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

[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

[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

[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.

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.,

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

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

[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

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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: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: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.

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: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: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: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...

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.