" clicked my way through, but holy cow. I cannot wait to tell the world that today, in 2004, you actually pay Real.com honest money to honestly purchase a music track and support an artist and you are rewarded with idiotic DRM that doesn't allow you to burn the tracks to a real CD. That's funny, I thought I bought a CD! Wrong!

This seriously chapped my behind and I heard my mother laughing in the back of my head. She knew how this was going to turn out, and my mother can't even turn on a computer. But she has more common sense than me and she would have steered far clear of your unReal offering.

So, continuing on, I was mightily frosted and began investigating ways to rip the tracks even with your DRM hooks clawed maniacally into my machine. (Hey, let's be realists, people are going to get the music onto CD whether you like it or not, if they are motivated. And since I was at work I figured I was doing it for the sake of science and whatnot.) I set out to play the tracks to listen to the quality, figuring I would work out a way to capture the audio stream to a WAV file and compressing it into an MP3 later. With just the Real Player running on my computer, I started playing Track #1.

My computer instantaneously shut down.

My mom is having hysterical fits of laughter at my expense by this point. Reminder to self: send mom flowers for all her great advice. She was so right.

So, there goes a few hours of work that I didn't save. Silly me I thought I was just playing a music track. I didn't realize I was connecting to the WHOPR and trying to play Global Thermonuclear War.

So I had enough hate boiled up inside of me to last the rest of the day and didn't attempt to use your crappy player again.

So, I arrive again this morn and figured I would take on "the challenge". I loaded the fugly Real Player and clicked on "Purchased Music". I selected all 11 tracks from the Godsmack album and clicked "Play Selections". I held my breath and closed my eyes and imagined a whole group of mothers laughing at me all chanting: "What do you think you are doing! You know it isn't going to work you fool!" What? It didn't crash! Yippie! Strike up the band. Oh wait... I have to login? What? What is this. Oh yes, I have to log in to your freakin site for permissio

Re:Real should put their money where their mouth i

[Anonymous Coward]

Man you must be high on crack to suggest VPC to play video files. Have you ever tried VPC even on a recent mac?

Are Apple Users Insane?

[LuYu]

I hope this does not get modded a troll because I do not intend it that way, but I am incensed at the stupidity of this, and I have to vent. It appears that Mac users will defend anything Apple does. I wonder if they would defend a contract with the Devil so long as Jobs signed it.

Quotes like this border on fantastic:

One poster, Rich Mertz, wrote: "You people are wrong, wrong, wrong. If we wanted 'choices' like yours, they wouldn't have to be foisted on us. Most of us, given a real choice, would rather see you and your tactics go away. 'Competition' doesn't give you any right to reverse-engineer when you feel like it, but come down on those that hack into your IP rights. It's theft, pure and simple."

This guy is actually defending DRM. He is defending Apple's "right" to have a monopoly over him, to charge him monopoly rents, to decide what music he can and cannot listen to and when and where he can and cannot listen to it. What is wrong with this guy?

I am glad to have a bunch of overzealous Mac users supporting monopolistic organizations like the RIAA, MPAA, and, oh yes, Apple in their endeavours to control all access to and distribution of knowledge. This statement sounds like something Darl McBride would say, but this Mac user does not have MS paying him millions to say it. What a moron. If all Mac users are like this, it just proves that thinking different is resigning oneself to slavery.

You know, I would believe a lot of that stuff Mac users say about Macs being amazing pieces of machinery and that Mac users were special and artistic if it were not for stupid crap like this. This is obviously proof that Mac users are more than happy slaves and suckers to corporate swindling. And they actively defend it. This destroys all my idealism associated with Mac users as being somehow different.

Apple Sues Real!

[bobbybobber]

Look at this? WTF?

Hey now

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's compare bananas and bananas here. Service packs are the equivalent of 10.2.x and 10.3.x releases, which are both free. New (10.x) releases are $129 and new versions of windows are what, $200-$300?

Windows updates make your computer slower, Mac updates make your computer faster, and Linux updates make it faster.

So anyway, the poster was correct, but not specific. You are specific, but not correct.

So I guess you could say:

[Ohreally_factor]

In Soviet Russia, Apple pays astroturfers.

Apple can suck my balls

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Even worse, if Harmony proves somehow problematic, the word of mouth from pissed-off users may very well translate into bad publicity for *Apple* that could negatively affect iPod sales.

BOO Fucking HOO, Why the hell do you care if "poor" Apple looks like shit? What if that piece of shit QuickTime crashes Windows, what if it constantly harasses you to buy the pro version? Shouldn't Apple stop developing Quicktime because it makes Microsoft look bad? You Apple fags are so fucking lame. Go to hell buying your over-priced, limiting, proprietary junk form Apple.

Oops

[lavar78]

Nevermind. I just re-read your original reply to the link you quoted. You knew full well he was talking about AllOfMP3 instead of Apple. I give up again.

Re:Oops

[User 956]

LOL. Do you guys actually have anything to say, or are you just going to continue poking around for chinks in a case that's already been proven?