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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[.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)

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.

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.

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

[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

[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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

[_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: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.

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

[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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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: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!

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: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:Who would have thought

[athakur999]

Because it gives iPod usera a choice other than iTMS?

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.

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?

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: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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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! :)

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.

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 should know by now

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you say:
Astroturfing?

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: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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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: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 ;).
--

The worst thing about being a Mac User...

[huchida]

... Is very often the other Mac users.

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: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.

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?

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?

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!

[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.

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: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: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: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!

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.

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.

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...

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.

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: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.

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: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.

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.

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: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...

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

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.

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.

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: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: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: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.