Slashdot Mirror
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."
There would be a time when *CONSUMERS* would be the ones AGAINST reverse engineering DRM?
Are you secure enough in your masculinity to run 'man touch'?
The way I understand it, Apple makes most of the money on iPods. The iTunes business is to make ipods more attractive and brings almost no profit. Why don't they want to let others sells songs for ipod?
If there's one thing that Apple as a company has managed to succeed with for a very, very long time, it is building a fiercely loyal customer base. Apple customers don't jump ship when the company is at its worst, let alone when it appears to be sailing relatively smoothly. Apple customers also of late really, really seem to want stuff that "just works" without any extra work on the part of the user.
While I don't doubt that RealNetworks is going out of their way to make it relatively easy to ultimately play their stuff on Apple's hardware, the user still has to get third party software, still has to subscribe to another service that isn't affiliated with their computer (in fact being a direct antithesis), and has to do extra work. Combine that with the large amount of market burnout regarding Real, and I'm really not surprised by this. I'm more surprised that Real pursued this attempt to begin with.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
That was from the CNET article, and I cannot say I agree. While what RealNetworks did is not entirely ethical, it isn't theft. It's essentially what the Linux on iPod group is doing (on some level) and I believe it's wrong to condemn them for it.
The major issue I have with Real is that they tried to cut a deal with Apple and *THEN* decided to go and 'hack' the iPod. It seems to me that Apple has no problem with an agreement with Motorola -- so what did Real do wrong?
My guess is that Real was unwilling or unprepared to make the necessary accomodations to get on Apple's boat (so to speak). The best-selling hard disk digital music player isn't going to be pushed around by Real, so it seems obvious to me that the lack of negotiation skills on the part of Real is the problem.
As such, *that* is the problem people should be focusing on: why Real's management was too inept to make a deal happen.
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
I dunno, I think Real Player for OS X is probably the only version that doesn't suck. Actually, the only reason this little squabble between Apple and Real bothers me is because it could potentially mean the end of Real Player for OS X.
And their jukebox -- who cares?
...have it spot-on. Why should Real have any say in what the iPod plays? They may rant on about it being 'freedom of consumer choice', but that's not a little hypocritical from Real - whose own music store isn't even Mac-compatible yet. Perhaps it Real were to support the Mac crowd, create a player that people would prefer to use, and generally better themselves, they'd have more success in luring people away. As it stands, however, people have exercised their freedom of choice - and they've chosing the iPod and iTMS.
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
No, Siree Bob, it's not because people were signing the petition as "Real sucks"... it's not at all...
I'd say it's because the itunes and ipod thing is the most successful venture they've ever embarked on since the Mac Classic. The Apple fans basically love Apple and everything it stands for, including it's distinctive design principles, and apart from being a classic example of the "Apple" look and ideals, it is also creating a vital cash stream that can be used to fund further future projects. By keeping everything closed, restrictive and proprietory, Apple can maintain that edge and source of revenue. Anything that comes close to chipping away at that stranglehold will obviously be attacked by Apple fans, as it could wipe away some of the money that is streaming into Apple alone.
I personally also think it's sad. The Apple users are quick enough to diss Microsoft and it's DRM and lament how Microsoft could force everyone to use WMA. Whilst this thought also concerns me, I don't think Apple are behaving in an any less evil way than Microsoft, they just have something that no amount of damage limitation by the Microsoft PR wheels can provide - a friendly, cool geek chic image.
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
It's like a Ferrari sucks, but I never drove one so it must suck.
I don't need to own an iPod to hear the music that is played on it. And this has nothing to do with it being "open". It has to do with choice on a device instead of vendor lock-in.
Apple has spent a lot of time and money on making their store
a seamless part of the iPod, they licensed the fairplay drm,
reverse engineering it for personal use is just dandy, reverse engineering it for competitive gain is theft.
That being said as a Mac user and an iPod owner (on number 2 now) I applaud Apple on having an open product, it plays unprotected AAC (mpeg 4) it plays DRM'd ACC and it plays MP3 encoded audio; what would real add to this for me? zero, Real has done little if anything to support me in the past and I for one intend on returning the favor. I hope they choke on this one.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
Apple, or rather Steve Jobs likes to control the whole experience. By doing this, it is much easier to make things work well together. If your tunes purchase from real stop working, then people will blame apple for selling a crappy player, although it's an ugly Real kludge to get them selling tunes. And if people start hearing that the ipod experience is crap, apple will sell less ipods. If Real wanted an open system, they would open their codecs. As it is you can't use the real store for macs.
Let's get one thing straight here. For the actual audio compression, Apple uses 128kbps AAC for ITMS downloads. AAC stands for "Advanced Audio Compression", not "Apple Audio Compression" or anything else. AAC is an MPEG standard, just like MP3, only better. RealNetworks uses 192kbps AAC in their store. It's the same damn format. The quality will be slightly better, if you have some nice headphones to plug into your iPod, you'll probably hear the difference. The only new thing that Real has brought with Harmony is that they've enabled tracks bought from the Real store to play on the iPod by wrapping the AAC tracks with FairPlay DRM. The fact that the tracks cost $0.49 and are encoded at a higher bitrate makes this a good buy for anybody who isn't an Apple groupie or against DRM on principle. If you don't trust Real, then don't buy from them, but I fail to see how this is anything but a net positive for consumers. I'm amazed that there are people screaming "Please! Give me a monopoly in the digital music market!"
Yes, but Mac users have a disproportionately higer share of the MP3 market and the online music market.
We were, after all, the first adopters of the iPods, that drove the market, and we did have the music store before it was released on Windows.
So if we are strictly being logical, I would say companies should give me priority on 30% of the target music playing market.
Lest you forget, Adobe and Microsoft both make a pretty penny from us Mac users too. It's not as if we're an unprofitable market. We are very profitable.
GPL Deconstructed
$5 you were ripped.
Try allofmp3.com where an album costs around 60 cents, comes in any format or bit rate you want and has absoltely no DRM at all ever.
I love my iPod and my 3 Macs but why anyone would buy from iTMS (or Real) when there's allofmp3 I don't know.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
It's easy to make your digital music store compatible with the iPod. Just sell un-DRMed AAC or MP3 files.
For the record, I love my iPod, and I don't use the iTMS.
Apple did not want to license their DRM scheme (which, by the way, seems awful darn liberal) to Real. I wouldn't want to do business with Real either...they've been making themselves the enemies of their customers for the better part of a decade.
I don't think Real has done anything wrong reverse-engineering the DRM scheme. I just think that anybody who buys music from them is really not very smart, because the next iPod firmware update is going to nuke this loophole something fierce.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Let's please get one thing straight - Real is not doing "freedom" any favors with harmony. All it does is reapply the same DRM limitations on the resulting iPod-compatible file. You're still stuck with a hobbled, limited file.
Meanwhile, look at it from Apple's perspective (please, give it a try, just for a moment). User buys songs from Real, with their DRM limitations. User converts them, loads them on iPod, assumedly through iTunes. Now, the user tries to play them on multiple computers, etc like Apple DRM allows... and it doesn't play. Who are they calling? Do they remember which store they bought it from? No, they see that iTunes isn't playing something, and they call Apple. Now some Apple tech has to figure out that this is a Real AAC, not an Apple AAC, and figure out how the hell their DRM integrates (or doesn't) with iTunes, etc. This is a support disaster waiting to happen, and it will be Apple's, not Real's.
And finally, for those who read veiled threats into the press release Apple sent out about the iPod maybe not working in the future with such files - why not take it at face value for a moment? It's widely known that third parties supply the chips and guts of the iPod, so it's not such a reach that one of these new generations of chips and software just won't be prepared for whatever hack Real has done, and it will break. No conspiracy, no revenge, just simple fact of life in development.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Suppose I bought some Real music, and only intended to play it on my iPod. Now suppose Apple wants to update the iPod, and that update happens to break Real's hack. Now my music doesn't play as Real promised it would - how is that positive?
I've worked at Apple; we tried to keep things backwards compatible even with 3rd party stuff or OS versions not officially supported - I kept Java working on 8.5 for several releases after it was officially dropped - but when it becomes impossible, the new feature wins. But that was for products we liked; even if Steve wasn't pissed off, I can't see any engineers bending over backwards to help Real
DRM is DRM pure and simple. Real is exchanging their DRM for a hacked version of Apple's DRM. How is this in the best interest of the consumer? Real's DRM stuff is just as proprietary as any other proprietary DRM stalking the lands. I'm not limited to the iTunes Music Store for music for my iPod. I can put several formats on my iPod, including good old fashioned MP3s ripped straight from my ever-growing CD collection which is what i do.
You want to talk about lock-in, as a Mac user what options do i have if i were so inclined to purchase through an online store? Real won't let me. Napster won't let me. Sony won't let me. Virgin won't let me. All these companies calling for apple to play fair have decided to crap on a good chunk of apple's customer base. Where's the lock-in? It's more of a lock-out!
Real is displaying their hypocricy not just in there demands for apple to license their proprietary format while keeping their own in house, and the battle cry of "freedom of choice" apparently applies only to Windows users. How can i possibly be sympathetic here?
I think it's fair to say that Real is conceding the mac market to iTunes. After all, why would mac+iPod users want an alternative to iTunes+iTMS? Since that's clearly the case, not supporing the mac platform is not a problem at all, though it seems to be a rallying cry for zealots.
Hardly monopolistic behaviour I would say.
Apple is well within their right to choose who they want to license their technology to. If they don't want to license their tech to Real, they shouldn't have to worry about Real breaking it.
From a business standpoint, it makes sense to license your DRM to players and not to competing stores. As much as we may love open source and open standards, technology companies do need to make a profit to keep operating.
That is just PetitionOnline.com's disclaimer about not publically showing email addresses. Real started up a new petition because of how the original petition was going. Funny enough, someone else created an anti-petition which has a fair number of signatures.
But changing the brand wouldn't change the perception.
I mean, Real could change their name to "NotRealNetworks", but all us savvy geeks wouldn't be distracted.
"NotRealNetworks? Oh yeah. They used to be Real Networks. Not gonna buy their crap. You remember trying to install their damn player? Change the state on EVERY SINGLE RADIO BUTTON or it's spam for years."
It's not just branding: It's building a reputation for good products (or failing to do so). Brand is a factor, insofar as a company's product history informs my decision, but it's not at all the most relevant factor.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Fair to concede the Mac market, but not the Windows market?
I'm a zealot because I love Apple products, but I wouldn't discard the option of Real music. Real wants to compete, then fine, compete. Maybe I'm being greedy, but why shouldn't I want $0.49 192kbps AAC files? You really have to ask, "Why would mac+iPod users want an alternative to iTunes+iTMS"?
I would be using iTunes+RMS because it's cheaper and higher quality. Duh.
GPL Deconstructed
This sort of behavior doesn't suprise me at all coming from Real.
This coming from a company that:
A) Hides it's 'free' player as much as possible and offers a 'free trial' of it's pay for player, effectively taking advantage of uninformed users and even confuses savvy ones.
B) Ignores user file association settings and takes over the playing of all media on your machine. It's also a real pain to get rid of.
C) Loads tons of unnecessary features and eats RAM for lunch, has overall poor compression quality and constantly barrages users with unwanted paid content and advertising as well as dock pop ups for PC users.
D) Is the most successfull maleware/spyware vendor on the planet.
A specific example of this is1 how differently the brands owned by Real are viewed by the user population.
RealPlayer tends to cause immediate irritation in people's minds and postings on the net.
Mention Rhapsody, though, and not a lot of flak is sent up. Why?
Other than the obvious trespassings Real had in the past, they've continued to exhibit ambigous messages to the public. The Helix system is open, but doesn't support premium services the Realplayer does, You have the Realplayer for Windows, Mac and Linux but the majority of servies and features only work on Windows, Harmony loads content onto almost any device (not just the iPod, that's a misconception) but the Real music store only works on Windows PCs, no Macs or Linux boxes. There's the implied message they are universal but in truth they're really a Windows product with some reach into Mac.
With Rhapsody, there's no bad name attached. They've never gotten mixed up in bad consumer practices- due in large part to the fact they listened to their consumers (imagine that!), they have a compelling product but the key difference is that Rhapsody is never marketed in any light other than the one that shines for Windows PCs. There's no ambiguity.
Yeah, Real had made serious attempts to clean up the brand but heavy promotion focused around ads that show a friggin iPod implying universal support but not actual having it is the next biggest hurdle. Mac users who have an iPod can't take advantage of the 49cent service because there's no store for the Mac.
Plus, does Real seriously think that by considering the feedback they received only the work of a "vocal minority" instead of 1200+ (at this writing) comments that might actually have some value, even if it is buried in vulgarity.
R(k)
So why can't I put DRM'ed content on?
If DRM is a mechanism to protect content creators, then I have no problem with it.
If it's nothing but a digital padlock to prevent competition, then fuck it.
Yeah, todays iPods play other formats. Of course, the iPod was launched in a world without iTunes. Tomorrows iPod wont, the way things are going.
Hell, watch for a discounted iPod that only plays iTunes DRM'ed content. Why not sell the hardware at a loss, and make a profit gouging consumers over the content, just like the console gaming industry?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
"What's aggrivating is that the whole "campaign" is so insulting: Real is trying to pretend that they're "sponsoring" a grassroots campaign about "freedom of choice.""
Sounds to me a lot like IBM's Linux campaign...
Why do you assume that they are only targeting the Mac version?
It's pretty easy to figure out that they are targeting both Windows and Macintosh platforms, but Windows users are less likely to have a problem with it, since they're used to having Real's products available by default. Mac users have always been second-class citizens when it comes to Real's products. Now, they want to charge us for the privilege of using their products, without offering up any proof that they've changed their opinions of the Mac. It has all the appearance of being a cynical money-grab without offering any real philosophical change to go along with it.
Microsoft does the same thing, but we tolerate it (barely) since they are the 800-lb gorilla. Open Source and Free Software does it too, to an extent, but OS X is still a environment by comparison, so it probably doesn't matter as much being snubbed by them (plus, it is getting better).
So regardless of who Real is really aiming at with their marketing, the biggest effect is on the psyche of the Mac user. Thus the backlash.
Me? I don't use Real (even on my PC) and this isn't likely to change things.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
I'm surpised this duscussion is focused on the virtue of one company over another. Personally I don't care much for either company. I do believe Real is fighting the good fight on this issue for one reason: they are attempting to break Apple's stranglehold on a technology which has up to now only been accessible to those with large incomes and those with rich mommies and daddies. I don't feel sorry one bit for Apple and their elitist attitude in consumer electronics. If anything both companies show equal contempt for end users. Real for their idiotic adware tactics and Apple for their idiotic proprietary-everything hardware/software. I hope Real succeeds in their current endeavor, because it will show arrogant companies like Apple that good technology is for all to share, and not just for those with deep pockets. Fsck Apple!
Jesus Christs, Apple Zealot are blind.
How is slashing the price of music downlaods a bad thing for the consumer? And how is it that most people who usually defend the right of others to reverse engineer and not be sued (Samba, which Apple uses) are suddenly so much against this.
The difference is that Apple has become the media's darling and Real has been brandished as the Gator of media playing. That might have once been true, but RealPlayer on Linux rocks and Helix is open source. Where is Apple's open source media player or at least a foundation of a media player even if it doesn't include the proprietary codecs?
Where is Quicktime for Linux or FreeBSD?
Yeah, I thought so.
I dunno, maybe I'm an oddball.. Does it strike *anyone* funny that there is protest over paying less?
And, yes, I don't like apple. Bought one back in the mists of time for who they had been, felt ripped off by who they'd become and swore off then and forever.
I would dearly love to analyze the server logs for the submissions.
And I don't mean a suit by Apple - I mean the Fed and the RIAA.
What I can't beleive is that we have a company willfully admitting that they went out of their way to crack a DRM related schema, and that no arrests have been made.
Shouldn't Real Networks have its hardware seized?
Kulakovich
For me - choice isn't about where I buy something, it's being able to choose what I buy. ITMS offers the selection I want, at the price I am willing to pay, with a reasonable DRM, in a format that is as easy as walking into a regular store and paying for a hard copy.
Let me ask you this - does the Rhapsody catalogue have titles in it that are exclusively available from Real? This is not a rhetorical question, since I am locked out of even looking through the site (I proudly drank the kool-aid in 1985). The ITMS has over 1 million titles - how does Rhapsody stack up?
If it doesn't have a different selection of music, then what is the point?
As for non-ITMS users who complain about the so-called lack of choice - there is plenty of choice out there. Check out http://magnatune.com - DRM free music downloadable in many different formats and bitrates. Fully compatible with your iPod and iTunes. Great motto too "We're Not Evil." Streaming as well, though iTune and Shoutcast (John Buckman's a god!)
And all this fuss about the bit-rate encoding - I use a rather fine set of BOSE headphones with my iPod, and frankly - I can't tell the difference between my ITMS AAC files and my 192 bit-rate encoded MP3s - and for that matter - I can't tell the difference between the quality from my iPod and from a CD in a player (which actually sounds a bit worse, since some of the whirring from the CD's motor seems to pass through). Since I have a 1st gen iPod, space is at a premium - I'd rather have more tunes than an imperceptible difference in quality.
I was debating throwing down some money for perpetual streaming internet radio and downloadable songs, and ended up giving it up because every one of those services is locked into a player that I can't freaking stand.
Checked Napster, but that's Windows Media Player. When I saw that Rhapsody was based around Real, I ditched it too. The music isn't all the great either. You'd be surprised how much bad crap can be included in "millions of songs".
I'm not hostile to the idea of a modest monthly fee paid for unlimited access to music---seems like a fair way to go really...Much better than buying a piece of something and storing it on a perishable medium. It certainly makes more sense than "buying" DRM'd MP3s from a provider like iTunes.
At the same time, all the offerings suck. They're offering limited libraries locked into a handful of the worst media players on market. Against that competition, iTunes looks great.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Once upon a time streaming audio was available on many sites in both Quicktime and Real. Then several major radio sites (notably NPR ) made the decision to drop Quicktime coverage, If I was Steve Jobs I'd really want to crush Real just to get a bigger market share for Quicktime. And Quicktime has got to have a huge profit margin compared to a piece of hardware. So maybe this battle is about more, and subtler, goals than just the iPod.
Can anyone explain how this is any different from the following hypothetical scenario? Lexmark produces inkjet printers. Lexmark ink catridges have a special chip identifying themselves as "Lexmark Brand" and the printer will work only with those chips. Bob's Cheap Ink attempts to negotiate with Lexmark to produce compatible cartridges. Lexmark refuses to disclose the technology. Bob's reverse engineers the chip to make their own compatible ink. Lexmark sues Bob's under DMCA. In my mind, there is only one difference, and that difference is negated by RIAA-imposed restrictions--the ability of the ipod to play MP3s. As noted, that option is NOT available because DRM-less files are a deal-breaker for the RIAA. Therefore, this option is not open to "Bob's" or "Real". Now, granted, Bob's cartridges may or may not be as good as Lexmark's, but that isn't the issue here is it. So what's the difference besides the lack of any Apple-level Lexmark fanatics?
Ok, first of all, even if Real Rhapsody or Jukebox or whatever was available for the Mac platform, most Mac users probably wouldn't use it.
Now, who does this interoperability "improvement" benefit? Windows users of course. iTunes and iPods both work well with Windows. Real is simply undercutting the iTunes song prices. I really see nothing inherently wrong with offering a lower price, it benefits the consumer.
In my opinion, why not buy some albums you wouldn't ordinarily buy for 4.99? I am sure the whole reverse-engineering of DRM will be taken to court. May as well benefit from the lower prices while you can. I am sure Real's Rhapsody/Jukebox files sound just as good on your iPod at half the price.
Keeping a business like Apple alive simply by running a "music" store seems like a flawed way of operating a hardware/operating system business.
have you even seen the CVS diffs for the Apple additions? they are quite a bite more than 'nominal'. i'm sorry to say it but KHTML was rather poorly regarded before safari came along and in fact, Apple was roundly criticized for going with KHTML initially. the KDE group are a great bunch of people as is anyone who contributes open source sweat. but Apple has done a lot for the current state of the project.
also Apple did alot to push Zeroconf as a technology that third party companies like TiVo and printer manufacturers would be interested in supporting.
I am an Apple user myself. Do I wish there were more choices/cheaper alternatives to the Apple G4/G5 product line? A resounding YES.
... this is what I did:
...
I am an Apple user and I say I want more choices.
Granted, there are ways for people like me to get what they want at a cheaper price
G4 Dual 533/Studio Monitor was purchased at a computer auction for 200.00
PC Geforce3 that had been flashed with a Mac ROM for 53.00
512 meg chip of 64X4 RAM (note: 64x8 does NOT work) 80.00
Total paid: 333.00 very reasonable IMO.
Another company offering an additional means of playing back music on an iPod should increase the VALUE of the iPod device, if nothing else.
Does this mean that my using a PC Geforce3 card flashed with an Apple ROM is spitting in Apple's face? I don't think so.
Fair enough.
Apple's claim to support open source means Apple contributes back to open source.
IE, they give strictly as much as they take. When they use KHTML, the also contribute code to it. Same with CUPS, *BSD, and every other open source program they use.
In this case your logic is similar to mine: Real doesn't support Mac, I don't support Real. For you, Apple doesn't support Linux, so you don't support Apple.
GPL Deconstructed
This will surely to some look like a flamebait, but honestly it is not intended as such.
Please consider the following:
Some years ago, Microsoft held a browser monopoly (arguably still does) and pushed out Netscape by implementing all kinds of nasty stuff into their Windows service packs. Netscape did some annyoing things too but in the end IE prevailed. Sometime later, there is a lawsuit against Microsoft for uncompetitive practices as it became clear that they at that point held a monopoly on both the browsers and the OS.
It is probably not surprising that Real during this time resorted to all kinds of ways to gain attention as they were likely also being pushed around by Microsoft and its at that point rather cludge-like Windows media player. So in that respect they perhaps simply tried to stay afloat. Nonetheless, I still would not call their actions right nor desirable. They should have taken their fight to the courts, rather than hampering end-user with their crud. But, at least understanding the situation they were (and likely still are) in, we can at least consider to forgive them their trespasses of the past.
Now, let's look today's online music store market: Apple is clearly monopoly here with likely 80%+ of the market. Real is trying to penetrate market and at the same time cannot do much as it is unable to provide DRM'ed format that will play on most widespread media player (please remember that RIAA will not allow any online music sales unless they are somehow protected from unauthorized reproduction -- so no matter how much we, the end-users do not like the fact that the stuff we buy is "crippled" by DRM, we need to understand that no online sales will ever be allowed by RIAA if they do not have the protection in the first place as that would be almost as bad as free sharing of music via P2P). In this respect that Apple can be accused of similar wrong-doing as Microsoft during the browser wars: while Microsoft could claim that other software browsers could run on Windows (or in the case of Apple one could run other music formats on iPod), there are in both cases similar limitations which prevent the competition from penetrating into that market (in the case of Windows there were and to some extent still are obfuscations which made Netscape run like crud, while in the case of iPod you can play other file formats but none of them are DRM-ed so none of them could be used by competition to target Apple iPod/iTunes customers).
So, what is my point then you ask?
While we had a lot of people scream bloody murder during the browser wars era and the Microsoft did eventually get into the court (although it also got away relatively unscathed, but that is beside the point), and people were and still are screaming bloody murder over Real's past record, there is awful lot of people defending Apple in the current situation. At best I would say that while Real's actions were certainly unconventional perhaps even illegal (something that courts may get a chance to decide upon in the recent future), Apple has been certainly doing all it can to maintain and even further expand its monopoly (something that even Jobs admitted to having in one of his interviews), so in that respect I think that in this situation Apple is just as bad as Real and that it's only a matter of time before someone decides to sue Apple for uncompetitive practices.
Now, many Apple followers will not admit to this and likely find this post a flamebait, and believe me, it is not my intention to trash Apple. But, you'll have to agree with me that being on top (in Apple's case this being in respect to online music and media player market) brings with it some of very unwanted "benefits" and "responsibilities," such as how to continue expanding the market and making the stock owners happy, while trying to convince both people and the government that you are not a monopoly. Considering that Apple historically does not have much experience in this department, boasts a very short fuse in terms of tolerating intrusions of other companies into its market, is lead by an impulsive Steve Jobs, and holds 80%+ of this market, the best thing I can do at this point is to quote good ole' oddtodd.com: "good luck with all that!"
For a company that was slipping into obscurity due to lack of any significant new products, they have created more media buzz with this Real/Apple war than they could have paid for with their entire yearly gross cash flow.
Apple has been silent except for one press release. They clearly can see that this is a mechanism for free publicity to build awareness of Real's products. And Real is gleefully looking at all the buzz and waiting for Apple to respond in such a way that the war is elevated to new heights.
Any apple fanboys should immediately cease and desist. Indifference would be your best defense.
For me, I think Real's strategy has been genius. Real was well on their way to becoming irrelevent!!!!! But look at the publicity this campaign has acheived.
Oh and BTW, I don't think real gives a tinkers damn about freedom of choice. I do think they care about their falling market share.
You talk about this as if it is technology and not contrived lockin. This is entirely artificial. It can play it so it should. You may be eager to jump into intellectual chains but I'm not. If your mindset prevailed we'd all be buying proprietary gasoline from Ford & watching TV programming from GE, and buying VHS tapes exclusively from JVC, all with no competition and at a huge premium.
You've got it the wrong way round, DeCSS circumvents the DVD format encryption and is illegal under the DMCA. Not that I agree but it's the law. And yes downloads in a format of your choice would be nice but it's impossible, however a choice of downloads after you buy an iPod is a perfectly reasonable. Real has fulfilled this request in a *legal* manner, good for them.
As for cracking iPod or other songs, the labels won't let them do it and it would unfortunately violate the DMCA, however since you know about DeCSS and pretend to follow these issues then you should know what it's author has been up to lately on that front.
Maybe you think playing Real downloads on an iPod is the equivalent of playing DVDs on a VHS but that pretty much illustrates how clueless you are here.
Anyway, it's done, it's legal and thankfully neither you nor the other fanboys get any say in the matter.
Apple does not have its loyal fan base because of "blink love". There are very legitimate, and valid reasons that people adore Apple, and that should be respected.
Apple has been struggling for the past couple of years with its small market share while manufacturing the "Ferrari" of computers. The company has received countless rewards (grammies, etc) for its pioneering work with various forms of technology: The optical mouse, FireWire, breaking away from floppies, Final Cut Pro, iTunes, iMovie, iMac, Wireless standards, iPhoto, iPod, iThis-and-iThat, pioneering and helping the Open Source movement.
Now that Apple has decided to let the Windows world in on just a sample of what it has to offer, it is not surprise that it has immediately jumped to the #1 position in that market niche. Obviously Apple wants to hold this position it so rightly deserves. And it seems as if they're making all the right moves, because the iPod and iTunes have remained #1 for several years now.
I furrow my eyebrows at anyone who is surprised by people's responses to REAL's vigilantism. Apple just doesn't receive the credit it deserves, and sadly many do not understand that.
Believe it or not, and no matter how hard it might be to accept, there are legitimate reasons for the existance of Mac Zealots, and though we hate them for their gusto, we should not judge Apple based upon their actions.
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
Every time you want to view a new Real stream, you have to download RealPlayer version x+1.
:)
That I won't argue with, although it'll be interesting to see if it remains true after some of the most recent and obvious changes to their system.
Their player is bloated with ads and doo-dad components [...]
The new one (or at least the beta I have of the new one) isn't.
Their free player is also crippled beyond repair. You can't save streams [...]
That's not true of the new one (or at least of the beta of the new one). I didn't know this until my four-year old niece had saved a bunch of songs from pbskids.org. (Gah! But at least it's not Brittany, I suppose.
Today's Real streams run like technology straight out of 1994.
Hmm, ok, but I like the fact that the player now reportedly handles Ogg Theora! (Although I admit I haven't had a chance to test this yet.)
Their software won't stop f***ing harassing you. [...]
Again, not in the new one (or at least the beta of the new one).
I've hated Real for years, and haven't had their player installed since 2000 or so, but when I saw a mention on the Ogg Theora site that Real player could now be used to view Theora streams, I was intrigued enough to give them one more try, and I've been very favorably impressed.
Anyway, I agree that you've probably named the main reasons people have hated Real. I just want to point out that companies can change (in the seventies and early eighties, I hated IBM, and in the late eighties, I hated Apple, and neither of those is true any more), and there are some signs that Real may be changing. Time will tell. Maybe it's because I'm using the beta, and they didn't bother adding the ads and misbehavior to that, and maybe it's because I'm using the Linux version (although with all the ads and malware that come bundled with Windows these days, I'm not sure why Windows users would be upset by Real), but my impression of Real has certainly taken a major change for the better recently.
Real has the reputation of being jerks.
Why? Because their software has a very annoying nagware component. The default real player installation leaves a blinking and blinking icon on the Windows toolbar. Even the new real one player that came on my Dell computer attempts to modify the registry every time it runs to add a "realsched" program of somesort that takes up my precious CPU cycles.
Thank god I 1) don't use real products all that often; and 2) have a nice utility pop-up that warns me whenever any software tries to add to the registry (I wish I could remember what the program is, and where I found it).
To me, even as a Windows user who bought an iPod and will never ever buy an Apple PC, Apple has been for the most part a class act. Real has not. Although, admittedly, quicktime does the same thing... Why can't they be more like Adobe Reader, which has the common decency to check for updates only when it runs, rather than wanting to do it every time you turn on the damn computer?
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
The fact that ... makes this a good buy for anybody...
Well, any iPod user who (1) has built their music collection in Windows and (2) never wants to use iTunes or the iTunes Music Store in the future.
'Cuz the next time you plug your iPod into your WinPC, iTunes will update the 'pod by adding any new songs & playlists, and removing any that are not on the iTunes list... just like it was originally designed to, way before the Real issue arose. As a result, you erase your Harmony tracks every time you use that marvelously easy/fast update. Then, you will need to either (a) manually re-copy all those tracks to your iPod, or (b) stop using iTunes and switch permanently to the Real jukebox, losing any iTMS music you got from Pepsi caps, free downloads of the week, or your hard-earned $$$.
And Real wants to claim they're offering a superior alternative?
Real justifies this lock-in with fine print as to "why you want to use the Real jukebox." Either all the songs you bought from iTMS or from Real, will become useless on an iPod, or you become a low-paid servant to that little tune player that you used to love.
The big deal with the iPod -- for me, and I think I'm typical with this -- is that it lets me just listen to music without all those techno-horrors. Not that it's cool, or sexy white, or Apple®. Real is offering a techno-horror of gotchas.
No wonder there's outrage. Mine is directed at Real's bait-and-switch, false sanctimony and their phony Dot-ORG marketing BS.
A universal DRM format? It'll probably have to be imposed on the hardware and software types by our friends the "music industry." Real, MS and Apple all have vested interests in promoting their kits. The only twist is that Apple actually has the upper hand here. And while it may look like the labels would benefit from selling the same program many times because of Balkanization, sooner or later they'll realize that commoditizing the players and stores leaves more money for them.
"Inquiring Minds Want to Know!"
I hope I don't get flamed or modded down, but this is real.
I have paid for RealOne since 2001. I love CNN and ABC News on-demand, and also BBC. I am willing to pay for content understanding that it cost money to produce, and it is the same reason I purchase iTunes songs.
I have to use the RealOne player to watch CNN and ABC on their website.. It is a closed licensing deal. I understood it was a closed system using Real's interface and I was ok with that. I cannot copy CNN newsfeeds and put them on my PocketPC, I can't watch RealOne content in Quicktime. That is their right.
However, now they are wanting to preserve that right they have with their content providers yet seek to access other closed systems through inflammatory websites that only quote people that agree with them.. it's not even a feedback or debate site but a propaganda website in it's purest form..
I cannot give my money to a company that would use my money to be so low and dispicable. This isn't a battle for fair-use, this is a business bully taking their desire for marketshare to the consumer thinking they'll buy that it's "just about consumer choice"
I guess I have to get cable now...
There is a rage in me to defy the order of the stars, despite their pretty patterns.
Well, the nicest thing about the Archos is the use of a 2.5" laptop drive instead of the mini-drives. Yes, I know the iPod is smaller.
:P
However, that means that you can a) upgrade drives (with some hacking) and b) run 3rd party firmware (a la rockbox)... not a bad thing by my book.
Are you going to try to hack your archos now that you've got an iPod?
There have been several comments in the lower threads stating that those who use iTMS are accepting the Fairplay DRM. There is also the misconception that this DRM impacts non-iTMS purchased songs.
Allow me to Pontificate for your Edification:
1. AAC is an open MP4 compression standard it is not DRM. You can rip any audio CD you own and store it as AAC. It allows a file to be ripped at 128 bit but sound more like a higher bitrate. You get a much better sounding audio track for the storage of a 128 bit MP3. You can also rip to MP3 if you so desire with iTunes.
2. iTMS sells songs for 99 cents a piece. You download them and they are protected AAC mp4p files instead of the unprotected mp4a files. Only these files have limitations of being played on more then 5 computers (Win/Mac). You have unlimited CD burning ability with these mp4p files. You just can't burn too many of the same playlist. You can of course, backup these files any way you wish.
3. Shortly after iTMS launched the FairPlay DRM was hacked by DVD John. At first he just figured out how to copy an mp4p to an mp4a and stripping out the DRM code in the process. This is not really stripping the DRM because you need a valid key to unlock the DRM in the first place. So all it does is use the key you paid for to unlock you music files. Once the file reaches mp4a you can convert it to MP3 or put it on systems that can handle AAC but not the DRM.
4. The http://hymn-project.org/ distributes the DRM unlock utility Hymn for free. It works very well and started as a commandline tool but now has a drag and drop GUI as well. It keeps the metadata intact so don't think about distributing the mp4a files over P2P or it will be traceable back to you. There are utilities to strip that out but Hymn holds the party line that they are only allowing you to use your own key.
5. DVD John released another utility to download your DRM keys to store them on your hard disk so you don't need an iPod to unlock the DRM. (Windows users had trouble with Hymn and were required to have an iPod (which stores the keys) to unlock the DRM, even though iTunes could do it.
I've got an iPod, 2 Mac's, and 5 other systems ranging from the wife's XP box to Linux to a Sun Workstation running Solaris. I don't copy my mp4p files to mp4a to steal music. I do it solely to get the music to work on other devices like TiVo and the Linux server. Also to backup the songs I paid for in a more portable format so I don't have to worry about the future so much. Apple's DRM is remarkably easy to get around. Job's even said they fully expected it to be hacked no matter what they did to try and stop it. It's intended to keep you honest and to keep the average user from stealing the music and distributing it. All I care about is I no longer buy CD's with 30%+ crap and I get what I want. All I care about is finding what I want easily and quickly. Apple is the only one selling music online that makes it quick and easy and reasonably priced and who has a player that isn't complete crap.
The price is fair, $.99 is a fine price. Don't care if Real sells for $.49 or whatever it is; Real Sucks Monkey Balls and always has...
in a quick survey of 10 ipod owners, i found that of the over 25,000 songs they had on their ipods, ~85% were purchased (yes purchased!) from sources other than the itunes music store. additionally, there was never an effort made by their ipods, their computers or by apple to keep them from using these songs in conjunction with their ipod.
while i'm sure that apple would like for all music be bought through them, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that they require music be bought from them. it's interesting that so many whine about vendor lock in, when ipods are so obviously agnostic to the source of the material put on them.
there are certainly limitations to the formats available on ipods, but then again what isn't that true of (ever try to put a beta tape into a vhs player?). fortunately, though all formats aren't available, the most popular are (or at least enough to satisfy their target market).
the question of whether music purchased from real should be allowed on an ipod is moot. the ipod doesn't care one whit where the music came from. just provide it in a format that the ipod can play and it will be happy to do so. of course there are some boneheads that will immediately point out that this is what real appears to be trying to do. however, what onus is apple under to protect files that they have nothing to do with? why should they support these files when they have no control over them? why should they facilitate the business of others at the expense of their own? why should real be given the right to use the intellectual property of others without right, license or permission? while it may appear that real is just trying to provide music in a format available on the ipod, they are looking for much more. they want to increase their business by leveraging the market leading device. they want to control the manner in which their products interact with this device. they want to maintain the copy protection measures they have in place. they want to use someone else's technology, though they have no right to it. they want their cake...
it's sad that so many have missed the salient points (or have been swayed by the media, who had missed them). in short, they are:
1) ipods play songs regardless of where they were purchased.
2) real is attempting to have music purchased from them playable on ipods, while having apple protect them.
3) apple has no obligation to protect or support them.
4) in the future, songs purchased from real and transfered to an ipod may not be protected and/or may not play.
5) real has no interest in consumer choice.
You know, I just don't care.
I'm usually pretty tolerant of lame software. Adobe Acrobat has always been a Windows-3.1-esque piece of junk; it's probably the only modern viewer-style application that noticeably pauses between page flips. But I will maintain a sliver of patience and hope that Acrobat evolves into a non-annoying product, because (a) I genuinely support Adobe's mission of a general-purpose, cross-platform, academic-friendly document format; and (b) it's really widespread, and doesn't appear to have any decent competitor.
Real - not so. They have completely exhausted my consumer interest in their product. That's what happens when you just blatantly ignore your customer's interests for a long time. Even if their latest rev is analogous to alternatives like Quicktime Player and Windows Media, it's still far too little, far too late.
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
Are all of those posts from Apple Zealots? It's always simple when it comes to Apple to blame it on teh zealots, but from what's coming over this board, I'd say a lot of windows users are pretty frustrated too.
I'm sure there are a few zealots out there posting vulgarities, etc., but to blame all the bad content on mac users goes a bit to far.
I don't agree with Apple's stance on the issue, I think they should open the iPod up (as bad for their business as it may be), but since Apple controls hardware and software (iPod/iTunes), I think they will always have the best solution, like the do now. People can try and copy it, but Apple's will most likely maintain it's status.
I don't agree with Real either, they just wan a piece of the action (like everybody else), and they are being pretty obvious about it. It serves them right for putting up a free comment board to anyone with anything to say.
Like it has been pointed out before, you have to hand it to the mac zealots, they have got us to where we are today, with a promising future for the music industry and for the end users.
I still don't understand why people get so angry about this. Yes, I have an iPod, but the reality distortion field hasn't penetrated me deep enough so that I begin having online tempertanturms...
MacOS X is Posix compliant in spirit and in letter, and is "Unixy". This is a no brainer. Crawl back in your hole.
As for custom ROM images, dude, everyone does that. You're holding Apple to a standard no one else meets. It's not even fair, every motherboard needs detailed and specific configuration.
Comparing Quartz with DirectX isn't terribly unfair. It's also one of the minor sticking points. Quartz, incedently, is based on an Open Standard, OpenGL. DirectX is a standard unto itself. It's pointless to bitch about it anyways, though, since the underlying drivers are ALSO closed source. Get the hardware comapnies to open up first, otherwise the software being open is pointless.
As for your crack about 50x more programs, it's a cheap shot. I was referring to a specific comment Raymond made.
Apple has opened the OS. Apple has opened Rendezvous, which is a freaking crown jewel of the mac experience. Apple has advanced GCC tremendously. Apple is leading the way on next-gen web applications.
What more does Apple have to do. It seems like the only way to win with some folks is to not make any money at all.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense