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."
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
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'?
I don't get what the big deal is. I bought two albums for my sister on Real yesterday for $5 each. BUrned them to a CD, so she can play in her car. When Real ends the sale, I might switch back to Napster or something. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Hell hath no fury like a Mac user scorned.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
People just hate Real.
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?
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
We want Freedom of Music Choice
.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$$.
How about opening up the
And before you come in with Real Alternative, don't bother. I know about it and it's not the same thing.
Free XBox, PS2
That's some pretty famous people coming to Apple's defense.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
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?
It is sad when a salient point is ruined by vulgarity.
The fuckers.
Film (Quicktime or Real) at 11!
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Real has taken some bizzare guerilla tactic against a company THEY have determined is the problem factor that needed correcting. (ie hacking Fairplay)
I have no issue with Apple's tactics of keeping their format, player, and store closed for just them.
As long as Creative and Sony keep their smaller markets kickin' Apple's not approaching a monopoly on this... If this approaches this front, how unfortunate is it for the competitors that they have to rely on moving physical media (ie brick and mortar) to peddle their wares?
It's not Apple's fault that they have one of the least restrictive DRM's on the market. That's their thing going in their favor to being a market leader.
Screw real. They want to muck up Apple's fantastic plan with a brand that has SOOO many negative connotations to it, that it seems unfair in my eyes to Apple to have to put up with this.
How about the fact that Real's music store isn't Mac compatible? Is that enough reason to dislike Real in this situation?
GPL Deconstructed
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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
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
I heard Apple put up a big billboard across the street from Real's main office, with only one word in big bold letters across it:
BUFFERING
- sm
KHTML came from the KDE team. Zeroconfig is a spec. So if you're going to talk about Apple "doing" a bit more for open source, get a better example. To be pertinent to the discussion, real has given helix to the community.
Activists United
...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
The lesson to be learned from this? Don't mess with Jobs' Reality Distortion Field(TM)!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
GPL Deconstructed
They're going about this so backwards. Drum up support, then make your move. Follow up doing something nasty with doing something nice, not by engaging in a silly PR war and a completely transparent price-war.
adam b.
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.
in bed.
To cop a term from Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. Apple has great whuffie. People love Apple. They put out decent products which nullifies some of the more unseemly things they do. On the otherhand, Real has horrible whuffie. Almost none. In fact, it might be NEGATIVE whuffie. They used to have a good bit of it back in '96 but have since managed to piss it all away with horrible software.
This is why there's a 'double standard' at play.
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.
No, Siree Bob, it's not because people were signing the petition as "Real sucks"... it's not at all...
...is still shit. Cheap and free shit is still shit. Real needs to focus on product engineering, and provide a useful tool free of spy / adware, rather than a PR / FUD campaign to drive sales. People are not quite that stupid anymore when it comes to technology.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Apple fans are nutty.
sulli
RTFJ.
KHTML was greatly improved because of Safari bug reports and Apple engineers. Zeroconfig was created as a spec and was implemented by Apple. Their engineers also released source code to use Zeroconfig with Windows and Linux programs. How's that?
The full quote is "Competition' doesn't give you any right to reverse-engineer when you feel like it, but come down on those that hack into your IP rights."
The quoter claimed Real had no right to reverse engineer when the company itself will not allow others to reverse engineer. It's not about law, in the quote, but about reciprocity. If they think it's okay for Real Co to RE the iPod and iTunesMS, then it should be okay for others to reverse RA stuff as well, which you didn't pick up.
GPL Deconstructed
Let the zealots win.
Lets have 15 different proprietary "standards" out there for music. That way if you buy a player from Apple, you buy your music from Apple. If a song you like is only available on some other service, why you buy another player.
I don't care. I'm through with music. I wont buy any CDs or download any songs.
In my day, it was pretty decent. I could go buy a CD from any store I wanted, and it would work in any of my CD players. Before that was cassette tapes, before that 8-tracks and LPs.
But I don't care about todays kids. Go let yourself get screwed over by a bunch of corporate assholes. Tell yourselves that the company is some great benevolant force that truly cares about you, if that makes you feel better.
I could give a fuck if iTunes is completely incompatible with Real and every other music service. I could give two shits what kind of DRM Apple or Real or Napster or anyone else want to use. Who gives a shit if you're allowed to burn it to one CD, or only listen to the song on the third tuesday of every month.
Hey, do it to TV too. I don't care. When video-on-demand rolls out, make sure each service is compatible only with a suitably branded TV set or cable tuner. Sony Video-on-Demand only works with Sony sets, etc. Ruin TV. See if you can make a buck doing it.
Have your legions of Sony fans go around swearing and acting like idiots if Phillips starts trying to compete.
Not my problem, and I don't care.
The entire "entertainment" industry can jump up my ass. It bores me. I don't look to any corporate messiah for my entertainment anymore. Fuck em all, and fuck all their fans and zealots.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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).
From the article:
Virgin Mega recently took issue with the iPod, saying its proprietary stance was anticompetitive.
Um, yeah, this is kinda funny. So, getting the pants beaten off you in the marketplace is grounds for calling a highly successful device and media format "anticompetitive?"
Ah, but what if the shoe was on the other foot now? Sheesh, the knuckleheads at Real and Virgin need to stop trying to spin the obvious and just get to work on *making* something that can compete.
sad robot making broken music
Now while I understand the zealotry and the hatred for someone daring to stomp on Apple's parade I can't understand the "break my iPod" bit. If anything they have "fixed" the fucking iPod allowing it to play even more formats.
.rm format play on the iPod.
Ummm.... I'm impressed that you read the article but, you misunderstood:
Real named the board "Hey Apple! Don't break my iPod."
Real IS implying that they've fixed the iPod, and they don't want Apple to "break it" by suing them and not letting the
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.
Heh, maybe their next step will be a new marketing slogan: "Get Real!"
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!"
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.
. . . who took the makers of Streambox Ripper to court because it allowed one to convert Real Audio files to WAV, MP3, AIFF, etc.
Hypocrites.
This (along with other questionable practices) is why a lot of people are rooting for Apple, even though Real would ordinarily have the moral high ground.
And well, historically Apple has made some pretty cool and innovative products, while Real has done nothing particularly interesting.
>Apple's codec sucks compared to even MP3
What was the format of those tracks? What bitrate? What makes you think Real is using their own codec for the iPod (It isn't, the iPod can't play RealAudio) What music store sells MP3's? (OK I know of ONE, but I doubt anyone has heard of any of it's bands) AAC compressed music actually sounds pretty good at comparable bitrates to MP3.
>I'll continue to stick to SHN/FLAC
Then your portable music player must have FLAC/SHN support and a gargantuan hard drive for the terrible 2:1 compression ratios you get. MP3/AAC usually gets about 10:1.
>Perhaps these Apple lovers have become so accustomed to vendor lock-in
You mean the way the Realaudio music store ONLY WORKS ON WINDOWS?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Apple has told people how much money they make on their $0.99 songs. We all know their margins are slim. I think what angers people the most about the Real situation is they are clearly doing one of two things:
Now, if you're an Apple fan the first is simply anti-competitive. It's dumping, trying to force out a (relatively) fair player. The presumption is if Apple were to leave the business Real would then jack up the price. The second is almost as infuriating to the Apple fan as it means the record companies are essentially doing the same thing at the wholesale level in an attempt to hurt Apple.
So, if you're an Apple fan, both actions root is not to provide you with better music for cheaper, but to put Apple out of business. Presumably the Apple fan likes his iMac/OSX/iPod/Airport/Whatever so he would like Apple to stay in business.
It is also interesting that Real, and company with a proprietary format which it will not release to Apple or the Linux community and that uses copyright patents and trademarks to enforce their proprietary format has no qualms about breaking the software protection of another format. I suspect if Apple say, released songs in .rm format because they had reverse engineered it that Real would be all up in their face trying to use their various "IP" to stop it.
Companies can't have it both ways. They can protect their IP from everyone else, but then not break others IP, or they can let everyone use their IP and use everyone else's. It's not a buffet, they don't get to pick and choose.
This seems to be more of a case of Apple fans not liking Real's campaign rather than all music buyers. It's not like it's unexpected either, even if it does make them hypocrits. Apple fans simply don't like people pushing their company around.
Do you really think the same people would be up in arms if Apple were to make some WMA only player run FairPlay files? Not likely. I am far from a fan of Real but the Apple fanboyism is just all too obvious sometimes.
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.
I wonder if we can get an infinite loop* going, where CNET quotes Slashdot, and then Slashdot posts a story quoting the CNET story that quotes Slashdot, and then there's an update, and ANOTHER update, and then the disembodied head of Tom Pabst bursts from your screen and screams something inflammatory to draw more hits!
*Yes, this is Apple wordplay!
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Sounds like Apple fanboys tearing into Real for no good reason. Letting you play other sources of music on a device *you own* is a good thing. Attacking Real for this is downright irrational. I guess some people just love vendor lockin. In this case vendor lockin is quite intentional and insidious, there is no good technical reason that an iPod cannot play music from other vendors. Real is only offering competition for music sales and that is a good thing for iPod owners even if the fanboys are too dumb to see it.
I hope Real continues to do what it is doing.
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).
So, 900 noisy Apple users complain, as usual; why should they care? What counts is the bottom line: how many songs is Real selling to iPod users. If that works out OK, they'll keep doing it.
I think that it might have to do with the fact that anyone who recognizes the name "Real" associates it with *really* crappy quality streaming audio/video. I know you may say that was caused but slow connections, and the rm has improved over the years, they problem is their current rm player barely works.
:= looks/sounds like crap" or "Real := runs like crap" - its not exactly a win-win for them :)
so you either think "Real
Was in underestimating the Mac Fanatics' loyalty.
Just as an example, I wouldn't say the things that I'm about to in the midst of Apple zealots unless I was armed.
People who were the iPod's early adopters, people who were iTMS early adopters were Mac users. It simply wasn't an option for Linux or Windows users. Apple loyalists will get into a fist fight over someone slighting their beloved company.
If the tables were turned, If Real had developed the iPod and FairPlay and Apple Reverse engineered them, these same people who are flaming Real would be singing Apple's prasises for being so innovative.
It's like watching the bullshit of Washington politics. People are bitching when the "other side" does something that they ignore when their own side does it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Sell your Real stock now - it's going down. MS now has the power to dispose of Real once and for all.
Real is selling these songs at a loss. MS has a huge cash reserve. All MS has to do is hire some temps, give them a company credit card, and have them buy songs from Real all day long. The more they buy, the more money Real loses. Eventually, no more Real!
So I thought, ok, I am an apple user, I have an ipod, there is a valid point about companies opening up their platforms. So I thought, let's try to buy a 50 cents song on the real site. "Mac not supported". Wankers.
I found it funny that one of the offers listed on freeipods.com is for a $0.99 trial on RealRhapsody.
I'm wondering if Real knows this, or if they'll just take it anyway they can get it. You'd think that they would want to steer people clear of the iPod (especially a free one!) with their "Freedom of Choice" marketing and all that...
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.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
If you noticed on the real site mentioned in the article, the petition doesn't let you view the signatures. Yet there is another one that does let you view the signatures. Both petitions have different numbers of signatures, and both list on the bottom page that they were created by different admins of freedomofmusicchoice.org. It seems like they didn't like making the bad comments public so they created another petition and aren't letting comments be listed. Seems funny the lengths Real will go to.
JasonBlogs
You are confusing ACC and Fairplay. ACC is a compression format and is open and available for anyone to use. Fairplay is Apple's DRM and is basically proprietary, just like the grandparent poster stated.
Anyone can put make an ACC file and have it play on the iPod. What anyone cannot do is develop or sell a DRM format other than Fairplay and have the iPod understand and play it.
Apple has no control over ACC or who uses it.
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.
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.
The system is a pimp; and I refuse to be a whore -- Chuck D.
And Apple certainly doesn't want anyone buying music elsewhere, lest they get the idea that music should cost less than 99 cents a track.
P.S. - "Jobs Cave" = teh funny.
Got it.
Then why shame Real for trying to compete with Apple if Apple is essentially behaving the same way? The end result is the same, less choice for the consumer.
In other words, both of them are acting like school yard bullies.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
A new petition was started to counter Real's stupid publicity stunt, so everyone please feel free to sign up: http://www.petitiononline.com/notreal/petition.htm l
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
You're right, there is a difference.
Except that Real is making a compatible DRM wrapper to Fairplay, not removing it. If Real were removing it, we'd have raw AAC, which is no big deal. Real isn't doing this.
GPL Deconstructed
[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?
Those who complain about affect & effect on
You're mistaken if you think I somehow disapprove of Real's actions. I call them a hypocrite because they happen to 'champion' choice and competition, except they don't.
The Real music store is Mac incompatible. Good going. So much for consumer choice. Where's my $0.49 downloads?
GPL Deconstructed
Attacking Apple and expecting kudos from Apple fanatics is like a waiter spitting in his patron's face and still expecting a tip.
And it does NOT matter if Real was giving Apple users MORE choices at LOWER prices. It is quite clear that Apple fanatics care neither about choice or price. If Apple users wanted more choices and cheaper prices, they'd use IBM compatibles!
I get the impression that those in charge of Real have NO clue about reality.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Real launched a campaign to astroturf Apple (and the press) to sell its songs. It sure looks like Apple hired a bunch of its own astroturfers to post anti-Real comments on Real's bulletin board.
A pox on both houses, I say. There's no higher ground in claiming greater rights to screw consumers with DRM. (but on the narrow point, reverse engineering is a good thing, which must be protected... so Real is narrowly right on this thing, though wrong on most everything else).
Buy Text Processing in Python
Russia has different laws than we do. Whoopee. It's their fault, I suppose, for looking like westerners but being part of Asia. You can go into a store in Japan, plunk down a few bucks and "rent" a CD to copy and no one bats an eyelash, but just let those Russians try to make a legal buck on the internet and suddenly it's all mired in allegations of criminal intent.
Quite frankly, I hope the site is run by some Russian mob. I'd sooner give those folks my money than the parasites in Ho-town.
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.
I'm guessing no. I just visited in both safari and mozilla on the mac and got the Real 10 for OS X.
I actually like the real codec. A pity nobody likes the company.
Network Security: It always comes down to a big guy with a gun.
From the story:
"The deluge of anti-RealNetworks sentiment prompted the company to take down the original petition and replace it with one without a comment section, but where the names of those who signed up were visible. Most signed up as 'Real sucks' or something similar. The ability to see names was then removed."
Does this sound like the actions of a company you want to trust?
A dream is good. A plan is better.
Apple not working at turning a profit.
I think the hundreds of people who practically pulled a month long all-nighter to ship the Tiger seed for WWDC would object. Or the same teams that have been working their asses off to give us first access to many technologies, especially GPU accelerated GUIs etc.
It's true most companies these days are rather legal-happy, but the Apple engineers work hard and I think that's pretty obvious.
This sig has been deprecated.
You are confusing ACC and Fairplay.
;-)
/.. Someone mod the parent up, please.
And you're confusing Advanced Audio Codec and ACC.
Anyone can put make an ACC file and have it play on the iPod. What anyone cannot do is develop or sell a DRM format other than Fairplay and have the iPod understand and play it.
Although beyond spelling your information is very insightful for all those "never-checked-any-facts" zealots on
The real reason Real had to hack Fairplay instead of going with plain AAC is thus actually pretty ironic: The labels would never let them put the music to any portable players without any DRM, so Real was forced to hack Apple's DRM to be able to keep their own music files DRMed... (On iPods, that is.)
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
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...
The BBC made a deal with Real to dejunk their player or else the BEEB would ditch Real.
l
The dejunked player is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/audiohelp_install.shtm
So, if you must use Real, use this one and thank the BBC.
My father is a blogger.
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
Perhaps you should share with us your definitions of "thief" and of "stealing".
Then, maybe you should enumerate in detail which instances stealing you are referring to in your comment. Charges of stealing are pretty serious. The least you can do is back up those charges with some facts; otherwise you're just trolling.
Perhaps you should learn a bit more about Darwin and other OSS initiatives of Apple before condemning them? Then you could see if your original impression was correct or erroneous.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Apple is hardware company. The reason they make great software is to sell more hardware. The iTunes music store and iTunes even exist so they can sell more iPods and Macintoshes.
They are a corporation who's goal it is to make a profit. They don't get anything from giving away their software to people who will run it on other people's hardware, so why would they do it. They give iTunes away for free so that more people will buy iPods.
Real on the other hand is a pure software company. They don't care what hardware you're running. Real supports Linux because they give away a free software application to entice you to buy a not-free software application.
But I'm sure you know all of that already.
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.
Down here in Australia, we don't currently have access to the iTunes store - well unless we pull some dodgy to get a US credit card account and billing address. iPods are still selling well, and the default format for files on my iPod is AAC.
From down here, the DRM restraints mean nothing as we don't have access to a DRM source anyway. Distance can give perspective sometimes.
I will admit to being an Apple advocate, so my opinion in this is likely to be significantly biased, but as I understand it, the situation is something along the following lines:
Steve et al. spent a lot of time and effort wooing the record labels negotiating a way of selling downloadable music online legally.
It was a requirement of the Record Labels that the downloads have some form of DRM or they would not permit Apple to make the files available.
For the DRM to be meaningful in any way, it has to remain at least partially secure, which probably means closed. While it will be broken inevitably, keeping it closed source gives at least an appearance of trying to keep the code out of prirates hands - something Apple needs to do to keep the Record Labels on side.
Realone is feeling petulant that it's been left out of this great deal. It didn't negotiate with the Record Labels, it didn't create and test the DRM that would meet their requirements to allow the service to start up - it's success being the spur for other companies to enter the legal music download business. Having whined to be given a seat at the table and been refused, Realone have decided to force their way in by riding on the back of the format Apple built for the Record Labels.
I accept and understand that under US copyright law, Realone have the right to reverse engineer the Fairplay DRM, provided they are not using it to decode someone else's DRM protected content. But that's not the problem.
The problem is if Realone's reverse engineering of FairPlay leads to the Record Labels renegotiating thier contract with the iTunes Store and either forcing Apple to change the FairPlay DRM so that it doesn't allow you to play files unless you player is connected to the internet to validate the file onuse every single time OR they restrict it so that you can't burn an audio copy OR they prevent you from playing the file on another computer OR any other restriction which would reduce what you can do now. Apple would likely have no choice but to comply or lose the iTunes Store altogether.
Apple HAS to protest this, if they aren't seen by the Record Labels to defend FairPlay, they could very well lose it all.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
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.
I'm sorry, I love my mac but the next time someone thinks the average Mac user is a "zealot" I'm going to hurl. Seriously. The frickin' title of their article:
... I've always know their bias against the Mac. It's thoroughly documented. I guess this just goes on the stack with anything by John C. Dvorak.
"Apple zealots slam Real's iPod campaign"
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
You know I agree with a lot of your points - but the above is way off the map, man. Besides simply conflating all 'Apple fans', you've revealed a little bias of your own with that flowery divine-being rhetoric.
Let me put it this way - I know a lot of people who are new to the iPod, love it, and - here's the very crucial bit - they have not noticed the DRM. It just has not come up. They buy music they like off iTMS, selection is not bad, they don't have more than 5 Macs and they've been burning CDs of everything to their heart's content. I had to tell a lot of these people that there was, in fact, DRM.
So while the people you speak of certainly do exist, what do you say to the VASTLY larger proportion of PC and Mac-based iPod users who just haven't noticed the DRM because it doesn't get in their faces?
You will live to reap the sorrows.
Ha! Woe, indeed. Please.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
AAC is the property of the MPEG group, and if you check their website, the only people who need to license and pay royalties arre people who make and distribute the *hardware* to create AACs. *Anyone* can distribute or stream AAC files without paying royalties. The issue is FairPlay, and Real's need to DRM it's files, *not* any difficulty or licensing issues related to AAC.
Not trying to be negative, but is the base system & kernel open sourced from Apple or didn't Apple take somebody else's work and lock it down? In other words I have the understanding that Apple took FreeBSD which is somebodyelses hard work and added their own stuff on top without releasing the stuff on top or how it interacts with the stuff provided by FreeBSD, or any changes they might have made to FreeBSD to make it better.
Apple bought a company called NeXT that had a proprietary BSD386 based OS running on the Mach Micro-Kernal. In the company was an employee who had done a large amount of the original work creating the Mach Micro-kernal. Apple took the NeXTStep / OpenStep operating system as the basis for its Mac OS X operating system. Apple ported it to the PowerPC Chip sets, fused it with knowledge gained from Apple's earlier Unix OSes A/UX and MkLinux and then re-synced the userland with FreeBSD 4.x (now they sync the userland to FreeBSD 5.x).
This might need more explaining. Unlike Linux where all each distribution has the same Linix kernal (sometimes compiled in different ways, but still the same kernal code), BSD branches do NOT have the same kernal. NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD and Darwin(Mac OS X) are each different kernal code bases. Sometimes they share components / code, but mostly they do not. The different branches are designed to provide the same working userland to users and applications. By "re-synced the userland to FreeBSD" Apple did little more then confirm their OS is compatible with FreeBSD and either updated their own /bin and/usr/bin applications to feature / function compatibility with FreeBSD or ported the FreeBSD apps over, whichever made the most sense. Again all work was done by Apple Engineers.
So what Apple did was not "take somebody else's work and lock it down" but rather take the work Apple Engineers and the Engineers of a second company Apple bought (and retained the employees of) and release the code for no cost onto the internet.
OpenDarwin.org
While this is certainly valid given the license of FreeBSD, strictly speaking that's just being a thief as far as I'm concerned.(Yes I know MS has done this too with it's Unix Services layer).
If someone gives something to you for free, it is not stealing. The only people who are allowed a moral objection to how you use the freely given object are the ones who gave it to you. Far from being upset at it, BSD users "shouted for joy" that Apple choose to base their new OS on BSD. Daemon News: Apple -- What's in it for BSD?
I also understand however, that Apple has given some changes back to the KDE community for the web browser, locking up other changes however behind a proprietary license. In other words it looks to me like Apple is trying to garner some favor while stealing the "open source" community blind.
Every single piece of OpenSource software Apple has used (irrespective of the license it was released under and the requirement, or NOT, to release the code) they have release the code to. The code is available either through the Darwin OS , one of the other Apple Open Source Projects, or by giving the code back to the original developers. In addition to that Apple has also released code that was never before opensource, with projects such as OpenPlay , Darwin Streaming Server and
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...
Fun with Inkwell | www.coo
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.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
It's too bad you're so late to the party with your comment that many people will never see it. It's the most concise and convincing pro-Apple post I have read in any of the /. discussions about this Real vs. Apple matter.
I applaud you, sir.
~Philly
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.
How many support calls will Apple have to take because someone's Harmony software fucked something up? If something doesn't work right on their iPod, even if it's because of Real, the user will most likely call Apple because they'll see it as an iPod problem. And even if the Apple tech just says, "Not our problem" and hangs up as soon as he hears the words 'Real' or 'Harmony,' that call has still cost Apple money.
Even worse, if Harmony proves somehow problematic, the word of mouth from pissed-off users may very well translate into bad publicity for *Apple* that could negatively affect iPod sales.
So because of Real, Apple suddenly has more to lose than a few iTMS sales.
People are not defending Apple here, they're attacking Real for their bullshit publicity stunt and completely unbelievable "We have the consumer's interests at heart" stance on this.
Competition *is* a good thing. But Real is not competing here, they're trying to horn in on someone else's success. If they wanted to compete, they'd create their own portable music player to play their music store's songs. But why take risks like that when you can just be a parasite to another company who has already taken all the risks, and who will probably take the blame if you fuck up?
Anyone want to express how much Real's new ploy sucks should head over to http://www.petitiononline.com/notreal/ and sign the petition.
It's already gained more signitures, but a good slashdotting should sort things out.
Yeah - actually over here http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/lice nse.terms.html it lets us know that Apple spends about 62 cents for each copy of iTunes (or more technically, for each OS X install, since the codec will be a lib framework available to all software and users on the machine). The cost is for software.
:)
Windows varieties will all have this cost covered (and could be even less as MS ships more units).
So, fwiw, your parent poster there was correct when he claimed that Vorbis was the only "free and open" codec, as that's actually the case, it was released to the public domain. Mpeg4-aac is an open spec (not proprietary), but it's not free.
Sorry for nitpicking you...
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Streambox? Is that the same people that everyone keeps bringing up that were REMOVING the DRM, not making a compatible DRM of their own? I'm guessing yes. REMOVING DRM is different from making COMPATIBLE DRM.
To my knowledge, NO ONE has tried to make a real-compatible DRM, and I'm guessing no one will. If they want to, they should be able to, but since real doesn't have proprietary hardware, I doubt it will happen.
Bob's ink is only LEXMARK compatible if you want to go that way. We'd have to assume in the analogy that Lexmark ink worked in both Lexmark and Epson printers but that Bob's ink was compatible with only Lexmark printers.
As pointed out, Mac users are hardly 1/2 the target market. Sorry, you ARE outnumbered by that much. Sometimes it doesn't make sense to support that small of a market segment. I'm sorry you feel slighted, but you chose to use a Mac. You can't force developers to bow to your choice.
I have never been more enraged at a computer in my life.
Just as some background I am your target customer. I own an iPod and have purchased multiple CD's online from both the Apple iTunes Music Store and buymusic.com. I am the person you want out there yelling from the rooftops how great your product is. You're going to hear quite the opposite.
I bought into the hype from various press outlets about Real offering $.49 track downloads and $4.99 CD's. I visited your site and searched your media catalog without downloading your software. I was very impressed by the quantity of artists in your catalog. It seemed too good to be true. Mom told me what to expect when I had that feeling, but, like an idiot, I ignored mom yet again.
First, I downloaded your software. The installation can, at best, be considered painful. Two reboots! C'mon! I am doing this at work! I am supposed to put all my important projects on hold while I reboot twice just so I can start my computer again to give you money. Ridiculous. The worst part is I knew Real was likely sinking their greedy hooks deep into my system with evil DRM type underpinnings. But, once again, I ignored mom's advice to stop before I was "too deep" and continued down the path of Real evil.
So I decided to purchase a Godsmack album. $4.99. I created my Music Store account and paid for my purchase. I was pretty excited as I saw the file sizes were relatively large (as opposed to buymusic.com which obviously have fairly low bitrates). The files came down quickly from your servers.
I excitedly went to burn my CD to a CD-R. Bzzzz! No rights! No freaking rights! Yes, I am sure that is buried deep within some subclause of some clause of some crappy contract I "OK" clicked my way through, but holy cow. I cannot wait to tell the world that today, in 2004, you actually pay Real.com honest money to honestly purchase a music track and support an artist and you are rewarded with idiotic DRM that doesn't allow you to burn the tracks to a real CD. That's funny, I thought I bought a CD! Wrong!
This seriously chapped my behind and I heard my mother laughing in the back of my head. She knew how this was going to turn out, and my mother can't even turn on a computer. But she has more common sense than me and she would have steered far clear of your unReal offering.
So, continuing on, I was mightily frosted and began investigating ways to rip the tracks even with your DRM hooks clawed maniacally into my machine. (Hey, let's be realists, people are going to get the music onto CD whether you like it or not, if they are motivated. And since I was at work I figured I was doing it for the sake of science and whatnot.) I set out to play the tracks to listen to the quality, figuring I would work out a way to capture the audio stream to a WAV file and compressing it into an MP3 later. With just the Real Player running on my computer, I started playing Track #1.
My computer instantaneously shut down.
My mom is having hysterical fits of laughter at my expense by this point. Reminder to self: send mom flowers for all her great advice. She was so right.
So, there goes a few hours of work that I didn't save. Silly me I thought I was just playing a music track. I didn't realize I was connecting to the WHOPR and trying to play Global Thermonuclear War.
So I had enough hate boiled up inside of me to last the rest of the day and didn't attempt to use your crappy player again.
So, I arrive again this morn and figured I would take on "the challenge". I loaded the fugly Real Player and clicked on "Purchased Music". I selected all 11 tracks from the Godsmack album and clicked "Play Selections". I held my breath and closed my eyes and imagined a whole group of mothers laughing at me all chanting: "What do you think you are doing! You know it isn't going to work you fool!" What? It didn't crash! Yippie! Strike up the band. Oh wait... I have to login? What? What is this. Oh yes, I have to log in to your freakin site for permissio
www.jackasscritics.com
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