New iPod Firmware Locks Out RealNetworks Music

rishimathew writes "Apple Computer has quietly updated its iPod software so that songs purchased from RealNetworks' online music store will no longer play on some of the Mac maker's popular MP3 players." You may remember the backstory: Real found a way to allow their DRM-restricted music to play on iPods, Apple protested, and there was a little back-and-forth. You asked Rob Glaser about the situation, and he said Real had a "comprehensive plan", whatever that means.

Comments

What about Hymn?

[SuperKendall]

If they broke RealNetworks playback on iPods, what about files de-protected by Project Hymn?

I would assume it's broken since I figured Real used some of the code from this app. But the article does not say, and there is no news on the Hymn site (lterally, some kind of server error).

Re:What about Hymn?

[Slack3r78]

I wouldn't think so. Hymnn strips the file of all DRM; what Real had done was essentially finding a way to get the iPod to play *their* protected files, just like files you bought off iTMS. Apple has evidently changed up the way their authentication behaves so this no longer works.

Since there's no DRM in a file that's been run through Hymn, there's no reason they shouldn't still work.

Re:What about Hymn?

[twiddlingbits]

For now there is no reason. But I bet soon if not already the iPod will check to make sure the DRM signature is in the file. No Sig, No Music. Hacking the right DRM INTO a music file is a lot harder than hacking it out especially if they use encryption.

Re:What about Hymn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hymn uses DVD-Jon's GPL'ed code. If RealNetworks used that code, they would be forced to make RealPlayer GPL'ed.

In other words, it's not very likely that they're using that code...

Re:What about Hymn?

[Anonymous Coward]

solution? use hymnn to strip the DRM from the real stuff.

taDA!

if I owned an ipod I would do that to every song I bought for it anyways... it's mine, I will not have some asshat telling me what to do with it in the privacy of my own equipment.

Re:What about Hymn?

[The Only Druid]

I would bet anything that you're wrong. The reason is because that would involve removing mpa playback (i.e. mp4 AAC files without DRM built in) entirely. This would be a terrible move for several reasons, the least of which being that when iTunes rips a CD to AAC, it does so in mpa files without DRM. I think you just didn't realize what the grandparent poster was saying when he said Hymn stripped out the DRM. It creates a new file that simple doesn't have DRM in it.

Re:What about Hymn?

[superpulpsicle]

I don't understand the fuss. As long as there are ways to convert your m4a or whatever formats to plain mp3 files, who can stop you?

Re:What about Hymn?

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

You seem to be confused about both the iPod and Hymn.

1. The iPod will play unprotected AAC and MP3 files.
2. Hymn produces unprotected AAC files.

For Apple to disable the ability for the iPod to play files produces with Hymn, they would ostensibly have to either (1) remove unprotected AAC playback or (2) (a) watermark their AAC files prior to encryption and (b) update the iPod firmware to check for such a watermark for unprotected AAC files before playing.

However such a watermark would likely be a prime target for a reverse engineering and removal tool, hey why don't we just build it into Hymn in the first place?

Besides, updating iTunes, Quicktime, FairPlay, and iPod software from Apple doesn't force the end-user to update that software on any or all of their machines. So the most Apple could really hope for with the best possible solution would be to create an un-removable watermark (very, very, very hard), non-trickable FairPlay libraries (somewhat hard but then again it seems they're not really trying at this point), and even then there would be huge gaping holes w.r.t. the million or so songs already downloaded without the watermark technology.

Re:What about Hymn?

[badasscat]

For now there is no reason. But I bet soon if not already the iPod will check to make sure the DRM signature is in the file. No Sig, No Music.

Yeah, and about 80% of all the music on all iPods around the world instantly stops working (hint: mp3). Great business plan.

If you mean strictly AAC files, well, that wouldn't make much sense either, because any CD's you rip with iTunes are encoded by default as non-protected AAC files. So Apple'd be screwing their own customers with that strategy. (And of course iTunes is not the only AAC ripper, so even if they locked down iTunes and just decided to ignore everybody who ripped non-protected files with it to this point, they'd still have problems.)

They realistically cannot lock out non-protected content, unless they want their player to be rendered absolutely useless. What do you think happened to Sony all this time? It'd be even worse for Apple, because there's already so much non-protected content on iPods throughout the world - they'd have an outright revolt on their hands.

This, kids, is why DRM sucks, and no DRM is good. Honestly, why do people put up with this crap? Use MP3 and play it back on whatever the hell player you want. That's the way it should work, and that's the way it does work for those of us who refuse to host any DRM'd files on their PC's or music players.

Re:What about Hymn?

[Elwood P Dowd]

You seem to be confused about both the iPod and Hymn.

1. The iPod will play unprotected AAC and MP3 files.
2. Hymn produces unprotected AAC files.

For Apple to disable the ability for the iPod to play files produces with Hymn, they would ostensibly have to either (1) remove unprotected AAC playback or (2) (a) watermark their AAC files prior to encryption and (b) update the iPod firmware to check for such a watermark for unprotected AAC files before playing.

Or, (3), make iTunes not play unprotected AACs that have been marked by hymn upon decryption. Hymn used to use some obscure ID3 tag in an identifiable way. Apple used this misfeature to block some hymn-decrypted songs a little while back.

No, obviously this is not a long term solution. Just saying.

Re:What about Hymn?

[spacedx]

Yeah, and about 80% of all the music on all iPods around the world instantly stops working (hint: mp3). Great business plan

Hey, it worked for Sony.

Oh wait no it didn't.

Re:What about Hymn?

[hitmark]

or even better, ogg ;)
still that will lead to you not being able to play it on the ipod tho...

there is allways the analog hole to, the one place where all drm stops ;)

Re:What about Hymn?

[bark]

I don't think the issue is about locking out unprotected content. From numerous posters, the ipod does play unprotected mp3's The Real Networks issue is about Real attaching their own version of DRM that was hacked from protected AAC's. The entire discussion is about purchasing protected AAC's from Real instead of Apple. I wonder where you got your rant from ...

Re:What about Hymn?

[thejoelpatrol]

... and even then there would be huge gaping holes w.r.t. the million or so songs already downloaded without the watermark technology.

I think you mean _100_ million. A pretty huge gaping hole, indeed

Re:What about Hymn?

[Garfipus]

>Hymn used to use some obscure ID3 tag in an identifiable >way. Apple used this misfeature to block some hymn->decrypted songs a little while back.

No they didn't. Originally, Hymn left the FairPlay user-specific information in the file after the file was decrypted, the idea being to demonstrate that Hymn wasn't about piracy. iTunes was modified so it would reject files that had FairPlay data but were not encrypted. Now, Hymn removes all user-specific data from its output files.

Re:What about Hymn?

[Herr_Nightingale]

Harmony fixes DRM'd songs. Harmony adds DRM to songs.
There is no overlap that I can see...

Re:What about Hymn?

[Anonymous Coward]

I concur. You're a muck-humping dicky-snatch gorgonzola cock-hole fucky-cunt poop-whore, and I hate you.

Re:What about Hymn?

[Anonymous Coward]

or even better, forget about ogg because nobody cares about it.

Re:What about Hymn?

[rspress]

I think it is some kind of BS since the article did not mention which iPods were affected. My 3G iPod shipped with OS 2.2 and even with all the iPod updates released since I bought it have never updated the OS.

I think Apple should break reals songs for a number of reasons. Chiefly the Real whines about choice but does not offer these songs to Mac owners. Also Apples deals with the record companies depend on the DRM not being broken. Real found a way around this and gets off by not paying Apple fees for the DRM. So if it does wind up being unplayable Real should refund their customers money.

Re:What about Hymn?

[cyberphotographer]

• "If there were no Apple it would be necessary for Microsoft to invent one"

No. Geniuses create monsters. That's why it happened the other way round. It's called Natural Order.

Re:What about Hymn?

[Anonymous Coward]

preach on, baby!

Re:What about Hymn?

[twiddlingbits]

Everyone is missing the point. Apple does not OWN the music or the copyrights. If the "Powers That Be" in the music business (or the Governement) decide that DRM is the way to go and someone like Microsoft jumps into the mix as a proponent then it'll happen. I don't want it to happen, I think there are better solutions and going to DRM would remove a lot of user options, just saying things are trending that way. Regardless of the tools or the format the DRM would be needed. Formats evolve and markets evolve, Apple isn't going to stand still and lose this market, they'll adapt to the conditions imposed. After all it's only a firmware change to the iPod, or perhaps even better (for Apple) is the old iPods no longer work on new music so you have to buy a new one! I don't think Apple is going to want to go against the law even if it makes the users very happy. Of course as soon as DRMs come to pass someone will invent a way around them. The "war" on DRM isn't going to be won be either side for a long time. Hymn is just a small skirmish in the war.

Re:What about Hymn?

[emilymildew]

What iPods don't work with "new music"? And what is this "new music" you're talking about?

I have a first gen 5GB iPod and it works fine with the music I have purchased as well as that which I have ripped from my CDs.

Re:What about Hymn?

[twiddlingbits]

I was IMPLYING future music to be published has the POTENTIAL to be required to have a DRM in the format that MUST be there, and the players MUST recognize it or not play the music. I'm just hypothesizing based on what I see happening in the marketplace. I'm looking at the much bigger picture than what happens with the iPod.

There is a huge installed base of players that don't handle DRM, and I'm not sure if a) going to DRM is a sure way to piss these folks off when the players don't work on newer music or b) an opportunity to sell DRM capable players to them. It's kinda like DVDs, there is a format that will play in some Regions of the world and not in others, your DVD player must handle the format for YOUR region or ALL regions. ALL region DVD players are much more expensive. Portable music players could head down that path in that the old players only handle the music with the "non-DRM" format and DRM format requires new players or a clever work around. It's going to be a war and it's really just starting, and I see no end and no clear winner.

Re:What about Hymn?

[emilymildew]

You didn't need to get rude about it. I honestly didn't understand and was looking for clarification.

Yes, there is a huge base of players that don't handle DRM. They all, to my knowledge, handle music that is ripped or copied from CDs. Unless CDs go the way of 8-tracks, I don't see your scenario happening in the terribly near future.

Maybe someday, though. The point about DVDs was valid; I hate that stupid region system.

Re:What about Hymn?

[twiddlingbits]

I wasn't being rude. I was making my point strongly. If I was being rude I would have called you names. That's the /. way! :) As long as you can get it in the right format for the player it does not care where it came from. The possibility of you having an "illegal source" of the music is what all the fussing is about. CD's probably will go the way of 8-Tracks, there is always a better medium it seems. The region system on DVDs was a primitive copy protect mechanism. It's actually worked pretty good.

Re:What about Hymn?

[clarkcox3]

Files de-protected by Hymn are indistinguishable from the non-DRM'ed AAC files that you get when you rip directly from CD. ... since I figured Real used some of the code from this app. Why would you assume that? They do two completely different things. Hymn strips DRM out of the files, while Real got iPods to play the files *with their* DRM in the files.

Re:What about Hymn?

[geoffspear]

Umm... this entire thread is about Hymn, and the OP's contention that Apple will lock out all unprotected content. The entire thread might be offtopic, but grandparent's "rant" certainly isn't a nonsequitur.

Re:What about Hymn?

[Anonymous Coward]

win a free iPod mini @ http://www.imagerymedia.com/elf

Well, don't use iTunes

[The_Rippa]

Well, here's yet another reason not to use iTunes.

There, I said it.

I think iTunes sucks. I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when I see iTunes get lauded on this site as a playlist godsend, I shudder. Apple is a trendy company that makes trendy products. Unfortunately all of them don't work as well as the iPod, but the fanboys will use whatever is fed to them.

Winamp works for me, and has worked since I dumped Frauhnhoeffer mplayer for it. It doesn't take up a lot of real estate on the screen, can play just about anything, and can work with the iPod (although I haven't tried that)

I got a iPod (free by the way, the pyramid scheme works). I first tried using iTunes to load music onto it, but the way it handled the tags of mp3s was pathetic in my opinion. I use J. River Media Center for my Tivo, and that supports iPod, so I used that for a while. What I settled on was Anapod Explorer. I did have to pay a little for it, but it's smart (sql interface anyone?), the interface is simple and what I'm used to (unlike iTunes), and it supports features iTunes doesn't.

It took me a while to set it up so iTunes didn't try to rape and pillage my playlist whenever I plugged it in.

Oh, and I can't forget Ephpod, it's free but the interface is slightly lacking. I use that for taking music of other people's iPods.

I still use iTunes to buy music when I'm too lazy to go to the store, and I use hymn to convert them so I can enjoy them drm-free on my iPod.

Problem solved.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[elid]

I'm not crazy about using iTunes as a general-purpose media player, but it's very handy for streaming audio over a network with shared libraries.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[cinderful]

Slashdot has turned into Livejournal.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[kfg]

I got a iPod (free by the way, the pyramid scheme works).

Pyramid schemes always do, for those that make it to the top of the pyramid. That's what makes them so insidious, and evil.

KFG

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[SamSeaborn]

Well, here's yet another reason not to use iTunes ... I think iTunes sucks.

Good for you! (Not being sarcastic) If you don't like something don't buy it. That's the right attitude.

I, for example, love Apple products but bought a VAIO instead of an iBook because Apple caps the video out of the iBook at 1024x768 and the equivalent PowerBook was far too expensive. If Apple wants me to buy their hardware they'll have to do something about the price/feature match-up with their competition.

I will continue to use iTunes because I think it rocks. I think it's the best software of its kind.

Apple took a huge risk with their iTunes/iPod strategy -- lots of people I know laughed their heads off at the idea that people would *pay* to download music, and pay hundreds for an "mp3" player.

Apple has created a huge industry for itself, and if Real doesn't like it they should try and make a better product.

Someone may come along tomorrow with a product or service that will put Apple's music business in the toilet. It's way too soon for people like Real to be crying about monopolistic tactics. Apple's created their market and they're doing a great job nuturing it.

Sam

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[prockcore]

I'm not crazy about using iTunes as a general-purpose media player, but it's very handy for streaming audio over a network with shared libraries.

You can use daap to share music without itunes. An excellent (very fast, faster than itunes) daap server is can be found here

And there are plenty of clients... you can even get gnome-vfs-daap and browse itunes music shares with nautilus (or anything that uses gnomevfs)

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[a whoabot]

The whole internet has turned into LiveJournal. Blog was voted "word of the year" by some group, and that's what the internet shall become: a big, steaming(as in mad, because everyone always seems to be extremely angry and hateful, and as given off some putrid fumes) blog.

See the little line under the image in that BBC article, "Blogs proved useful to many during the US election." And the stakes were so high too! It was either a millionaire, white, old, male, blue-blood, east-coast, lying, corrupt, big-government, big business Republicrat, or a millionaire, white, old, male, blue-blood, east-coast, lying, corrupt big government, big business Republicrat. Truly an historic event!

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[nsayer]

because Apple caps the video out of the iBook at 1024x768

There is a difference between what is supported and what is possible.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[zoips]

Because Apple was the first to release a portable mp3 player.

...oh wait, I got my Diamond Rio500 in 2000, and it certainly wasn't the first portable mp3 player.

The mp3 player market was already there, Apple was not innovative nor the first to market in that regards, and everyone with eyes could see the market for buying music online. The DRM business really royally screwed it up, but it obviously not enough to kill it.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[BlueCodeWarrior]

Bush is from the East Coast? Last time I checked, Texas was more to the middle than to a coast.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, actually, the Bush's *are* east coast. In fact, GW himself was born in Connecticut.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

Dubya was born in Connecticut.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

(ob South Park) Actually, it was a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

"bought a VAIO" those three words just negated your entire post.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[bnenning]

It was either a millionaire, white, old, male, blue-blood, east-coast, lying, corrupt, big-government, big business Republicrat, or a millionaire, white, old, male, blue-blood, east-coast, lying, corrupt big government, big business Republicrat. Truly an historic event!

I strongly disagree. Texas is *not* on the east coast.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[me at werk]

I don't know about this whole free ipods thing, but I know people who it's worked for, and usually they get their friends who already have/dont want ipods to help them out.

However, is it possible for someone whos received a free ipod to go back and help out the friends who helped him out? I am not sure on this point.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[feidaykin]

There's a well written wikipedia article on the subject of this particular, and popular, scheme. I think it's so amusing that Slashdotters, the very people who piss and moan about people being dumb enough to fall for the Nigerian email scams, so willingly participate in a flawed scheme that is on extremely questionable legal grounds and one day will simply run out of steam. Sure, you may have gotten your iPod, but consider this: it wasn't free (it cost you time and effort in the referrals or whatever they made you do) and now you're likely on some list as an easy mark for future schemes. While a "free" iPod still sounds nice, I tend to wonder if it is really worth it.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[ReeprFlame]

Texas does border on a coast too. Ever hear of the Gulf of Mexico?

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[Phillup]

Texas is *not* on the east coast.

And neither candidate was born in Texas.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[needacoolnickname]

Born in Connecticut, boarding school in Mass, lived in California when he was young for a year, college in Connecticut. Grandson of a Wall Street person. Very Texan if you ask me.

Encarta on Him

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[fafaforza]

It sounded enticing to me.

But after you think of all the work that you'll have to do to (possibly) get a free iPod, its easier to stick in some extra hours at work for a few days. Not only do you have to sign up, but you have to pretend to use the service you signed up for, then cancel it, and lastly you have to convince 5 other people to do the same.

With all the effort, its easier to do some tech gig on the side removing spyware or some such.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[b-baggins]

And then he lived the next thirty years in Texas. What's your point?

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[b-baggins]

Because we all know that where your parents chose to birth you completely determines your attitudes and personality for the rest of your life.

You should take up astrology.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Playlists? I hardly ever use those things any more. Not since I switched from Winamp to iTunes and used it's browse feature. I'm not sure if things have changed now, but I used to have to create a bloody playlist each time I imported a CD. It was a pain in the ass. Now I only need to create a playlist occationally.

I imported over 7 GB of music, and it handled the tags exactly as it should have. Except that many of my MP3 had poorly fomated tags, but that's not iTunes fault.

iTunes is well designed. It's just that you're switching from something else, and would have to change your ways, and possably do a lot of work to get iTunes working nicely.
But for a person starting out, I think iTunes is easly the better player.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[Thomas Miconi]

Pyramid schemes always do, for those that make it to the top of the pyramid

This particular type of pyramid scheme is less evil than others, because no one really loses much. The monetary input is not provided by the lower scales of the pyramid (the "suckers"), but by companies which essentially pay for verified, targeted advertising. These guys have done the maths and concluded that this was a cost-effective marketing technique.

Of course you still have the basic problem of pyramid schemes, namely the necessity of exponential growth. A fundamental law of nature is that exponentials don't last very long. So while early participants did get their iPods, latecomers probably won't. But their loss will be a loss of time, not money. So it's not quite as evil as the pyramid scheme that ravaged Albania a few years ago.

Thomas

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[kfg]

Aside from the ethics of the thing (harping on your friends to join a marketing scheme), the math quickly works out to require that for the next person to get a free iPod requires more people than there are fundamental particles in the universe.

"Buddy" systems are great, because the progression is linear. Everyone gets to join in in time if they want (well, if there are an odd number of people in the world one guy might get left out). Needing more than one "Buddy" to get the deal makes the progression geometric and ultimately unsupportable.

In this case there's nothing illegal about it, because you aren't required to make any direct investment monitarily, and it's this lack of monitary fraud that fools some people into thinking it isn't a pyramid scheme, but it isn't fraud that defines a pyramid, it's the math. In this case you aren't being defrauded in any way except perceptually and the law doesn't protect your perception, only your money.

But it's that perceptual fraud that makes the scheme so psychologically powerful. As per my previous post the scheme actually pays off. It "works," and people can see that it "works." How can something that "works" be a fraud? That that is the hook under the bait.

But that brings us back to the ethical issues, don't it? The lure of something for "nothing" has always worked on a good many people who then turn into evangelists for the cause if they get the payoff (just look at the other posts and my current mod rating, and the fact that Ponzi was still hailed as a folk hero by some even after the whole thing went to hell), but it isn't just a matter of wondering whether the investment in labor is "worth it," it's wondering whether knowing that you get your free iPod by fucking the people at the bottom of the pyramid who never, ever, get theirs is worth it.

I like my friends better than all that. Hell, I even like my enemies better than all that.

KFG

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[AusG4]

I think iTunes sucks. I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when I see iTunes get lauded on this site as a playlist godsend, I shudder. Apple is a trendy company that makes trendy products. Unfortunately all of them don't work as well as the iPod, but the fanboys will use whatever is fed to them.

You realise how stupid you sound basically asserting that anyone who disagrees with you is a fanboy, right?

I whole-heartedly prefer iTunes to WinAMP, but it doesn't make me fanboy... it just means that I don't really like WinAMP. If I called you a WinAMP fanboy, would that make any sense?

Nope.

How this dudes opinion got modded up to insightful is beyond me. If I said "I Linux to Windows." would that get modded up? No... oh wait, this is /. - of course it would.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[kfg]

And there was the Romanian one before that, and the American one that gave those particular scams their name.

Yes, the iPod thing is less evil, it isn't going to ravage the economy and put widows and orphans out on the street with nothing, but I still get a funny feeling when we start talking about degrees of evil.

And personally I consider my time to be the most valuable commodity I own. It is of limited, but unknown, supply. I am so jealous of my time that I do not participate much in the current fad of exchanging it for mere money. When I work I generally do so because it's something I would do anyway, and scrape what money I reasonably can from it so that I can continue to do as I wish tomorrow.

And I did not wake up this morning thinking, "Gee, what I'd really like to do today is sucker 5 of my friends into a pyramid marketing scheme."

I'd much rather spend that time, sans iPod, snuggling with my sweetie, thank you very much.

KFG

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[feidaykin]

In this case there's nothing illegal about it, because you aren't required to make any direct investment monitarily...

But you are required to make an investment of energy in some form, be it the persuasion of friends/enemies into the scheme or the signing up, pretending to use, and then canceling of said scheme. I guess the law has a different perspective on money than I do, since money and energy are almost the same thing in my head. It seems that money is simply a convenient way to represent energy, right? If a hypothetical slashdotter buys an iPod with money, or "buys" one by working the scheme, he has consumed energy either way. And, as I may have learned from your posts, he likely consumed stored solar energy, and maybe a dash of geothermal. ;)

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[oliverthered]

It's a goof job that Real hasn't worked out how to do that or it would have been locked out long ago.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[toddestan]

There is a difference between what is supported and what is possible.

And, as Real has just found out, what is possible today may not be possible tomorrow.

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[the angry liberal]

And personally I consider my time to be the most valuable commodity I own. It is of limited, but unknown, supply. I am so jealous of my time that I do not participate much in the current fad of exchanging it for mere money.

..KFG says as he hits the submit button on his 5,954th post on slashdot!

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[kfg]

If you'd care to remunerate me for them I'd be happy to send you a bill. I'm not averse to the possesion of money. Nickle a word ought to cover it (don't worry, some of those posts only contain one word in the body. They're easy to fire off while I'm doing something else at roughly the same time. Right now my computer is making regular clicking noises at me, but it's time for a ten minute break).

KFG

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[nsayer]

Fair enough, but I'll worry that my wife's iBook won't be able to do dual monitor with this hack the moment I see His Steveness stand up before the cameras and vow to put a stop to it. :-)

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[the angry liberal]

I post to satisfy a nervous tick!

Re:Well, don't use iTunes

[kfg]

Well, hey! If it's both regular and regulatable maybe I can use you on woodblock.

KFG

"comprehensive plan"

[k4_pacific]

It turns out that this "comprehensive plan" involves a free screensaver download that DDOS's the iTunes store.

Re:"comprehensive plan"

[Saeger]

Their "backup plan" is even better: they've secretly hired a team of cheap russian hackers to A) keep up with the iPod compatibility arms race, and B) develop uninstallable bloat-spyware that redirects itunes.com to realmedia's store.

Re:"comprehensive plan"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think its possible to outsource Real's bloatware skills. That is their core competancy.

Re:"comprehensive plan"

[Cryptnotic]

You probably mean non-removable software, not uninstallable.

Re:"comprehensive plan"

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this piece of trash end up with a score of 5 and marked "funny"?

Thoughts

[daveschroeder]

Number one, this is old, since the iPod firmware that did this, iPod Updater 2004-11-15, was released a month ago.

Number two, Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE else's DRM, period.

Unprotected AAC, WAV, AIFF, MP3, etc., files from ANY source will play fine on ANY iPod. This is ONLY about Real reverse engineering FairPlay (more power to them) in order to allow their "Harmony" DRM-protected files to play on an iPod. They succeeded. And Apple is under NO obligation of any kind to allow it to continue. The iPod DOES NOT SUPPORT DRM files from ANY other source, so this isn't a matter of "doing what you want with something you bought". If you can personally get Real's songs to play on your iPod again, go for it. If Real re-engineers it such that the files work, great. Further, you are not forced to update the firmware. What's that? You'll eventually have to to get new features and bug fixes? Tough. Don't like it? Don't buy another iPod.

Apple is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong.

Additionally, Apple does play with other vendors, such as Audible.com content, and Macrovision will have to be a FairPlay licensor to support some of its product claims (though more details aren't known), and Motorola phones will run a version of iTunes and support Apple's protected music. Apple can do whatever it wishes with its own products, and consumers may decide whether or not they would like to purchase them.

Re:Thoughts

[PoderOmega]

I wonder if someone has ever made a comment like this support Microsoft software lock in.... Yes, you are correct. But I like toys that are not limited to what the manufacturer intended them to do (or intended them to perpetuate income... I doubt Apple is selling those things at a loss, they aren't paying RETAIL for those mini-hard drives)

Re:Thoughts

[SomeGuyTyping]

Yeah, but it makes me go back to Kazaa or SuprNova instead of buying DRM bullshit.

Re:Thoughts

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

I find it funny how the Apple fanbois will scream and yell until they turn blue in the face about Microsoft being an evil, anti-competitive monopoly, but then, when their beloved company turns around and does something anti-competitive and monopolistic, they're suddenly "doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong."

May I remind you that thousands of people paid hundreds of dollars each for their iPods, with the expectation that they would be able to play the music that they legally bought and paid for on it? Now, all of a sudden, Apple is taking a step away from that premise and towards iPods being an "Apple-approved-music-only" device. And you don't see anything wrong with that? Get over your fanboyishness and look at the big picture.

Re:Thoughts

[yabos]

WTF are you talking about. How does not allowing Real's DRM make you go back to Kazaa?

Re:Thoughts

[jmcleod]

The hell it's not wrong.

Apple doesn't own those iPods, therefore they have exactly zero right to make any sort of modifications to them whatsoever.

It would be exactly the same thing if Apple modified that Sony NW-blahbX42fnordwhatever portable MP3 player to not be able to playback Real's tracks.

It's anti-competitive and pseudo-monopolistic (since iPods are more or less ubiquitous in the portable player market).

Don't be an Apple-apologist just because you're a rabid Apple fanboy.

Re:Thoughts

[yabos]

You buy an iPod knowing that it won't support other DRM schemes. So what. You buy an XBox knowing it won't play Playstation 2 games.

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

If you buy something that works with WMA only, why should you expect them to allow you to play Real files or Fairplay AAC files?

Re:Thoughts

[LWATCDR]

"Apple is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong."

Gee so Apple has the right to make you use there store if you BUY an IPOD! I can get the legally wrong comment but how is this so different from Microsoft making Windows 3.11 not work under DR-DOS?

Why you may make the argument that it is legal I do not feel that it is moral or ethical. It is called LOCK IN and that is never good for the end user. As to not buying another IPOD. This will pretty much make me not buy the first one.

Re:Thoughts

[daveschroeder]

Apple doesn't make you use their store, dumbass. You can play ANY non-DRMed MP3, AAC, WAV, AIFF, Apple Lossless, etc., file that you wish. It was never advertised as working with any other online store with DRM, and Apple is under no obligation to support any other online store with DRM. If you don't agree with it, don't buy it. Simple.

Re:Thoughts

[Bronz]

I agree, but the obligatory Slashdot Bizarro twist... what if this was about Microsoft Word locking out OO.org with respect to "protected .doc" files. ...

Number one, this is old, since Microsoft Word was released eons ago.

Number two, Microsoft is under no obligation to support ANYONE else's DRM, period.

Unprotected .doc files from ANY source will open fine on ANY version of Microsoft Word. This is ONLY about OO.org reverse engineering the Microsoft DRM (more power to them) in order to allow their ".doc" DRM-protected files to work with Microsoft Office. They succeeded. And Microsoft is under NO obligation of any kind to allow it to continue. Word DOES NOT SUPPORT DRM files from ANY other source, so this isn't a matter of "doing what you want with something you bought". If you can personally get OpenOffice.org's protected files to open on your version of Word, go for it. If OO.org re-engineers it such that the files work, great. Further, you are not forced to update the software. What's that? You'll eventually have to to get new features and bug fixes? Tough. Don't like it? Don't buy another version of Word.

Microsoft is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong. ...

Re:Thoughts

[Greedo]

I spent hundreds of dollars on my CD system, and now I find that I can't play my legally-bought-and-paid-for LPs on it!

Re:Thoughts

[molnarcs]

"Number two, Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE else's DRM, period."

MSN is under no obligation to support ANYONE else's browser... Sounds familiar? Of course it doesn't have any obligation to support (support implies actively working on it), but I think working on disabling rival formats is very uncool.

"Apple can do whatever it wishes with its own products, and consumers may decide whether or not they would like to purchase them."

Agreed.

Re:Thoughts

[Twanfox]

While I like the iPod concept and design, I'm actually looking to buy something other than Apple's iPod for that kind of device. I want to stay out of these little gangland wars between companies, trying to one-up each other. Whatever I buy I want to be able to play whatever I have and whatever I buy, end of story, and I'm not buying 2 or 3 $400 devices to do it.

Re:Thoughts

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I wish they would licence out more. I think Apple stands to gain by allowing anyone to licence Fairplay, if only to push out Microsoft's licencing. While iPod maybe the #1 hard drive based player, I bet that all the rest that support protected Windows Media Player files out number iPod, as well as giving consumers a choice between stores, a lot apparently support protected WMP.

Re:Thoughts

[jsebrech]

Number one, this is old, since the iPod firmware that did this, iPod Updater 2004-11-15, was released a month ago.

Number two, Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE else's DRM, period.

I'm all for free business, but that also involves customers being able to freely take their business elsewhere. This basically is a lock-in tactic tieing you to the itms if you have an ipod.

Apple can't have it both ways. If they intend to use the ipod to drive sales of the itunes music store, then yes, drm it all you want and make sure that the only legally bought music that will run on an ipod is itunes music store bought stuff.

However. That's not what apple has been saying. They've been saying that they're using the itunes music store to drive ipod sales. Now, I get why in that case they wouldn't want other hardware players to be able to play the DRM'd itms files. But what is completely asinine is locking out users from choice of who they buy their songs with to put on their ipod.

As an ipod owner, I am pretty pissed about this, even if I had no intention of buying anything in the real store. It's just bad business. It's what microsoft would do. Heck, not even microsoft has sunk this low, since at least with the WMA platform you have a range of music stores to choose from. This decision to lock out real is as incompatible with the apple image as possible.

But then, I realise that apple has always screwed over their customers. It's why they're not bigger than they are.

Re:Thoughts

[rf600r]

May I remind you that thousands of people paid hundreds of dollars each for their iPods, with the expectation that they would be able to play the music that they legally bought and paid for on it?

I didn't buy it expecting to play Real's DRM-schemed files on it; not at all. Nobody did. I play MP3s on mine, as do most other happy iPod owners. Even *you're* not that dumb. (Are you?)

...iPods being an "Apple-approved-music-only" device.

OK, now we know you have to be trolling (or, then again, it's possible you *are* that dumb.) Read the literature. Heck, scroll up. iPods play MP3 files, too. It's not bolted down to only play Apple's protected AACs. You're wrong.

Re:Thoughts

[slashdot.org]

Apple is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong.

If anything, it _does_ show Apple's true color. Which is that they are just as any other big corporation and will resort to crippling one product to increase the sales of another product, and/or lock out a competitor. (don't be fooled, they deliberately removed the functionality, being perfectly aware of it)

So long as they are not a monopoly that's probably legal.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong.

well, they are using total market dominance muscles in this market to secure and promote a closed proprietary format (FairPlay) to further strengthen their market dominance - now where did I hear about that before here on Slashdot?

Apple can do whatever it wishes with its own products, and consumers may decide whether or not they would like to purchase them.

exactly, but does that only apply to Apple?

Re:Thoughts

[oobob]

This is the 2nd time that I'm aware of Apple using a Firmware fix to keep competition down. The first happened when the G4s had just been released. It so happened that they had released a firmware update for the G3 a few weeks prior and, without telling anyone who used the firmware update, snuck in a patch to block G4 upgrades. It was only a couple weeks before the chip upgrade companies had broken the protection, but I was still pissed about paying hundreds of dollars more for an equivalent speed machine out of brand loyalty and them screwing me all the same.

People on slashdot conviently forget everything that Apple does that doesn't fit inside their small, incredibly inconsistent world view. I want people to take this story, mentally replace all occurances of Apple to MS, then tell me if this is even remotely consistent with slashdot posts. There are comments rated 5 saying that Apple has the right to do this. Hey guys and moderaters giving these posts points: where were you in the discussions about the dangers of a proprietary .doc format? Did anyone else find it funny that no one talks about MSs "right" to bust cross-program functionality with .doc files? Note that word does work well with standard text, RTF, and HTML formats that are in wide use. That's the same thing as the ipod playing mp3s, right?

The truth is that if MS did this with Word to mess up Staroffice, you'd all be up in arms for weeks complaining. And I wouldn't blame you at all - it would be a stupid, petty move from a company that is abusing its captive market. But when it comes from Apple, the wonderful word right appears, and you've saved yourselves from cognitive dissonance (as if having a right to do something made it desirable in any way, or somehow an acceptable path of action). Sure they can do this: are they assholes for doing so? Would you feel the same if another company did this? Apple has a history of acting like a business, which it is. Don't trick yourself into thinking that they're on your side against the big, bad, proprietary, stupid, plain, and evil PC orthodoxy. They're there to sell you computers.

I'd kill to see more posts where products were graded on one critera only: functionality as a computer. If you'd ask the people here, you'd think Windows 2000 or XP still crashed frequently (my brother and I leave our cpus on for months) and was prone to driver and software conflicts with nearly everything. Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux are all tools. Do you use a hammer when you need a screwdriver? No. Do you screws all the time, cursing those nails which are so damned hard to remove? No. You use them when you need them and the price is acceptable for the use. Computers are no different. Let's stop treating these products like absolutes and get more of those shades of grey back that are required for rational discussion.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

And you buy Microsoft Windows knowing that Lotus won't run...

Re:Thoughts

[Rew190]

Mod parent up. I'm a pretty big Apple fan, and I hate Real, but as everyone likes to point out, noone uses Real anyhow and locking them out of the iPod is only taking *away* an option. It's not really good for any consumers, really. As much as I think Real is a joke and deserve to die as a company, it was still sort of cool that if I wanted to, I had the ability to play their DRM'd files. Now I don't.

Re:Thoughts

[diamondsw]

Apple only ever sold the iPod as working with the iTunes Music Store. As more level-headed folks have pointed out, it would be a support nightmare for Apple to try to support Real's stuff.

How are you or I to know whether or not this latest firmware update did something actively malicious towards Real, or something accidentally broke? It's not like they are testing against Harmony songs - they don't support it.

Also, if Apple were out to get Real, wouln't earlier firmware updates (there's been at least one) since Harmony have killed it already?

Re:Thoughts

[JudgeFurious]

Apple was completely forthcoming regarding what songs would play on the iPod. The list of supported formats is easy enough to find. I am curious as to why you believe that Apple is supposed to support any type of file you can manage to shoe horn into an iPod?

People buying songs from Real and planning to play them on their iPod are thus fucking morons, and you I believe are simply looking for something post about that gives you the opportunity to use the word "fanboy" repeatedly. Get over your Apple-hate man and go get yourself some iTunes!

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not bolted down to only play Apple's protected AACs

No, but from a music store perspective it's bolted down to support only music bought from Apples store. Because Apple refuse to license FairPlay to others, and tie a tight closed loop between player and store using their market dominance.

The scary thing is seeing people on Slashdot actually defending a closed proprietary lock-out market dominance system like this, just because it is "cool" Apple that are doing it.

Re:Thoughts

[dmaxwell]

CDs were not deliberately engineered to be incompatible with vinyl. Apple went out of their way to break something. I call bullshit on your analogy.

Re:Thoughts

[liquidsin]

"thousands of people paid hundreds of dollars each for their iPods, with the expectation that they would be able to play the music that they legally bought and paid for on it"

Yeah, and they can. But may *I* remind *you* that Apple never ONCE claimed that you could play your legally purchased music with non-Apple DRM on the ipod. If you want to bitch at anyone here, bitch at Real. They could have sold naked mp3 or aac which would have played just fine on the ipod. They CHOSE to try to find a work around so that they could use DRM on the ipod, and they knew damn well that it could backfire. If I were a customer of Real's music store, I'd be pissed at them right now since they're selling music that they claim works on the ipod, and they have no right to do that if they're using hacks and workarounds that aren't officially supported by the hardware vendor.

Re:Thoughts

[Catbeller]

"Number two, Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE else's DRM, period."

I've no horse in this race, since I don't "own" (license) DRM'ed music, but I'd have to say that although Apple doesn't have to support anyone else's DRM format, that doesn't mean that they can stealthily change my hardware's capabilities to preclude my option to do so. I bought the iPod; I did not give permission for anyone to change the software.

I realize my "license agreement" may "give" them permission. I do not agree with it.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

"May I remind you that thousands of people paid hundreds of dollars each for their iPods, with the expectation that they would be able to play the music that they legally bought and paid for on it?"

If these people expected to play music on their iPods, then whey the hell did they go and purchase DRM-encumbered files from Real? That's like me buying a car and complaining because the square tires I bought for it don't fit. These people got shafted by Real, not by Apple.

The fact, plain and simple, is that the iPod supports the most popular music format in the world, MP3. If Real doesn't want to sell MP3 files, it ain't Apple's fault.

Re:Thoughts

[Rude Turnip]

"Apple only ever sold the iPod as working with the iTunes Music Store."

Wrong. The iPod came out a year before the music store and has always supported MP3. Anyone can use iTunes to rip their own CDs to either MP3 or AAC and never set foot in the store. iTunes even offers an option to hide the music store button from the screen.

Re:Thoughts

[justforaday]

These people got shafted by Real, not by Apple.

But if you remember, they got shafted at half price!

Re:Thoughts

[MrUnknown]

mod parent up for the love of god!

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, everyone here takes things so literally. Obviously the guy meant that Apple never advertised the ipod as working with any music store other than it's own. We don't need you to point out what we already know (it plays unprotected files), so go bother someone else.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

I second that. Bullshit.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

when their beloved company turns around and does something anti-competitive and monopolistic

Anti-competitive? Sure. Monopolistic? No way.

they're suddenly "doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong."

I agree that's a clueless thing to say. They are deliberately removing a feature to harm a competitor.

May I remind you that thousands of people paid hundreds of dollars each for their iPods, with the expectation that they would be able to play the music that they legally bought and paid for on it?

How many of those wouldn't have bought it if they had known that music they bought from Real wouldn't play on it? Not many, I think.

Re:Thoughts

[cmoss]

"Number two, Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE else's DRM, period."

Just like Ford was under no obligation to support someone else's repair shop to keep a car under warranty. That is until Congress realized that the consumers were getting gouged for service at the dealerships.

"Apple is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong."

Legally maybe not, ethically debatable.
You could make the case that it is unethical for a business to try to increase profits by forcing their customers to go back to them rather than provide a service/product that stands on its own merits as a value that consumers are willing to pay for.

They were not "supporting" someone else's DRM.
They were not required to do anything else to support users playing Real songs. They probably went out of their way to engineer a a software release that broke a function of the player that was already purchased.(documented/supported or not).

Now their loyal customers are forced into a choice between getting other firmware updates and losing access to their archive of Real Music.

Re:Thoughts

[abertoll]

I would say it's unethical if Apple didn't issue a warning to you before you installed the firmware.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up for the love of god!

I agree!! What the hell have happened here, with lots of Slashdotters supporting closed format (FairPlay) lock-in and strong-arming from the totally dominant player in this field.

Re:Thoughts

[Ibanez]

So what you're saying is that most people who bought the iPod expected it to play EVERYTHING? NEVER has Apple made a claim saying it would play all the music available, purchases legally or not. All I'm sure they guarantee is it will play music from the iTunes music store, and a few other standard format.

In other words, and dumbass who bought an iPod expecting it to play music downloaded from Harmony deserves to be screwed. This has NOTHING to do with being a fanboy.

Blake

Re:Thoughts

[rthille]

Number two, Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE else's DRM, period.

This made me think that Apple should have updated the iPod to ignore the DRM, not fail to play. That way the labels would refuse to sell music to Real, since they wouldn't be protected. Probably not a good idea, since the labels (RIAA) would be pissed at Apple as well as Real, but a nice idea :-)

Re:Thoughts

[fgodfrey]

Actually, you have no clue whether Apple went out of their way to break this or not. While it's quite likely that they did, it's equally plausible that they fixed a bug or added a feature that caused the breakage. We also don't know how, exactly, Real was fooling the iPod. What if they were exploiting a buffer overflow and Apple fixed it?

Besides, the longer Apple allows Real's stuff to work, the harder it will be for them to break it if there is a valid technical reason to do so in the future.

Re:Thoughts

[Ibanez]

Microsoft is a monopoly. Apple is not. I think that changes things a bit.

Re:Thoughts

[rjung2k]

CDs were not deliberately engineered to be incompatible with vinyl.

I don't see any CD players with a phonograph needle on it, do you?

Re:Thoughts

[Issue9mm]

One would assume they still can play those MP3s, once they get them out of Harmony's DRM protection.

-9mm-

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

All thats different is that your an Apple fanboy.

Re:Thoughts

[Herr_Nightingale]

Apple is under no obligation to "allow it to continue," as you say, but they didn't have to go out of their way to prevent Harmony music from playing. The fact is that Apple deliberately took extra effort to ensure that interoperability with a competing product, a la Microsoft vs. DR-DOS, would NOT continue.

My take: Apple's little vendetta with Real Networks only affects those suckers who pay for crippled music, so it seems totally fair to me. If it affected ripped music, we would have a genuine problem. You may go about your business now.

Re:Thoughts

[fgodfrey]

I see nothing wrong with this either, unless, in your analogy, OO was using a documented API that Microsoft changed. If you're using a hack to an undocumented API, and then selling that to customers as a supported product, well, you deserve what you get.

Microsoft, as a legally defined monopoly, may have fewer rights in this area than companies that don't meet the legal definition of monopoly, but I see nothing fundamentally wrong with making changes to an undocumented API that break someone's cute hack whether the hack is opensource or from a company like Real.

Re:Thoughts

[XMyth]

Haha....I wish I had mod points!

Re:Thoughts

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Well, assuming MS has a 70% share of Operating systems, a 12% share of word processors, and 70% share of selling DRM files in Word format (with a legal way to remove that DRM) I don't see any problem with MS doing that at all. Unfortunately for the computing industry, that is not the case. And since they are a monopoly, and have been convicted of illegally abusing that monopoly to take over other industries, I'd say the comparison does not hold up very well.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Not working with any other music store? What the fuck is Tower Records? Amazon.com? Best Buy? Music purchased at those stores seems to work just fine on my iPod.

Idiot.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

And may I also remind you that Apple gave its iPod buyers no reason, either explicitly or implicitly, to believe that files from any other online music store could be played on the iPod? The only time they made an association with the iPod and any music store was with their own music store. There was never any bait-and-switch like you imply here---they were angry when Real came up with their workaround. Apple was open and vocal about their opposition to what Real did from the very beginning, and even let their customers know they couldn't depend on the Real store. There was no dishonesty by Apple. It was *Real* that led people to believe that music from their store could be reliably played on the iPod, not Apple.

Re:Thoughts

[mrchaotica]

[In that case,] Microsoft is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong.

Yep, I agree (despite my .sig). Moreover, even if Microsoft (i.e. Apple) had a monopoly, they would still be right, because OpenOffice.org (i.e., Real) would still be welcome to use non-DRM files.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

And you've just proven you have absolutely no idea how DRM works. Congratulations, idoit.

Re: Thoughts

[gidds]

Maybe there are Apple fanboys (I refuse to misspell it) who think that way. But please don't think all Apple supporters do.

I like a lot of what Apple does (I have a G4 and an iPod); they make really cool software and hardware that too many people dismiss out of ignorance. They often don't get a fair chance, and so the underdog mentality often crops up.

But I for one think (and have said before) that this time they've gone too far. It's one thing to avoid providing special support for a particular format or service; it's quite another to introduce changes specifically to prevent interoperability. I suspect that this time, their actions may land them in court -- and rightfully so.

This doesn't stop me liking some of the other things they do, of course. Apple is a corporate entity, not a person, and I'm quite capable of considering their various actions separately, without resorting to a facile 'goodie' or 'baddie' label.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you don't see Microsoft having any trouble supporting other people's music stores. Multiple online stores selling music, multiple manufacturers making players - and they all work with each other. Do you see microsoft reverse engineering the WMA codecs to break stores other than MSN Music?

Of course the Apple fanboys will continue to ignore the fact that Microsoft has done the right thing here and Apple is the real 'closed market' vendor.

Not that I'm saying that what Apple is doing is illegal - just that Microsoft's approach is far more open and allows many players to complete on level ground.

Re:Thoughts

[Ahnteis]

Have you looked at the portable music market lately?

Just because Apple will never be dominate in the OS/hardware market doesn't mean they won't try elsewhere.

Re:Thoughts

[jht]

Apple will happily let you play any and all AAC and MP3 files that you obtain through any source at all - provided they don't include DRM.

If you want to play files with DRM, you get Apple. If other vendors want to play their files on iPods, just provide them without DRM, and they'll work fine. Problem solved.

What? Real wanted to have their cake and eat it, too? Apple broke it. Wah.

The day Apple makes it so that you can only play AAC files bought from the iTMS or that were ripped from iTunes is the day I get upset.

Until then, I'll keep rocking out to all the stuff I put on my iPod!

Re:Thoughts

[drew]

also, if they really wanted to provide drm'd files that were guaranteed to be compatible with the ipod, they could have licensed playfair from apple. if their "comprehensive plan" to deal with this is anything other than releasing a tool for free that will strip the harmony drm of the purchased files, than real deserves to lose every customer they have ever had.

Re:Thoughts

[DAldredge]

Please site a legal case that proved MSFT was a monopoly in relation to Office Software.

It has been a while since I read my copy of the Findings in the MSFT AT case but I think they where only found to be a monopoly in regards to operating systems.

Re:Thoughts

[dourk]

Mod parent up!

I can buy Madden 2004 for PC, Xbox, Gamecube, PS1, and PS2.

I can buy music in .wma, .aac, steal an mp3, or buy a CD. If you limit yourself to an ipod (as I have), then you limit your choices. And you did it all by yourself.

I've got an old 10gig, it's about 3/4 full. It's all legal music. None has DRM. I've never bought music online, except for CDnow.

Re: Thoughts

[Theaetetus]

But I for one think (and have said before) that this time they've gone too far. It's one thing to avoid providing special support for a particular format or service; it's quite another to introduce changes specifically to prevent interoperability. I suspect that this time, their actions may land them in court -- and rightfully so. On what grounds? They never supported Real's DRM - which was designed after the hardware, and with no cooperation from Apple. The one you should be angry at here is Real, who, by their own design, are not allowing you to format-shift music you purchase from them. Anything you buy from the iTMS, you can burn to CD and/or transfer to any other hardware device, including stripping off the DRM and turning it into a WAV, MP3, RM, etc. Real are the ones who don't allow you to do that.

Re:Thoughts

[Theaetetus]

Real is a joke and deserve to die as a company, it was still sort of cool that if I wanted to, I had the ability to play their DRM'd files. Now I don't.

And whose fault is that? Say you had an RCA Lyra player, and you bought tracks from the iTMS in protected-AAC format. Apple provides the ability to convert those songs into a format that the Lyra can play. RCA doesn't have to provide that ability for you, it's Apple who sold the tracks, and Apple who's under the obligation to make it work for you... and they do.

Now, who is under the obligation to let you play tracks from Real on any player? Including your car CD player? Hint: it's not Apple, nor is it Kenwood.

disclaimer: not a true obligation, since Real never promises that you can play your purchased tracks anywhere. In fact, they're selling you something that they know you can't play anywhere since they don't let you burn the tracks as Redbook CDs, or convert them to any other format. See here for all of the devices "not supported by Real".

Re:Thoughts

[drew]

This basically is a lock-in tactic tieing you to the itms if you have an ipod.

really? i don't actually have an ipod to verify this, but i suspect it allows you to play mp3's or aac's that you ripped yourself, or purchased legally online from emusic.com or other places that allow you to download non-protected file formats.

or downloaded from kazaa/gnutella/etc. for those so inclined...

Re:Thoughts

[drew]

did you download and install the firmware update? if so, then not only did you give them permission to change the software, you openly invited them to.

if not, then what are you bitching about?

Re: Thoughts

[gidds]

On what grounds?

Unfair and anti-competitive business practices. (We can argue about whether Apple qualifies as a monopoly in any of the relevant markets, but AIUI it's a crime to try to gain a monopoly unfairly, just as it is to maintain or spread one.)

The one you should be angry at here is Real, who, by their own design, are not allowing you to format-shift music you purchase from them. Anything you buy from the iTMS, you can burn to CD and/or transfer to any other hardware device, including stripping off the DRM and turning it into a WAV, MP3, RM, etc. Real are the ones who don't allow you to do that.

Erm... once Real's music is in FairPlay-wrapped AAC format, ideally you'd be able to do anything with it that you can do with other FairPlay-wrapped AAC, including burning to CD &c? Real themselves shouldn't need to give you specific tools to do that.

Oh, and while I'm ranting on the subject, it annoys me to see other posters talk about Real 'hacking' Apple's DRM, as I think that's misrepresenting them. Do we talk of the folks at AbiWord and OpenOffice 'hacking' M$'s Word format? No. They reverse-engineer it quite legitimately, for the purposes of interoperability. And that's precisely what Real have done. They haven't stopped Apple's DRM working in the slightest; all they've done is to work out how to produce other files in the same (DRMed) format.

Re:Thoughts

[SpecBear]

And I'm sure there'd be plenty of screaming, if Apple were a monopoly, and if it were actually preventing other vendors' music from playing on the iPod. I've got 1100 songs on my iPod, and I've never bought track from iTunes.

There are plenty of music players on the market, and plenty of options for buying music. Real could have every single one of its songs working on every iPod in the planet very easily if they simply dumped their DRM scheme. Problem solved. But they're trying to hack a competitor's proprietary system so that they can get their own proprietary system to work with it. That's bound to fail. Systems change, software gets updated, and eventual incompatibilities are almost guaranteed.

I own an iPod. And it's still just as functional as it was the day I got it. Near as I can tell, Apple is no closer to having an "Apple-approved-music-only" device than it was when it launched the iPod.

Re:Thoughts

[ForestGrump]

I do see Laser Disc players with lasers. I thought the laser was to read the phonograph without damaging it.

LD and vinyl are about the same size.

Grump

Yes, I'm playing dumb.

Re:Thoughts

[salesgeek]

Apple is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong.

If you consider taking away a feature post sale to be ethical, then you are right. To a consumer having an alternative to itunes is actually a feature. To apple it's competition and sucks.

Apple can do whatever it wishes with its own products, and consumers may decide whether or not they would like to purchase them.

Once I buy it, it ceases to belong to Apple. A firmware update that eliminates functionality is not an upgrade.

Re:Thoughts

[Rude Turnip]

There is no DRM on MP3 or AAC files that you rip from your own CDs.

Re:Thoughts

[Lazlo Nibble]

I agree, but the obligatory Slashdot Bizarro twist... what if this was about Microsoft Word locking out OO.org with respect to "protected .doc" files. ...

A more realistic analogy would have OO.org creating a way to falsify digital signatures used by a theoretical MS-owned .doc file authentication system, and then charging people for documents "secured" using these false signatures.

I don't think either of the two companies in the Apple/Real AAC dispute is doing anything legally or technically wrong but that doesn't make Real any less slimy. They're profiting from the exploitation of something they didn't create, don't own and haven't been granted permission to use. If Apple had released a GPL'd implementation of their AAC+DRM encoding system and Real was making money selling a closed-source application that incorporated that code, it's clear that many of the people supporting Real in this argument would be firmly on the other side. I don't see a substantive difference from an IP perspective between that theoretical case and the one at issue between Apple and Real today -- using someone's work without their permission is either okay or it isn't. If it isn't, then Real are out of line.

Re:Thoughts

[LWATCDR]

Apple does make you use there store if you want to buy music online. The simply broke Real Audio's hack so you can not buy music from them. Fine you like Apple and your IPod. Your statement that Apple is behaving ethically and morally is just an opinion. My opinion is that it is not ethical or moral. It is best amoral. The difference is that I am wise enough to know what is opinion and what is fact. I am also wise enough to not have to result to name calling with those a disagree with.

Re: Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

So does this mean that Microsoft has to support the 'reverse engineered' Word files that were generated from AbiWord or OpenOffice if they were correcting a formatting bug (let us pretend that MS didn't do this intentionally, and I'm not saying Apple did or didn't either)? AbiWord or OpenOffice would have to fix it on their side too. I'm just giving you a counter example.

Re: Thoughts

[gidds]

No. But it means that they can't do anything specifically intended to break compatibility with AbiWord-generated files. (Like they've been proved to have done in umpteen cases from DR-DOS onwards...)

In fact, I might go so far as to say that if AbiWord (or whoever) have done their reverse engineering properly, then M$ would have no way of breaking compatibility with them without also breaking compatibility with existing Word-generated files too.

(Though that particular argument doesn't necessarily stretch to DRM, which needs keys and things...)

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical Apple fanboy rationalizing and signifying.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

If you love Apple so much, then why don't you marry them?

Re:Thoughts

[naden]

Your just being disingenous.

How many word processors are out there .. seriously ? Microsoft Word, Open Office umm .. im stretching here.

How many music players are there .. MiniDiscs, CD players etc

How many digital music players are there .. iPods, Creative, Samsung, Dell .. and the million flash ones.

Yeh REAL good comparison. Idiot.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong."

You were okay up until that "morally" part.

Apple is defending a business, but this is not in the best interests of you, or me, or any of their customers.

Stop pretending it is.

Re:Thoughts

[_|()|\|]

I think Apple stands to gain by allowing anyone to licence Fairplay

Fairplay depends largely on security through obscurity, so its algorithm changes from time to time with an iTunes or firmware release. Licensees would hamper its flexibility in this regard.

Re:Thoughts

[andy55]

Mod parent up!! You've hit it on the head.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft Word, Works Word Processor, Open Office, Word Perfect, Jarte, Abiword, Notepad, Wordpad, gedit, KEdit, emacs, and with tons more here.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

wah wah wah. so sad for you.

Real sucks. Apple rocks. Mod me up. :p

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you count them saying "We don't support this and future firmware updates will probably break it," back when this first made the news, Apple didn't issue a warning-- because they did not need to.

The Real hack is not and was never supported/endorsed by Apple. Therefore, there should absolutely be no question that they will be unconcerned about the effects of future iPod firmware upgrades upon it.

If Real wants to keep up a cat and mouse game of fixing Harmony until the next firmware upgrade breaks it again, they are welcome to it. For all their braying about wanting everyone to be able to choose what they want, Real does not support my OS of choice-- so as far as I'm concerned, the hypocritical bastards can go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

Re:Thoughts

[juiceCake]

"If you don't like it, don't buy it."

And that's the message Apple is sending by doing this. Look what we'll do, by an iRiver instead...

Re:Thoughts

[Nice2Cats]

I agree, but the obligatory Slashdot Bizarro twist... what if this was about Microsoft Word locking out OO.org with respect to "protected .doc" files. ...

Again: Microsoft is a monopoly. This has been established by courts. Though it is not illegal to have a monopoly in the U.S., there are certain rules that apply. Apple does not have a monopoly. Therefore, these certain rules do not apply.

Once a court rules that Apple has a monopoly -- the way the other players suck, that might not be too far off -- I'll agree with you. Until then ...

Re:Thoughts

[hunterx11]

RealNetworks knew that Apple would probably try to do this; did they warn their customers that their music files might not always work on the iPod? I don't know. Did Apple ever claim that Real's files would work on the iPod? No.

This is no more monopolistic than Sony players that only play ATRAC files. Sure, it's shitty, but they're honest about it.

Re:Thoughts

[ManxStef]

... about Real reverse engineering FairPlay (more power to them)

I feel compelled to correct that: as was probably pointed out in the previous Slashdot coverage, it wasn't Real who do did the difficult reverse-engineering, it was "dvd Jon" Lech Johansen (for the open-source media player VLC -- I assume so that he could listen to iTunes-purchased music on his Linux PC, kinda like DeCSS). From a post his blog:

Interview with Rob Glaser over at news.com:

Q: Has the Harmony project met your expectations?
A: No, it has blown them away. We took the decision at the beginning of the year to implement Harmony. It really went back to some things we were working on before, where we've had good experience with creating technology with interoperability in the past.

What a coincidence :-)

Re:Thoughts

[Rew190]

And whose fault is that?

Apple's, for disabling it. It's obviously Real's fault that they suck, if that's what you were asking about.

Now, who is under the obligation to let you play tracks from Real on any player?

No, you're missing the point. It's not that it's real's "responsibility" or whatever you were getting at, the fact is that Apple went out of their way to disable Real's format from being played on their player. That's it. iPod users are now down a "feature." Again, I think Real sucks and I hope they go out of business, but I won't applaud Apple for disabling Real's work at getting their format to be playable on the most popular MP3 player out there. The principle of it sucks.

Re: Thoughts

[MedHead]

Why would Microsoft have to support a competitor's product that works on Microsoft technology? They don't do that now with products that work on Windows, so why would they have to for Word?

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that text editors are the same thing as word processors, you aren't qualified to comment.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked Apple sold 80% or so of the MP3 players...

So it looks to me like it's a real good comparison...

Re:Thoughts

[Bullet-Dodger]

You know, your argument would make a lot more sense if you made it the other way around. That is, the iPod doesn't make you use the store, but the store does make you use the iPod (Assuming you want to use your music on a portable player, and disregarding Hymn.).

Re:Thoughts

[haledon]

Forget any comparisons between Apple and COMPANY X. Forget whether you agree or disagree. There is one simple reason that Apple did this. They HAD to do this. It took Apple (Steve Jobs)... well, I don't know what it took, but it took Steve Jobs to convince the record companies that he could create DRM that would protect their IP. Hence the Apple DRM mechanism. Allowing Real to do what they did would compromise Apple's DRM.

If Apple sat on its butt, it would only have been a matter of time before good ole Mr. Jobs received several irate phone calls asking why his DRM wasn't doing what he promised it would do. Burn one bridge, burn them all, bingo bango, the major lables are scared back into the stone age, and we loose the tiny fruits that are just starting to grow out of the online legal download industry.

This isn't about Apple or Real. This is about maintaining a contractual obligation necessary for the survival of a very important and infantile industry.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh huh. What if you had a Windows driver for, say, your network card in your laptop. Now, you update the driver via Windows update. The update flashes the card's firmware, changing the specs, thus preventing your Linux reversed-engineered driver from functioning.

Has the Windows driver author done something wrong? After all, your laptop never claimed to be Linux compatible. In fact, they probably just flashed the firmware to improve the network card's features! It's not because the card's company was bought out by Microsoft, who wants to eliminate Linux.

Now, tell me how my scenario is any different from Apple locking out Real's reverse engineered "driver".

Re:Thoughts

[Seraphim1982]

So anyone who says they have used Emacs, Vi, TeX, LyX, Edit, Word Perfect or any other word processing software must be not be telling the truth because Microsoft aparently gained a monopoly in the word processor market when I wasn't paying attention.

Re:Thoughts

[DeadScreenSky]

Apple's DRM wasn't broken in this. This is Apple preventing another company's DRM from working (who also has a license with the record companies). If the iPod being able to play MP3s doesn't break Apple's contract, why would being able to play Real's music on it?

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

CDs were not deliberately engineered to be incompatible with vinyl, it just worked out that way.

Re:Thoughts

[Xenna]

Thank you for your great post. I have nothing against Apple in general but I do have a big problem with all those people that suddenly lose all their critical faculties whenever Apple is mentioned.

And god knows there are many of them polluting this site...

Re:Thoughts

[kf6auf]

Microsoft is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong....

Without the elipses it's:
Microsoft is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong yet in this specific case.

If you would like any evidence just look at the history of IE v. Netscape, WordPerfect v. Word, Windows v. OS/2, and MS-DOS (or should I say QDOS) v. the other OSes of the time.

Re:Thoughts

[Pecisk]

When you are a monopoly, it is WRONG - legally, ethically and morally.

Apple is NOT monopoly, not close to call them in that way. Microsoft is. And use it's monopoly power ILLEGALY.

That's the whole difference...

Re:Thoughts

[Rakarra]

but then, when their beloved company turns around and does something anti-competitive and monopolistic, they're suddenly "doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong."

This is what comes from identifying personally with a for-profit corporation, for treating it as more than a vendor but also a moral entity. Too many Apple faithful feel that the actions of Apple are naturally moral. The company and its products are so trendy that the success of Apple and the failure of other companies that threatens Apple becomes a moral imperative. The cult of personality has it positives and its negatives.

Re:Thoughts

[alset_tech]

This is ONLY about OO.org reverse engineering the Microsoft DRM (more power to them) in order to allow their ".doc" DRM-protected files to work with Microsoft Office.

I buy tracks from iTMS, and the licensing doesn't get in my way. I don't pay for individual Word documents. I pay for a program to create those docs. I see a hole in your analogy.

Re:Thoughts

[CountBrass]

No-one is forcing you to upgrade the firmware on your iPod. Dim wit.

Re:Thoughts

[CountBrass]

Hahaha oh how that made me laugh.

No-one whose ever owned (rather than just drooled over one, noticed they couldn't afford it the garbage collector's salary and decided they didn't like it after all), anyway, no-one who's actually owned one would ever switch to an iRiver. That would be like discarding your BMW and buying a Trabant.

Re:Thoughts

[Overzeetop]

On the contrary, they are not a monopoly. Monopolies are illegal. Microsoft has been reprimanded for some actions which are anti- competitive in a market in which they are a dominant force.

Monopolies are illegal (except baseball). Microsoft was intentinally left intact after investigations into their practices. Therefore, legally, Microsoft is not a monopoly.

Apple isn't a monopoly either. That doesn't make the GPs analogy - or the intentional change to the DRM by Apple - morally correct. Both, however, are commonplace in cutthroat business. Choose your side...consumers or corporations, then decide.

Re:Thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

"Note that word does work well with standard text, RTF, and HTML formats that are in wide use."

Funny, mp3's and DRM'ed mp3's sound exactly the same. Yet, docs and standard text look nothing alike. This is the equivalent of comparing a car to a bike.

In case you haven't figured it out, it is a very stupid comparison. u = dumb

Re: Thoughts

[Theaetetus]

Erm... once Real's music is in FairPlay-wrapped AAC format, ideally you'd be able to do anything with it that you can do with other FairPlay-wrapped AAC, including burning to CD &c? Real themselves shouldn't need to give you specific tools to do that.

Ah, but here's the difference - Real's music isn't in FairPlay wrapped AAC format. It's a Real DRM'd file, wrapped with Harmony in such a way that it appears to be a legitimate file to the iPod... But it's not FairPlay wrapped. Also, you can't burn Real DRM'd files to CDs - that's specifically not allowed through the DRM they have on it - and that's a function of Real, not a function of iTunes.

Do we talk of the folks at AbiWord and OpenOffice 'hacking' M$'s Word format? No. They reverse-engineer it quite legitimately, for the purposes of interoperability.

Ah, but do the people at AbiWord and OpenOffice create a file protection wrapper that can be read by MSOffice, but not used properly? And if they did, would it be MS' fault, or AbiWord's or OpenOffice's fault.

Here's another way of looking at it... Real has created a workaround to play DRM'd files on an iPod, but in a way that's a kludge. Even under the best circumstances, they don't work properly, since Apple designed the system to allow you to burn CDs and convert protected files to unprotected MP3s or AACs. Real has created a broken system from the start, and yet it's Apple's fault?

Re:Thoughts

[Theaetetus]

iPod users are now down a "feature."

What feature? The feature to do something that the system was never designed to do? Here's another example - on the 2nd gen iPods, there was a way of getting into the diagnostic menu, and once in there, there was a "recording test" mode that would let you record a 10 second file, using the left earpiece as a microphone (this was the source of the original speculation about being able to record to the iPod). This was obviously not a "feature", but more like an easter egg. When that was removed in later versions, did iPod users lose a feature? Nope. It was never a feature to start. This is the same situation - the iPod was designed to let you play MP3s, AACs, WAVs, AIFFs, and Fairplay-wrapped protected AACs. The workaround that Real made to let you play Harmony-wrapped MP3s is a kludge, not a feature. When you lost it, you lost a kludge, not a feature.

I won't applaud Apple for disabling Real's work at getting their format to be playable on the most popular MP3 player out there.

Have to change that to say "disabling Real's work at getting their protected format to work without having to remove the protection"... because, if Real allowed you to remove the Harmony wrapper and use the file you paid for as an MP3, you could play it just fine on the iPod. This isn't about removing a feature, this is about Real not wanting their files to be transferable to any device.

-T

Re: Thoughts

[gidds]

Real's music isn't in FairPlay wrapped AAC format. It's a Real DRM'd file, wrapped with Harmony in such a way that it appears to be a legitimate file to the iPod... But it's not FairPlay wrapped.

Ah. I see. That puts rather a different complexion on the matter, then!

Thanks for the info.

Re:Thoughts

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

On the contrary, they are not a monopoly. Monopolies are illegal.

You are misinformed. In the U.S. monopolies are not illegal. It is illegal to use a monopoly in an anticompetitive way, or to leverage a move into other markets. Microsoft was found to be a monopoly by the U.S. Courts, and they were found to be abusing that monopoly. (At which point a new administration was elected, to whose campaign MS had donated a huge sum of money.) MS was then reprimanded and given a slap on the wrist by the U.S. courts. The declaration by the courts that MS is a monopoly, however, has opened them up to a slew of lawsuits, which they are settling right and left for hefty sums of cash.

The basic difference here is that Apple is obeying the laws, and doing things some customers and competitors don't like. MS has taken the all-american way and is just breaking the laws and paying off politicians and greedy CEOs.

Re:Thoughts

[danigiri]

Yeah... BUT.

The iTunes Music Player and the iPod have the *full ability* to encode and play music from non-DRM'd audio files or CDs to fully-standards-based file formats (unprotected AAC or MP3).

In the case of MS Word it would be like having Word import and export to/from a .doc document to a fully-functional fully-documented fully-compatible XML file format. Not gonna happen in Redmond any time soon, to me this is a big difference.

Re:Thoughts

[Rew190]

What feature?

OK, I used that term loosely, hence why it was in quotes. I lost the ability to play Real files. Call it a hack or whatever you want, but it was kind of cool that if I wanted to, I could play Real files, and now I can't because Apple intervened even though it wasn't detrimental to the iPod. It's cut and dry.

because, if Real allowed you to remove the Harmony wrapper and use the file you paid for as an MP3, you could play it just fine on the iPod.

So then your solution is that Real should not have DRM or have some publically available utility to strip it?

Uhm, I don't buy it. If I could play the protected file on my iPod without any hassle on my end (in your theoretical case, having to convert the file from DRM to non-DRM) and at the same time Real didn't have to remove their DRM (which would sorta defeat the purpose of having DRM in the first place), who cares? Does it not make sense that Real would want to keep their DRM intact if they could? Is that not one of the major points of DRM? It was a good compromise if you owned an iPod and had Harmony files.

This isn't about removing a feature, this is about Real not wanting their files to be transferable to any device.

Clearly it isn't, otherwise they wouldn't go out of their way to make their files playable on the most popular player out there. Once again, I couldn't care less about having Real support on my iPod, but it sucks that Apple decided to lessen the support for what I can use my iPod for. That's it. It's not about Real's merit, it's about Apple taking away users' ability to do stuff on their iPods in general.

Re:Thoughts

[Rew190]

No, the whole point is that Apple went out of it's way to disable Real support. It's not that they should've had it in there in the first place. Your analogy would only hold true if some other company got their files to work on Sony players and THEN Sony went out of their way to disable support.

Re:Thoughts

[holt]

Funny you don't see Microsoft having any trouble supporting other people's music stores. Multiple online stores selling music, multiple manufacturers making players - and they all work with each other. Do you see microsoft reverse engineering the WMA codecs to break stores other than MSN Music?

It's my understanding that those other stores and players all license the technology (and thus, the DRM) from Microsoft. So they're paying Microsoft for the right to use the format, implying that their product will work on all of those players, and from any store. On the other hand, Apple told Real that they didn't want to let Real use their format. This means that Real had no right to do so, and especially if Apple wants to ever license the FairPlay DRM in the future, Apple has to protect their turf. Otherwise, why would anyone pay them to use it?

Re:Thoughts

[Have Blue]

You're misreading Apple's strategy. The store is not "used to drive the iPod"- it's a feature of the iPod. (The fact that it's accessed through a program on a computer the iPod is plugged into is secondary.) That's why Apple feels that having people buy through the ITMS and only the ITMS is such an important part of the iPod strategy. The closed experience is part of what they are selling.

Re:Thoughts

[Theaetetus]

[me:]"because, if Real allowed you to remove the Harmony wrapper and use the file you paid for as an MP3, you could play it just fine on the iPod."
So then your solution is that Real should not have DRM or have some publically available utility to strip it?

Yes... either that, or Real can license Apple's Fairplay technology. But if they don't want to pay for the tech, and they still want to include their own DRM, then they have to be willing to work within the constraints of the hardware - and the hardware only works with non-DRM'd files, or with Fairplay-DRM'd files. That's all it does now and all it ever did (or was supposed to - Harmony wrapped files were a workaround for Real), and there has been no loss of features.

Re: Thoughts

[Theaetetus]

Ah. I see. That puts rather a different complexion on the matter, then!
Thanks for the info.

Giving in to an argument? On Slashdot?!

You must be new here... ;)

-T

Re: Thoughts

[gidds]

Nope (check the ID!)

I just find it a useful tactic on odd occasions. It puts your opponent completely off his guard >:-)

Re:Thoughts

[Rew190]

Once again though, it's not about Real, it's about Apple going out of their way to shut out Real (and hence some users of the iPod).

Re:Thoughts

[SomeGuyTyping]

What I was refering to is that competing DRM makes users who are considering actual PURCHASE of music revert back to STEALING it because it's just easier.

Re:Thoughts

[Scudsucker]

I would say it's unethical if Apple didn't issue a warning to you before you installed the firmware.

Um, no. The only unethical behavior would be on the part of Real, if they told their customers that their files would work on a compeditors device, when that compeditor was very opposed to the idea. And if you knew better, its your own dumb fault as well.

Once again the user gets screwed.

[fredistheking]

So is Real going to refund the money that was spent on music that was "compatible" with the Ipod?

Re:Once again the user gets screwed.

[vandon]

Hell no they're not going to refund any money. It's not their fault you don't have anything to play it on any more. Besides, you can always install RealPlayer on your home computer.

Re:Once again the user gets screwed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah...anyone buying anything from Reel deserves to loose thier money.

Re:Once again the user gets screwed.

[lowrydr310]

I don't own an iPod and I don't use any digital format other than MP3, but from what I understand you can remove the DRM from the Real file then play that on your iPod. Or is it only currently possible to remove the DRM from Apple's proprietary format?

Do yourself a favor and avoid all online music stores. Download whatever you can find for free from bittorrent or Ares then go buy the CDs of anything you can't find.

My 'portable' music collection fits in a few cases and weighs several hundred pounds. It's all on vinyl!

Don't you just...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Apple Computer has quietly updated

Don't you just hate it when that happens?

They just reduced the functionality of a unit I already own. I want a refund now for the lost functionality.

And when the next 999,999 people join me, it will happen!

Re:Don't you just...

[nordicfrost]

They just reduced the functionality of a unit I already own. I want a refund now for the lost functionality.

No. The advertised functionality is still there. The third-rate hack from a third-party company is not supported, and it was never intended to be supported.

And when the next 999,999 people join me, it will happen!


If you can find even 20% that many actually using Harmony, I'll buy you a coke when you visit Thule AFB.

Re:Don't you just...

[daveschroeder]

They just reduced the functionality of a unit I already own. I want a refund now for the lost functionality.

Um, no, they didn't. First of all, read this. Second, the iPod doesn't support DRM content from anyplace other than Apple. Even if Apple intentionally disabled it, Real cannot predict legitimate changes that might be made to the product or the DRM technology that might break it. And guess what? Real's trickery reflects poorly on APPLE. If they're so concerned about getting their music on iPods, maybe they should be the champion of DRM-free music, eh? After all, non-DRMed music in numerous formats plays on the iPod just fine. Real's whole reverse-engineering house of cards was built on shaky ground to begin with. As for the issue of DRM in general, the iTunes Music Store and quite possibly some of the success of the iPod wouldn't exist today if Apple hadn't allowed for SOME DRM in their store. Apple made it as invisible as it could, and also, Apple's product win is the tight integration between iTunes, the iPod, etc. It's their right to treat their products as they see fit. And if this really concerns you that much, then yes, by all means, don't buy any more iPods.

Re:Don't you just...

[FooGoo]

Sorry, but you never paid Apple for that functionality in the first place.

Re:Don't you just...

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

They just reduced the functionality of a unit I already own. I want a refund now for the lost functionality.

Which advertised function do you base this claim on? Apple has never claimed that its iPod product would play RealMedia files.

Re:Don't you just...

[CdBee]

dude, you were using a hack which Apple said from the first day it was announced that they would do everything that they legally could to prevent from being used. They issued public warnings that they would not support Real music and that it was wasted money.

And you bought Real's music anyway. More fool you.

Re:Don't you just...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple never claimed that functionality. Who are you going to demand a refund from?

Re:Don't you just...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, put it this way: Identify one way that any iPod user benefits from Apple going out of its way to prevent a certain class of song files from playing.

For people who don't use those files, there is no benefit. For people who do use those files, there is no benefit and also a disadvantage.

How does this benefit iPod users?

Re:Don't you just...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you just...love mods who call this parent 'Offtopic.' If anything it should be a troll.

Re:Don't you just...

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

That is an entirely different proposition from the previous statement about demanding a refund.

I would like to see a logical explanation of why someone who either bought an iPod for the purpose of playing RealMedia files or bought RealMedia files for the purpose of playing them on an iPod decided to do so.

The advantage to the firmware is that it removes the temptations to violate your iTunes or iPod end-user license agreement. As the iPod runs software, it is subject to licensing terms. As iTunes music is licensed (not bought -- read carefully, young padawan) it is also subject to licensing terms. Using the hacked RealMedia files violates these licensing terms and could result in the revocation of the legal use of said licensed software and media.

Not that I particularly like or agree with all this licensing nonsense, but that is the way it is. If we want to fight the software licensing movement let's do that, not piddle around with "waaaaaahhhhhhh my iPod won't play my RealMedia files no more... waaaaaaahhhhhh!"

Re:Don't you just...

[Anonymous Coward]

but that hack did work and Apple prevented it on purpose. I guess you all forget about SP3 for W2K. When it was released the same time all references to Samba and authentication were removed from the MS support site. Guess what, Samba did not work with W2K SP3 anymore and there was no more documentation to reference a fix either, coincedence? No, it was way to stifle the competition with nothing good going to the user of the product, as this specific "fix" embedded into SP3 was for one thing only, to help MS. Regardless of the companies at hand, it is a questionable method of conducting business in that manner.

Re:Don't you just...

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a refund now for the lost functionality.

Worth about $0.01.

Re:Don't you just...

[Experiment 626]

They just reduced the functionality of a unit I already own. I want a refund now for the lost functionality.

Most of the replies to this post are along the lines of "Apple never said the iPod had that functionality, so you aren't losing anything." Now, the parent does a bit overboard with the claim that the lost functionality should entitle someone to a refund, but those who claim no functionality was lost are also off-base.

If the manufacturer of my laptop issued a bios update that stopped me from booting Linux, and then responded to complaints with "hey, we marketed it as a WinXP system, so that's all you can run on it." I would be irked by the lost functionality. Likewise if Intel found a way to force all the overclocked systems out there to run at their rated speed, people would feel that functionality had been lost.

Issuing updates that deliberately break compatibility with other people's software is a very Microsoft tactic. If capabilities that used to work, and should still work, get squashed in the process of some company's efforts to corner the market on a technology, you have every right to be irritated about the lost features, whether they were advertised ones or not.

Re:Don't you just...

[Altus]

not only that... allowing reel and users to continue to do this could have resulted in apple loosing its licensed rights to distribute music in the first place.

The record companies are not hot on the idea that there might be holes in the DRM....

Steve Jobs didnt put fairplay on the iPod because he is evil and maniacal... he did it because those were the conditions under which he could sell the music.

Re:Don't you just...

[MassacrE]

Yes, but there are no facts. Real did not document how they were wedging their DRM system into Apple's FairPlay enforcement, so it is very possible that this broke as a side effect.

If your notebook manufacturer issues a bios upgrade to add functionality which happens to break linux booting, you can cry all you want - but they never said it would be supported. Don't install the upgrade, or downgrade.

Re:Don't you just...

[IKnwThePiecesFt]

If Intel had said that overclocking wasn't supported and wouldn't work on the box of the chip, then they have every right to make it not work. If you use the bios update you expect them to give you, shouldn't they expect you to follow the rules they gave you? Apple said you cannot play Real Media on your ipod. If playing Real Media was the reason you paid for your iPod, you're an idiot.

Re:Don't you just...

[Anonymous Coward]

The advantage to the firmware is that it removes the temptations to violate your iTunes or iPod end-user license agreement.

It is a sad day when Slashdot users are making statements like this. Listen to what you are saying! Using technological means to force people to use their technology in a certain way is good because it removes the temptation to use that technology in a way the company that sold it does not approve of?

I suppose you approve of Palladium too, to remove the tempation to boot an un-approved OS (that means Linux, cheddartits) on the hardware that you bought?

Are you blinded by love for Apple, or have you sold out your belief in the right to tinker?

Re:Don't you just...

[Anonymous Coward]

Real's trickery reflects poorly on APPLE.

I'm not experienced with corporate paranoia. Can you explain this statement?

Re:Don't you just...

[Nebulaeus]

Apple may have the right to use their DRM technology... which is pretty liberal for the most part, but it is pretty crummy of them not to release a version of iTunes that will work with Linux, considering how they are installing themselves as the digital messiahs of the music industry. If you are going to have a party, why not invite everyone to the table?

Apple will get no respect from me until they are more inclusive to Linux users, especially with the fact that they are bearing much fruit from open source work (like KHTML)!

Real get what they deserve, but so does Apple, because I will never start buying music online until I can listen to it on my Linux desktop.

Re:Don't you just...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple made [the DRM] as invisible as it could

Okay, I'm an Apple fangirl and all, but this is simply no longer true and this article helps prove it. It was widely reported when the iTMS came out that Apple didn't want to have any DRM and they only put it in because the music companies required it. Now, even if that is true, Apple quickly became wedded to FairPlay. If they really wanted to make it "as invisible as they could", they would license it freely to any music store that wanted it and to any manufacturer of portable players that wanted it. So why don't they?

See, the iPod is a fragile monopoly. Any day now, someone could come up with a music player just as great as the iPod (or nearly as great and much cheaper) (in fact, I'm surprised it hasn't happened already; I guess that scrollwheel patent really screwed over the competition). Then, when people upgraded their portable music player there'd be no reason to stick with iPod. Enter the iTMS: if you have an iPod and you want (legal) downloadable music to work with it, you need to use the iTMS. And once a lot of people have a pretty good investment in such DRMed music, they're not going to want to buy another music player that won't play it. Hence they're stuck with the iPod.

People sometimes say that they are recapitulating the history of the PC wars and making the same mistake: using proprietary hardware wedded to proprietary software. But I think the hardware/software issue a red herring and really they have learned the lesson of Microsoft well. Certain software only works on Windows. So when people upgrade, they need to get another Windows box, because they have an investment in software that they'd need to replace if they changed to Linux or Mac OS.

Oh, and to those who say, "Pah. If Real wants their music to work with the iPod they should just get rid of all the DRM," I say, yeah right! If Real did that, they wouldn't have a music store.

Re:Don't you just...

[Anonymous Coward]

So the update was released a month ago and you "notice" this lost functionality when it's slashdotted?

Something tells me you don't have any real songs at all...

Matt

I am pro-reverse engineering.

[garcia]

RealNeworks said in a statement that it remains "fully committed to providing consumers with the freedom to use the music libraries they purchase from us on different portable audio devices they acquire, both now and in the future--including the iPod Photo."

I know the popular opinion here is typically pro-Apple/iTMS/iPod but honestly I just don't see why we can be pro-reverse engineering on everything else and not this.

I applaud Real for working to give their customers the most choice and I really don't approve of Apple *refusing* to support their customers the best way that they can.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[diamondsw]

Apple *is* supporting their customers. Apple is *not* supporting RealNetworks' customers, nor do they have any reason to.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[FEEBLE*BMX]

Didn't these "Real-Networks Customers" throw down $400 on an I-Pod?

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[athakur999]

If you have an iPod, you obviously own an Apple product, thereby making you a customer of Apple.

Apple's move isn't about helping their customers. It's about stifling competition from Real. Competition is good for customers and if Apple were really pro-customer they'd modify iTMS to address its disadvantages to Real's offering.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case people trying to play Real's songs on an iPod are Apple's customers. They bought their iPods from Apple.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. Produce plain MP3 files w/o any DRM and they will really give their customers choice on what is used to play it.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[CODiNE]

I know the popular opinion here is typically pro-Apple/iTMS/iPod but honestly I just don't see why we can be pro-reverse engineering on everything else and not this.

I don't see why people keep targeting Apple's DRM and not all the WMA stuff out there.

Crack Apple's DRM, you get to listen to the songs you already paid for in the program and OS of your choice.

Crack MS' DRM, you get to listen to any song you want for a small subscription fee.

Clear advantage in cracking a subscription based DRM. Why isn't it done?

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[Issue9mm]

Not necessarily. For all we know, they patched something completely unrelated, and moved a memory offset that Real's code depended on.

Certainly you wouldn't hold Apple responsible for the quality of Real's code would you? It's certainly not their fault if they recompile an executable and stuff doesn't work anymore.

It might not have deliberately broken a damn thing, other than shifted memory offsets, which will cause Real to have to disassemble the code and try to relocate.

Don't get me wrong, if Apple did it on purpose, then yeah, it's kind of shitty... but we have no way of knowing that they did.

-9mm-

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's so great about Real's offerings?

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[droleary]

I know the popular opinion here is typically pro-Apple/iTMS/iPod but honestly I just don't see why we can be pro-reverse engineering on everything else and not this.

Oh, I'm pro-RE. I'm guessing the bulk of Slashdot's readership is, too. The problem is that this "news" is essentially Real admitting they didn't do their job well enough. I mean, it's not like the update broke any songs iTMS sold, or any other non-DRM music on the iPod. Does anyone have evidence of Apple specifically engineering the update to break Real's hackery? I don't see any, despite the sensationalist headline of a fight and a lockout; all I see is that Real came up short of a full solution. Time for them to do a better RE job, or else refund the money they got out of people with their "we support the iPod" claim.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[badasscat]

I know the popular opinion here is typically pro-Apple/iTMS/iPod but honestly I just don't see why we can be pro-reverse engineering on everything else and not this.

Isn't it obvious?

Real and Apple are going back and forth on the best ways to screw their customers. Apple by forcing you to use their DRM, Real by refusing to give you songs that'll be guaranteed to play on any particular player. They're both wrong.

The only way I'd support Real in this case is if they were putting out unprotected files and Apple was disabling those. But they're not - they're putting out files that use a different, incompatible DRM scheme from Apple's and telling customers the iPod will play it. Well, now it won't. Tough for them. They could have avoided this if they'd just given consumers what they want in the first place.

Yes, I realize the reasons for DRM, I realize record labels won't sell music without it, blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, whatever. Does that mean I have to support Real? No. Apple? No. The RIAA? No. I don't support any of them; they are all trying to screw the customer with these unwiedly and incompatible DRM schemes.

The good news is the iPod will still play unprotected content. So ignore Real, ignore the iTunes Music Store and rip your own damn CD's - then you don't need to deal with any of this crap.

Fight the power!

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[HeghmoH]

This is not anti-reverse-engineering. That would be if Apple decided to start suing Real because they hacked their files to make them run on Apple's hardware. Instead, Apple applied a software patch to disable Real's reverse engineering, which is exactly the kind of solution one should appreciate.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[javaxman]

I know the popular opinion here is typically pro-Apple/iTMS/iPod but honestly I just don't see why we can be pro-reverse engineering on everything else and not this.

I don't think you're reading the general sentiment here correctly. We're pro-reverse engineering. Most folks are even OK with Real reverse-engineering Apple's FairPlay to get their own Real Rhapsody songs onto the iPod.

We aren't generally thrilled with Real's approach, though- we'd either like Real to basically sell non-DRM tunes ( which we understand they're not allowed to do ), or pull out all the stops to license Apple's tech from Apple so that it *is* supported. Sure it'd be hard for them, but they could do it- if they wanted to pay enough.

Mostly, folks here just think Real sucks for one reason or another, and that sort of dislike goes a long, long way.

If Real is going to support their ( and Apple's ) customers, they'd better get crackin' on the latest iPod firmware update. As far as Apple supporting Real's customers... another post covered that.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop replying to the fucking troll.

People like you contribute more to the lack of serious discussion here on SD than the trolls themselves you are responding to.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[catwh0re]

I think I'm speaking for several people when I say that we don't hold Reals tactics alongside the same as more useful reverse engineering projects, such as making office documents work more cleanly in openoffice.

This is because unlike Office, those interested in using the iPod, can also use a number of other available formats that don't happen to have DRM, such as wav/aiff/apple lossless/mp3 and probably non-drm AAC too.(Unlike Office where you do need the office format to enjoy a full feature set.)

Reals tactics undermine fairplay, a product that apple has licensed to use in it's iPod for DRM, it's not an Apple product and Apple are not allowed to open it to vendors, it's not theirs to give. Additionally the reason why many people are bidding on the side of Apple is because Apple already provides a higher quality service, which is more centric on pleasing customers than making Apple rich(at 99c per track the iTunes Music Store barely covers operating costs). Apple are considered to be earning an 'honest' living, selling a premium product in a market they revolutionised, then allowing users to inexpensively(and legally) enjoy their product with minimal effort and very low prices. (Which came about from a massive organisational cost to Apple to develop and serve the music stores.)

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[diamondsw]

Apple said the iPod specifically worked with songs bought from the iTunes Music Store. Would your dealer be obligated to support after-market parts on your car?

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[javaxman]

Stop replying to the fucking troll.

I suppose I should stop responding to the f-ing AC as well??

Besides, Mr. Bill Garcia there is currently rated +5 insightful, folks with mod points seem to be taking his point of view seriously. If he's trolling ( and I don't think he really is ), he's a lot better at it than you are... a significant number of folks ( who haven't been paying attention, mostly ) don't understand the anti-Real sentiment.

Me, I'll compare QuickTime for Windows and RealPlayer for OS X and decide based on that which company I'd rather support...

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[LilMikey]

Apple said the iPod specifically worked with songs bought from the iTunes Music Store. Would your dealer be obligated to support after-market parts on your car?

Wouldn't you be pissed if you had to go to the dealership to get your windshield washer fluid?

They're being protectionist dickheads with a $400 music player, no two ways around it. You can try to placate yourself any way you want but this behavior is exactly what slashdotters rail against every day.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple said the iPod specifically worked with songs bought from the iTunes Music Store. Would your dealer be obligated to support after-market parts on your car?

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[prockcore]

Don't get me wrong, if Apple did it on purpose, then yeah, it's kind of shitty... but we have no way of knowing that they did.

We don't? Apple came out in July and said flat out that future upgrades to the ipod firmware will break Real's stuff.

And what's this about moving a memory offset? Apple didn't break Real's tools, they made the ipod recognize the minor differences between fairplay encoded AACs created by Apple and fairplay encoded AACs created by Real.

We're talking about changing code that previously said "yes, I've checked this file and it is a valid fairplay encoded AAC" to saying "nope.. this isn't valid". You don't do that on accident.

We don't know what specifically the ipod is using to differentiate between the two, but I'm sure that someone will reverse engineer the firmware update and find that it looks specifically for "Real" in the AAC headers or something similar.

The ipod isn't done until Real wont run.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[ThousandStars]

We (or at least I, since I can't speak for everyone else) are in favor of reverse-engineering; but that doesn't mean Apple is obligated to support the reverse-engineering. If Real wants to reverse-reverse-reverse-reverse-engineer to get around whatever Apple just did, they're welcome to do so.

If Apple invoked a law to prevent reverse-engineering, that would be a different situation; if Apple were a monopoly, that would be a different situation; since Apple is neither, we can be a) pro-reverse-engineering while b)acknowledging Apple's right to do what they want.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[diamondsw]

So my dealer tells me to use premium gas. I decide to be a smart-ass and put in regular because the gas station tells me it will be fine, even though the manufacturer specifically recommends against it. After a while, it breaks.

Using Harmony was a hack. A hack that Apple said might break. It did, and now you're all whiny and pissy.

If Apple were so evil and sinister, why did they only update the firmware for the iPod mini and iPod photo? Maybe because they were adding features to those models, and this broke whatever skankiness Harmony relied upon? If they'd updated all of the iPods and it broke (with no new features on the others), then you and your fellow conspiracy theorists might have a leg to stand on.

You're beig a whiny dickhead with too much money and too little sense. You can try to placate yourself with righteous indignation, but you sure don't look any smarter. This is exactly what slashdotters do every day.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[justforaday]

The ipod isn't done until Real wont run.

Well, shit! In that case the iPod was done long before it was ever released...

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a shocking work-around that Real didn't consider.

The iPod supports MP3 - and therefore, ANYONE can sell music and have it be iPod-compatible!

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is refusing to support Real's customers.

Real can reverse engineer to their heart's content. Even those who said they side with Apple didn't say that Real couldn't or shouldn't. That's not the problem. The problem is when they charge people for something on the idea that their reverse engineering is reliable. If their product fails, that's Real's fault, and they are once again free to reverse engineer to their heart's content.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[mrchaotica]

That's a good question, but I've got a guess:

If MS' DRM was cracked, people couldn't talk about how much more evil it is compared to Apple's DRM. Also, it would help out Microsoft, since many more people would start using their service (albeit only for one month, but still...) and they could claim more marketshare to make it seem like their DRM has a better chance of winning the format war. Plus it would give them more ammunition to push for Palladium etc.

Of course, for the real answer you could try asking DVD John, since it was his group that cracked FairPlay. Hopefully, they're working on WMA...

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[drew]

if real had successfully reverse engineered playfair, then this firmware update wouldn't be an issue. rather, they found some hack that allowed them to circumvent the issue.

as other posters have pointed out, for all we know, they were using a buffer overflow exploit to accomplish this. they might have been exploiting a serious bug in the ipod. imagine that really was the case. then how should apple respond? on one hand you have people ready to lynch them for breaking copmatibility that they never advertised if they fix it, and on the other you have people ready to lynch them for not fixing a flaw that could allow malicious mp3's to crash or disable their ipods.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[drew]

real wasn't using fairplay. they were using their own proprietary drm. for all we know real was exploiting a buffer overflow in the ipod in order to get the routine that check's for a fairplay encoded file to return true.

of course, even if that is the case, it's quite possible they wouldn't have found the bug if they weren't looking for a way to break real's harmony drm.

either way, if apple has said all along that they only support drm'd music from itms and that they will disable real's hack as soon as possible, then i don't see why anyone is all upset about it now. where was the outrage back in july? and why would anyone buy songs from real if they knew they wouldn't be supported?

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so much support as not break my new thumping sound system when I bring it in to have my breaks fixed.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[g0at]

I know the popular opinion here is typically pro-Apple/iTMS/iPod but honestly I just don't see why we can be pro-reverse engineering on everything else and not this.

Who said anybody is against reverse-engineering?

Way to go Real for reverse-engineering.
Way to go Apple for changing their application at their leisure in a manner that is reasonable and fully expected.
Up next: way to go Real for reverse-engineering.
(repeat)

If you want to depend on Real's hackery to make your music play, then that's a risk you are fully entitled to take. However, there is no obvious reason why Apple should suddenly have to change their plans to support you.

(If you are one of the guys who replaced the iPod's icon set using the firmware hack discussed here a few days ago, are you also going to be offended as soon as the next Apple update wipes out your custom stuff?)

-b

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[_|()|\|]

For all we know, they patched something completely unrelated, and moved a memory offset that Real's code depended on.

The basic architecture of FairPlay is that each song is encrypted with a user key, and the user keys are encrypted with a system key. From time to time, Apple deliberately changes the procedure for deriving the system key. It started as a simple protocol involving MD5, AES, and some secret strings, but it has gotten messier over time.

These changes are what break Hymn. In fact, Apple went so far as to disable playback of files that appeared to be de-DRMed. The only reason Apple could recognize those files is because Hymn left the Apple ID in the file, to discourage its use for piracy. The work around is to strip the ID or somehow munge the field.

I don't know how Real integrates with FairPlay, but I suspect that it somehow depends on the system key. Real is playing with fire by advertising compatibility with a hostile device, but make no mistake: Apple's changes are deliberate.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[Empty Yo]

Q: Why does Real want to reverse engineer Apple's format?

A. People are buying into it. If they weren't, and iTMS wasn't the most successful online music store and iTunes and the iPod weren't the best way to integrate the store, your personal collection and your portable player ... Real wouldn't bother.

Q. Why are people buying into three products that don't work with outside solutions well, especially when Apple works actively to keep it that way?

A. Some don't know, some don't care, but the best answer is what they have works well enough for them that they aren't seeking out other alternatives. When people see me sync my iPod with my Powerbook, they are jealous of the integration that Apple has managed - which means Apple gives customers something in exchange for buying products that really only work well together. They (and I) are willing to lose out on outside options in exchange for convenience, ease and useability.

Q: Is Apple somehow immoral or greedy for wanting to keep their solutions proprietary?

A: Only if they stop providing a good value in exchange for the lack of outside options. If they lock a customer in and don't give that customer a reason to agree to be locked in, then people will start to seek out other alternatives. The Free Software phenomenon is based precisly on this value ratio issue; MS locks you in, but you get very little additional value (I would argue that you lose value) in exchange. In reaction to this, people went looking for other alternatives.

Q: Does Real want to protect our "rights" and maximize our "choices" to protect us from Apple's greed?

A: Give me a break. They want a piece of Apple's action.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[vought]

So my dealer tells me to use premium gas. I decide to be a smart-ass and put in regular because the gas station tells me it will be fine, even though the manufacturer specifically recommends against it. After a while, it breaks.

This is a good comparison, but not truly accurate; I don't think Real's Harmony scheme would damage anything but the iTMS' profit margins.

However, if you elect to use = 93 octane, you will damage it - up to and including valve seat and facing damage and burned piston crowns.

I don't know that any "incompatible" or workaround DRM could damage an iPod in the same way.

Still, I think Apple has a case for removing compatibility with Harmony in the latest iPod firmware upgrade.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, they're being protectionist dickheads with their music store. The iPod plays ordinary MP3s and AACs just fine. It's the music from their store that you can only play on one portable player.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[the pickle]

I applaud Real for working to give their customers the most choice

Are you also applauding Real's decision to bring their music store to the Macintosh and Linux platforms?

You know, in the name of choice.

p

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[emilymildew]

Do you honestly think people aren't cracking MS' DRM because it would matter to some Apple fanboys on /.?

I can't see someone who would work to crack DRM giving two shits about what the consequences of the crack is.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[Accipiter]

Real and Apple are going back and forth on the best ways to screw their customers. Apple by forcing you to use their DRM

Apple does not force you into SHIT. The only time you ever encounter Apple's DRM is with music purchased from the iTunes music store. IT DOES NOT AFFECT MUSIC YOU RIP YOURSELF. And the DRM used is not chokingly restrictive. Unwieldy? Give me a fucking break. Apple isn't trying to screw their customers with the DRM. It's a compromise FOR their customers to get along with the record companies.

You don't even know what power you're fighting.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[LilMikey]

You're beig a whiny dickhead with too much money and too little sense.

That would be all well and good if I owned an iPod or any other mp3 player for that matter but thanks for the smiting and poor analogy (psst... almost noone follows their car handbooks) and enjoy the lashings... again there is exactly one place to legally buy your iPod tunes. And that's a 'your' because between you the dickhead and me the dickhead no more than one of us could possibly have an iPod and I know it ain't me.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[mrchaotica]

it's not about the pro-Apple crowd; it's about the anti-Microsoft crowd (which I'd say includes everyone with both the skill and inclination to crack DRM).

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[Anonymous Coward]

So my dealer tells me to use premium gas. I decide to be a smart-ass and put in regular because the gas station tells me it will be fine, even though the manufacturer specifically recommends against it. After a while, it breaks.

That's not what happened here.

So my dealer tells me to use premium gas. I decide to be smart and put in regular because the gas station, and everyone owning a similar car, tells me it has always worked, even though the manufacturer specifically recommends against it. It works fine, and continues to do so, until I take the car to service, where the mechanics promptly notice that I've been using that darn cheapo fuel despite their recommendations and cut their margins, after which, they'll promptly modify the car to not work on it, ON PURPOSE.

Now, why don't you whiny dickhead go back to licking Steve Jobs' hairy arse? That's after all the only thing you fucking stupid Applet zealots can do well.

Re:I am pro-reverse engineering.

[Scudsucker]

In this case people trying to play Real's songs on an iPod are Apple's customers.

Uh, no, not unless Real is giving Apple a cut. As they aren't, Apple would be supporting a compeditors customers, not their own.

Big Surprsie...

[DiscoNick]

Did anyone really figure anything different would come out of this? I'm a die-hard Mac fan, but Apple really does have a way of getting away with murder when they pull Microsoft-like actions. Granted they need their protection, I thought this was the company that embraced Open-Source? I think it should be "Selectively Embraced Open Source", thanks for the code guys!

Re:Big Surprsie...

[despik]

What does open-source have to do with Real reverse-engineering the FairPlay DRM mechanism for the purposes of making their own Harmony DRM mechanism compatible with it?

Re:Big Surprsie...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple getting away with murder?

Hey, any time a DRM scheme (like Harmony) is broken and shown to be the farce that it is, I'm happy. And the more corporations bicker over DRM and break each others' systems, the happier I am.

Re:Big Surprsie...

[dynamo]

Ok listen, stupid.

This has so little to do with open source that saying what you just said hurts America. And the world.

Apple disabled an unauthorized hack. The hack was proprietary in the 3rd degree - it was frickin' DRM software! You can't get any more closed source than DRM. If Real had been 'open', there wouldn't have been any DRM, or harmony would be open source, and they'd have a massive army of co-programmers to help re-defeat the new Apple scheme.

This is EXACTLY the same as when AIM changes their protocol to prevent connections from a(ny) particular open source client that they don't like.

It's also possible that the disabling was a side effect of something else - notably using Real using undocumented interfaces to a technology they had no control over to produce a product, and then charging for it. Real is the party at fault here, if not the idiots who bought their stuff.

To the idiots: why the hell don't you just convert to mp3? (if you can't, it's more reason you should have gone with the Apple store)

Re:Big Surprsie...

[rsborg]

I thought this was the company that embraced Open-Source? I think it should be "Selectively Embraced Open Source", thanks for the code guys!

Nice Troll... what part of Real's "Harmony" is open-source?

Also, you seem to think that any company that supports "open source" should now open source everything? First you ought to talk to VA, Redhat, etc before crying about Apple. They all have non-opensourced products and code as well, and that's a legitimate OSS business model.

Re:Big Surprsie...

[DiscoNick]

This post obviously struck the nerve of you liberal art-fag Steve Jobs is god pussies, now didn't it.

Re:Big Surprsie...

[DiscoNick]

Real is nazi. I'd be the first to agree. However attacking Real directly with an undercover patch is bullshit. The customer is the one who loses. I agree Apple should protect music they sell on iTunes, the iPod should be an open device so people can add other codec support such as Ogg.

Re:Big Surprsie...

[Scudsucker]

pull Microsoft-like actions

What's Microsoft-like about changing their own damn hardware, which they never said would be open for others to hack? You neocon fag everything-Apple-does-is-wrong are just fickle snobs.

Meh.

[nordicfrost]

I'm an Apple fanboy, but I don't really see this as the correct approach to the problem. In my opinion, the iTunes store is sufficient to attract customers and make the stick with Apple. For ordniary people, the store is cool, updated and fairly priced. Geeks all over the world know what pain in the ass Real is and mostly avoids them at all cost.

Real is only continuing the war with different means. They don't do anything remotely original or radical like just dropping the DRM alltoghether for RIAA-influenced music. Honestly, I can't see the point of having DRM on ANY recoring that is also out on CD, it's just retarded.

Re:Meh.

[Ahnteis]

DRM *IS* retarded. However, there's no way Real can magically make the RIAA change their mind to allow non-DRM sales. Place the blame for DRM where it belongs.

iPod Firmare Update Blocks Use of Songs from RealN

[sammykrupa]

Back in Augest, I believe, RealNetworks created a software program called "Harmony" which let users put music from RealNetworks' online music store on their Apple iPod. Well an article over at News.com says that a recent update to the iPods firmware released by Apple brakes compatibiltiy of the Harmony software. Here's the kicker: Apple did not mention anything about Harmony in the release notes for the firmware, imagine all the people who used their iPods' with RealNetworks' online music store and now it just stopped working?

C'mon...

[BalorTFL]

Did anyone -not- see this coming? I have a sneaking suspicion that the breaking of Real's iPod hack is the most significant feature of the new firmware, at least from Apple's perspective.

iTunes has absolutely zero to do with this

[daveschroeder]

You're speaking in the context of media players, and I'm sorry to say that "iTunes" in the context of a media player has zero to do with this situation. This is about the Apple iPod playing DRMed content from Real as if it were FairPlay-protected content.

So take your "I hate iTunes" troll elsewhere.

And yet again, consumers lose

[Bequita]

May I inquire why it should matter who you bought the music from as long as you own it?

Re:And yet again, consumers lose

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

May I inquire why it should matter who you bought the music from as long as you own it?

It should not, which is why music formats and DRM should be open standards. Unfortunately, MS is in the process of embracing the digital music industry with yet more illegal bundling. As the industry stands right now, the music seller is responsible for providing support and authentication for your digital music. Real just tried to make Apple do it for them, free of cost and Apple shot them down. If Apple does not maintain control of their DRM, and maintain the best hardware and software in what is increasingly a commodity industry, MS will take over, and there will be one more industry completely dominated, and paying a toll on every transaction to MS. A toll for doing nothing, except having control of the dominant OS, and forcing everyone to pay because of it.

I don't know about you, but I'm much happier having a music seller whose DRM has an easy and legal out, rather than one that is illegal to remove. (Not that I plan to buy music from Apple, MS, or Real anytime soon.)

Re:And yet again, consumers lose

[Bequita]

This DRM business is insane. Surely there's a way to verify that a song is a legit copy without this brand-incompatability nonsense.

This is why I prefer audiobooks. Nobody apparently gives a damn about them, and in a pinch, you can always record them yourself.

Re:And yet again, consumers lose

[heeeraldo]

because you don't own it, it's licensed to you.

but if you delete the file, they're not replacing it.

duh.

Re:And yet again, consumers lose

[Anonymous Coward]

It should not, which is why music formats and DRM should be open standards. Unfortunately, MS is in the process of embracing the digital music industry with yet more illegal bundling.

MS bundling is the problem when Apple tie heavy market dominance in music player/store market together with a closed DRM system they refuse to license to others?

When MS on the other hand license their WMA DRM to competing music stores, different players and everybody that wants it?

This either good irony, or religion.

Re:And yet again, consumers lose

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

When MS on the other hand license their WMA DRM to competing music stores

MS already bundles the player with Windows. They license the format (for a fee) to anyone who wants it because it furthers their desktop monopoly. You can play MS's files after you have payed for a copy of windows, which they have already included the costs into. This is classic monopoly bundling.

If Apple had not stepped in with their music business, MS would own it. Do you doubt that? If MS can tax every song sold online, and there is no one to challenge them, do you think they will hesitate to charge a ridiculous fee? This was a smart, defensive move by Apple.

I think you are confusing a monopoly entering new markets, with a company who entered a market without a monopoly, gained a large share of it, and has not leveraged it for anything. I don't like the fact the itunes and Apple use DRM, so I don't buy from them. If I had an ipod it could still play my mp3s. If I did buy music from Apple, I could remove the DRM convert it to Windows Media format, and play it on players from people who license from MS. Can you legally remove the DRM from Windows Media files, and play them on the ipod? With Apple customers get a choice. With MS, we all get screwed.

Re:And yet again, consumers lose

[ocelotbob]

Which is exactly why apple's going to lose. Instead of doing like MS does and licensing their DRM so that they let other people do all the sales, etc, they're holding onto their DRM tech and not letting the market develop around apple-made solutions. The end result is going to be hurtful to everyone as WMA becomes the prevalent standard and fairplay becomes an also-ran. Were apple to have opened up their markets, you would have seen more choice, and apple becoming a dominant force for years, instead of dooming themselves to becoming less relevant in the market as MS's marketing juggernaut starts licensing music stores by the dozen that use WMA-encrypted files.

Apple's dooming themselves to a death by a thousand cuts by not playing fair.

Re:And yet again, consumers lose

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Instead of doing like MS does and licensing their DRM so that they let other people do all the sales, etc, they're holding onto their DRM tech and not letting the market develop around apple-made solutions.

And how do you think MS would react to your proposed solution? Maybe they would do something similar to what they always do? They would license the tech so that it works in Windows Media player, keep it that way long enough for everyone to get used to it, and then start adding "features" that break compatibility with the standard. Once they have a foothold, and are selling music that plays on the ipod, they can do basically whatever they want, and Apple will have to play along, or explain to 90% of their customers, why things stopped working with Longhorn and the ipod, or why service pack 3 (required to stop all those worms) breaks itunes, but not windows media, and why can't apple write software that works?

Who cares?

[sulli]

You shouldn't use DRM'd files anyway.

Re:Who cares?

[Saeger]

And what are you? A proud yuppie asshole who feels secure when playing by "The Man's" status quo rules? "Yeah! I'm a part of the system! Don't hate the player!" you say? Get used & abused.

Re:Who cares?

[theLOUDroom]

You shouldn't use DRM'd files anyway.

Of course the nice thing here is that these to companies are finally pointing out why.

Most people are still pretty clueless about why DRM sucks, but perhaps a public feud between real and Apple will serve to spread the word.

Re:Who cares?

[Zhe Mappel]

You live in a sparsely populated fantasy land.

In which you wish to be the constable.

Which is worse? The wannabe Hobbits, or the wannabee Hobbit cop?

Weird DRM Attitude

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

So the music-distribution industry apparently cares about DRM, but only when it's *their* DRM.

Hmm... if I didn't know better I'd say these corporations weren't actually out to protect their property from evil pirates, and that they only want to cling to their own piece of the proverbial pie. But we know better than that, don't we?

Don't we...?

Re:Hammer Revolution!

[darth_MALL]

--;

In Soviet Metallica, Hammer of Justice Crushes YOU!

--;

The reason why the story is old

[Tibor the Hun]

is because this morning was the first time anyone actually tried to play a song purchased on Harmony on an iPod.
(In related news, that was also the first person to actually use Harmony to buy a song!)

Re:The reason why the story is old

[taernim]

I realize you are making a joke, but to clarify, Harmony is not the music store.

Harmony refers to the technology which allowed Real Networks to convert their own DRM'd files into a compatible locked format that the iPods would play -- as well as the ability to transfer iTunes tracks to an iPod through the RealPlayer.

Re:The reason why the story is old

[Kryxan]

i think thats the point. i mean who here really cares about Real? personally i would like to see their player and their entire business go bankrupt and never have to hear about them again, except in maybe stories told around a campfire (yeah i can just think of the stories to scare little kids...). instead of ghost stories, or finding dead people, ill tell the story of a true devil, a media player that worse than any freeware player that was ever on the net. and a web site that forced you to pay for a free trial. and an evil troll that suid out of jealousy and spite, all cause he couldnt steal from Apple. mhaahaa

err... maybe a got a little carried away... just a little...

Re:The reason why the story is old

[Trauma_Hound1]

Are you an idiot or you can't just create a comprehensible message? First off Real Player is FREE, you aren't forced to pay for a free trial (that doesn't make sense, if it's free, it's free, meaning doesn't cost you anything). What the hell kind of drugs are you on? RealNetworks didn't sue Apple. Hopefully someone else got the brains in your family.

Re:The reason why the story is old

[Ohreally_factor]

personally i would like to see their player and their entire business go bankrupt and never have to hear about them again, except in maybe stories told around a campfire

Best told with a flashlight held just under your chin beaming up into your face:

And when they got home and found out that the hitchhiker was Rob Glasser, they looked at their iPods and found hook marks gouged into the white plastic! Oooooooh! Scary!

Re:The reason why the story is old

[9-bits.tk]

Let's see... use Hymn to strip DRM from Harmony tracks, THEN play those Harmony tracks on your iPod.

There. That should work.

Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[glrotate]

Obligated to ensure compatability, probably not. Obligated to refrain from taking antocompetitive measures in a market in which they are the dominant supplier, that's another question.

How many people remember:
DOS isn't done 'till Lotus won't run.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Obligated to refrain from taking antocompetitive [sic] measures in a market in which they are the dominant supplier

Umm, they have a good percentage of both the mp3 player and digital audio markets, but no monopoly in either. In any case, since when has it been illegal for a company to provide non-mandatory updates to the firmware of a device they create that prevents people from hacking around their DRM? If they refused to play non-protected files, I could see an argument. If they refused to play a competitors DRM, that they had at one time included I could see it as arguable. But refusing to play files masquerading as authenticated files from their own licensed system, well that does not bother me at all. Especially when that competitor is as shady as Real Networks.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[HeghmoH]

I'm not sure how disabling a feature that was never supposed to work in the first place is anticompetitive. If Real wanted to, they could sell naked MP3s or AACs and the iPod would happily play them. Instead, they're trying to latch on to Apple's proprietary DRM scheme, and now they've been burned by it. This is no different than an application using undocumented APIs and then exploding because those APIs changed in the next OS revision. Microsoft's screwing of Lotus was on a totally different level.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

None of this applies to Apple. Anything and everything Apple does is beyond criticism. They are and always will be the perfect corporation.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[rainman_bc]

Exactly. We all bitched when Yahoo! locked out Trillian...

Welcome to /. - where Apple can do no wrong.

(I will get modded as a troll for this by Apple zealots -you watch)

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, they have a good percentage of both the mp3 player and digital audio markets, but no monopoly in either.

Are u sure? I believe I have seen iPod and iTunes market share figures that compete well with Windows market share figures. And they use the position the same way it seems...

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[bay43270]

Obligated to ensure compatability, probably not. Obligated to refrain from taking antocompetitive measures in a market in which they are the dominant supplier, that's another question.

No. Not really. This is not Microsoft. Apple has not been declared a monopoly in any market (even if they were, it would only restrict how they enter NEW markets). There are no laws (at least in the US) against selling proprietary software/hardware. Just because they are the market leader doesn't mean they have to 'play nice'.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[rizzo420]

ummm... this has nothing to do with apple doing no wrong. what apple did wasn't wrong. real networks hacked apple to play real networks' proprietary drm-scheme. apple found the flaw and fixed it. do you want to support drm protected files?

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I have seen iPod and iTunes market share figures that compete well with Windows market share figures. And they use the position the same way it seems...

Numbers I have seen are about 70% for ipods, 70% for online music sales, and 12% for mp3 software actually used. That is not even close to Windows's market share. But as far as the "use the position the same way" what competitors has Apple bought out? What other markets have they moved in to, by leveraging their music player? the only thing I can think of that they are giving away with them is Quicktime, and MS (the competition) already bundles Windows Media player with Windows. What markets, exactly, do you think Apple is using their monopoly (I don't think it really is a monopoly) to move into?

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[rainman_bc]

And Trillian reverse engineered YIM... What's the difference?

We bitched profusely when Yahoo blocked Trillian. We praise Apple for doing the exact same thing Yahoo did.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[rizzo420]

yahoo wasn't keeping out drm.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Steve Cowan]

As much as I love Apple I think their actions here are indeed immoral, and possibly illegal.

Simply put, the legal action against M$ over the years has been based on the premise that the company leveraged a monopoly in one market (desktop operating systems) to gain a monopoly in another market (web browsers, media players, word processing).

Here, we see Apple leveraging their monopoly in personal MP3 players to gain a monopoly in online music downloads. They do this by deliberately and unnecessarily changing firmware in the iPod to make it unable to play protected music downloaded from another source.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[pla]

Obligated to refrain from taking antocompetitive measures in a market in which they are the dominant supplier, that's another question.

Speaking of them as the "dominant supplier"...

A while back, Apple claimed they made basically no profit on iTMS, and only kept it going to boost sales of iPods.

Having Real support the iPod would only increase sales thereof, while the possibility of decreasing sales at no profit via iTMS should not matter at all ("We lose a penny per sale, but we make it up in volume!").


So, the question...

Did Steve Jobs... How to put this... "Tell a deliberate untruth" to all his loyal fans?

Goodness. I don't feel all warm and fuzzy anymore.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

Well - this post claims 92% share on hard disk music players and 80% on bought online music - which is closer to what I've heard elsewhere, and certainly seems pretty dominant. And they use a protected closed format to ensure this dominance (a strong "MS tactics" criticism around here) - even changing it to create problems for competitor (when we believe MS is doing that they scream bloody murder)

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[rizzo420]

you can play other mp3's that don't come from itunes. where's the drm?

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[SilentChris]

"In any case, since when has it been illegal for a company to provide non-mandatory updates to the firmware of a device they create that prevents people from hacking around their DRM?"

What's going to happen when they release the next update that "just happens" to fix a few iPod crash problems, up the battery life slightly, etc., but includes this update as well? Hint: this happened with iTunes and the ability to play someone's music over the internet / get Airport Extreme functionality (answer: people upgraded to 4.7 because they were forced to).

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Your numbers sound suspicious. I was quoting Bloomberg. They claim apple at 80% hardware MP3 players for 2004 and 70% over the last 3 years. Apple does use a closed DRM format, but the DRM can be legally removed, unlike with WMD. The format itself is open, and the player supports a good half dozen open formats. If the firmware update was intended to break Real's hack, why did they not release it for all players, instead of about half of them? Most likely, this is just Real's hack breaking, which is not surprising since it is an unsupported format masquerading as Apple's licensed files. If you sold something and a company renowned for shady business practices and installing spyware started selling products that were similar to your, and claimed you would support them despite your making public statements to the contrary, I'm sure you would not give a rat's ass if their crap broke.

Basically, Apple is not a monopoly, and even if they were, they have not used that to move into any other markets. MS on the other hand is a monopoly, and has used it to both take over other markets, and to force competitors out of business. Some of my favorite software was made by companies MS bought and killed to prevent them from competing with them.

P.S. this release came out a while ago, it's just that no one was stupid enough to buy files from Real, so no one noticed till now that they don't work.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people remember:
DOS isn't done 'till Lotus won't run.

Oh, I remember it.

But I don't believe it was ever true. Lotus 1-2-3 always ran just fine.

You know those "undocumented MS-DOS" books, the ones that explained all the secrets inside DOS? The ones that explained all the stuff Microsoft never documented? Get one of those and show me the "screw Lotus" system calls, or at least tell me something remotely plausible that can actually be checked.

Otherwise, please don't spread legends around. There's stuff Microsoft has actually done you can accuse them of, no need to invent stuff like this.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. AAC has no DRM. DRM is on top of it.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

yes "MP3" player that plays mp3s from anywhere, not AAC with hacked DRM , I don't see how it is illegal to prevent this

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

But, but, Apple is cool and stuff and Real's software used to be annoying so we shouldn't care if Apple acts like a bunch of dickheads cause we like them more! I for one don't care if they don't support Real's customers. They shouldn't have to. But what I really love is how Apple is willing to go the extra mile and go out of their way to deliberately fuck them in the ass for buying songs at a store that wasn't theirs.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Drakonian]

They could sell naked MP3s, but not from the big labels. I think that makes your point moot.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Refrag]

Trillian wasn't using DRM. I have no sympathy for any organization that has their own DRM break on them. Including Apple.

That's why you can't blame Apple for this.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[ClosedSource]

"No. Not really. This is not Microsoft. Apple has not been declared a monopoly in any market (even if they were, it would only restrict how they enter NEW markets)."

Well, by that measure Microsoft was not Microsoft until they were declared a monopoly a couple of years ago in court. Ticketmaster hasn't been declared a monopoly; do you doubt that it is one?

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[un1xl0ser]

If Apple's API changed then that's fine. If they did then it is quite obvious that they would leave all of the legacy files alone by making it backward compatable. If they did that then most likely wouldn't Real's format be playable?

I'm more inclined to believe that Apple made a change to deliberatly stop Real's format from working. It's quite obvious that is their right to do that. Doesn't make me think much of the company personally, I like competition -- it lowers prices.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Oliver Defacszio]

Real's software used to be annoying

Look again.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[un1xl0ser]

They could sell their mp3s naked, but that wouldn't be in their best interest.

Is it okay to monopolize on something and then fall back on the fact that they can in fact sell their product if they want too, just without basic measures to protect their copyright.

I'm going to let someone a lot smarter than myself think about that for a while.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, AAC is a file format (open at that) and FairPlay is Apple's DRM. Real is just trying to trick the iPod into thinking that Real's files are encoded in FairPlay.

I'm sure it's just as easy to break Real's hack on accident as on purpose (very easy most likely). As I saw in another post This update doesn't apply to all iPods. If Apple wanted to break this intentionally wouldn't they have come up with a reason for new updates for all the iPods out there?

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the DRM? Yahoo blocked Trillian from using their protocol. Apple blocked Real because they were offering their own DRM format for the Ipod, in a sneaky underhanded fashion. If Real wanted to play fair; heh no pun intended they could of sold AAC or MP3's for the ipod and they would work flawlessly. You are talking about totally two different things.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that YIM doesn't involve DRM.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[MedHead]

What? I don't understand why DRM suddenly absolves Apple from any ethical responsibility. The point stands. Yahoo! blocked Trillian from using their protocol - their DRM - and Slashdot users disliked it. Now that Apple is blocking their DRM - their protocol - it's considered okay by the Slashdot community?

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[markgo2k]

Errr...DRM is the issue. The fundamental issue is that Real was trying to sell DRM protected music, but using Apple software as the "cop on the beat". The is no moral, ethical, or legal reason why Apple should do this.

The only way this would be similiar is if Trillian had tried to sell a chat client that used Yahoo to block out users who didn't pay.

Further, compatibility was critical to Trillian because there was no alternative to reaching Yahoo users. Apple iPod owners can simply buy their tunes through the iTMS. Might be more expensive, but then, no one forced people to buy an iPod.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Moofie]

Well, I'm guessing that the companies whose products are broken with the new firmware releases will work around the problems and revise their software.

You know, like always happens within a day or two with all these utilities.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[MedHead]

The only way this would be similiar is if Trillian had tried to sell a chat client that used Yahoo to block out users who didn't pay. I don't understand this statement, so if you could please define this more for me, I would be grateful. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

The reason I'm confused is because Trillian does sell a chat client.

Further, compatibility was critical to Trillian because there was no alternative to reaching Yahoo users.

There was and is an alternative to reaching Yahoo! users - Yahoo! Messenger.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Moofie]

Microsoft was not a legal monopoly until it was found to be so by a court of law, no. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the concept.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Moofie]

Who is this "we"? Are you a member of the Slashdot hive mind?

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[jonabbey]

If the firmware update was intended to break Real's hack, why did they not release it for all players, instead of about half of them? Most likely, this is just Real's hack breaking, which is not surprising since it is an unsupported format masquerading as Apple's licensed files.

Uh-huh. Just like Microsoft's Windows 3.1 beta accidentally broke when running on top of DRDOS back in 1991, right?

I remember reading about how Intellivision had hacked the Intellivision 2 to try and prevent competitors such as Coleco from selling games to work on their console. Mattel actually tried to hide what they had done, for fear that they would be sued for anticompetitive practices.

It's just the same thing with Apple. They've got a nice little bundling deal going, and they don't want Real to be able to sell music to work on it without making the files wholly unprotected, which the RIAA could never accept. I don't see any reason why Real wouldn't be in a position to sue over it.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[ColMustard]

Look again.

Yeah, it's still annoying!

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[ClosedSource]

I agree. The point is that the fact that Apple or TicketMaster has not been found a "legal" monopoly doesn't mean it isn't one. You have to be commonly considered a monopoly or no legal proceedings would ever be started against you.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Moofie]

Being a monopoly is neither unethical or illegal. Abusing your monopoly power is both, and that's what'll get you cross-wise with the law (and with my own personal opinion).

Apple hasn't done that. They simply make best-of-breed solutions (again, my opinion) and sell the shit out of them.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, you have never heard of the relationship between volume and fixed costs. Profit per item can only be measured at a specific run rate, because although variable cost per unit probably stays very similar, fixed cost per unit goes down with a larger volume. So in essence, you COULD be losing a penny per sale at a specific volume, but easily make a profit if you could just increase sales.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[HeghmoH]

I would agree with you if Apple had a monopoly in the personal MP3 player market, but they don't. Last I checked, they owned about 50% of the market, which is far from being a monopoly. When Microsoft was convicted, they owned around 95% of the desktop OS market, which is an enormously different situation both legally and morally.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Monkelectric]

Umm, they have a good percentage of both the mp3 player and digital audio markets, but no monopoly in either.

Yea but if this was MS you'd be screaming bloody murder and you know it. But since Apple is Slashdots pet I'll get modded to crap for suggesting they did something wrong, and some fanboy can keep the smug look on his face.

What this goes to show is, apple wants to benefit from open architectures and open source, but doesn't want to play ball.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with you on this.

Simply put, the legal action against M$ over the years has been based on the premise that the company leveraged a monopoly in one market (desktop operating systems) to gain a monopoly in another market (web browsers, media players, word processing).

Apple has no monopoly. There are tons of other mp3-players around. Being successful is not illegal.

Apple does not make false claims about its products. Apple always clearly stated that the iPod would not support any DRMed music but Apples. MS encouraged other software companies to write software for DOS and Windows, and then screwed them by tweaking the API so non-MS apps would not run.

Apple has so far made partnerships with several companies, such as audible. They have declined partnerships with other music stores because all offers so far came for third-rate losers like Real and Virgin who wanted a free ride on the iPod but had nothing to offer in return. Successful music stores who could bring something valuable into a partnership do not accept partners simply because profit margins are very thin already. Apple does not run a charity for clueless competitors. The market is full of "me too" music stores, many of them blatant iTunes ripoffs.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[rhuntley12]

This is Slashdot. The attitude I get around here is Apple can do no wrong. /wave karma

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Anonymous Coward]

In Real's files. Which have been locked out.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[rainman_bc]

Well I didn't post as an AC...

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[rainman_bc]

Thanks! That was exactly my point :) Just thankful that someone actually understood it...

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[l-ascorbic]

the DRM can be legally removed, unlike with WMD

WMD could be removed, if anyone could find it...

(sorry)

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[R.Caley]

Here, we see Apple leveraging their monopoly in personal MP3 players to gain a monopoly in online music downloads.

But they don't have a monopoly, they simply have the currently most popular product. Since MP3 is an open standard, anyone else could produce an iPod killer any day. This is different from windows where, the underlying standard (the Win32 API and so on) are closed and hidden. It's hard to produce something which will `play' Word or Doom3, it's easy to produce something which will play MP3s (the trick is doing it well).

What Apple has a monopoly on is their own propriatory file format. They can change that any time they want. Maybe they will decide next year to change it so that current iPod's can't play new releases, so you have to buy a new one (or an expensive upgrade). Tough shit, that is what iPod owners get for choosing a propriatory format. If they did such a thing it would be a perfectly legitimate (if obnoxious) business decision.

If anyone is suprised that Apple might treat their customers as serfs, they must not have been paying attention for the past couple of decades.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[emilymildew]

What makes you think that Apple wants to benefit from open architectures and open source?

What's hypocritical about this is that Real wants to violate Apple's DRM to provide more choice for their customers, except I can't actually exercise that choice because I have a Mac and can't use their store. That certainly makes a lot of sense.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[emilymildew]

Because Real ILLEGALLY cracked Apple's DRM? That seems reason enough for me.

What are they going to tell their customers? "Hey, uh, we did this illegal thing to try to make something happen that nobody would agree to... and now it doesn't work. Uh, sorry." No, they're going to blame Apple for doing what we all said they were going to do to begin with. This is sour grapes on Real's part; now they can poison their customers against Apple by claiming this is Apple's fault. If they hadn't been doing illegal things in the first place, this update wouldn't matter.

If this wasn't a large corporation doing this, do you honestly think that the DMCA wouldn't be brought in?

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[emilymildew]

Real didn't get the agreement they wanted, so they worked around it. Now that Apple has released this firmware, do you think Real is going to apologize to their customers and accepting blame for having illegally piggy-backed onto Apple's DRM in the first place?

No, they're going to blame Apple for this. That makes so much sense it's mind-blowing.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[emilymildew]

Yahoo is under no obligation to anyone besides their own pockets to disallow Trillian's user of their networks.

Apple has responsibilities, sure to their own pockets, but also to the record companies who have signed with them who expect that the music is safe. They can't take cracks of their DRM lightly.

If Real wanted to sells songs without DRM (which no record company would allow them to do), they would certainly be playable on the iPod. Or maybe they could make their own MP3 player that is superior and lock that to their store.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Jucius Maximus]

"We bitched profusely when Yahoo blocked Trillian. We praise Apple for doing the exact same thing Yahoo did."

Trillian's product is superior to Yahoo's product.

Apple's product is superior to Real's product.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You fail to address the question. If this is intended to break Real's hack, why didn't they release it for all ipod's?

I don't see any reason why Real wouldn't be in a position to sue over it.

Sure they can sue all they like, but since they don't have a leg to stand on I don't think they will. Even given that this is intended to break Real's hack, and Apple has a much greater market share of online music than reported, Apple still is not doing anything illegal because they are not stopping competitors from competing in the same space (you can sell your own mp3 player and music service). If you are contesting that bundling a music service with your mp3 player is anticompetitive, then maybe you should note the dozen open formats supported, or the licensing deals Apple has signed with other companies to do basically this same thing on other devices.

This is about Real trying to strong arm Apple into supporting their own crappy, proprietary format, not about some poor company that sold files that Apple said would work, and then broke them.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[ClosedSource]

Yes, we all understand the difference between an abusing and non-abusing monopoly.

If you read my posts carefully you'll note that I haven't claimed that Apple is any kind of monopoly just that declaration by a court is not necessary for a monopoly to exist, just for a monopoly to be punished.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[markgo2k]

Let me try to be clearer. The big issue is using someone else to do your dirty work (making them pay) for you. The issue is not whether Trillian sold a chat client, it's whether they tried to use Yahoo to implement anti-piracy measures.

And as far as the compatibility issue goes, songs are not users. Users are likely to have only one chat id (which is Trillian's raison d'etre), songs are likely to be sold by all the online music stores.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[6R1MM]

Thanks, John Madden.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[jonabbey]

Because Real ILLEGALLY cracked Apple's DRM? That seems reason enough for me.

Oh. Wow. Illegally, really? Which laws did they break? They are not circumventing a content protection device to get access to content, they are putting unlicensed content protection bits around the content.

Are the unlicensed content protection bits patented, then? They must be, right? Otherwise, traditional reverse engineering doctrine for compatibility would seem to make that sort of thing a-ok. Copyright wouldn't prohibit this, certainly. Trade Secret? Unless Real beat someone within Apple with a rubber hose to extract the information on how to do this, there's no trade secret issues involved.

Unless you know something I don't, Real ILLEGALLY cracked Apple's DRM in the same way that Shell ILLEGALLY cracked Standard Oil's petroleum formulation so that they could make their gasoline compatible with cars that ran on Standard Oil gasonline.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[jonabbey]

How is what Apple is doing any different from Lexmark trying to make their printers reject any ink jet cartridges that aren't digitally signed by Lexmark? On what grounds does Apple have the right to exclude competitors from providing copy protected files for use with iPod?

As I replied in the sibling post to yours, unless some can demonstrate that Real violated a patent, or unless Apple made iPod customers sign a contract declaring that they agreed not to use protected files provided by anyone but Apple on the iPod, Apple has no legal basis to bar Real from doing what it did.

Now, Apple evidently has found a technical basis for identifying Real-sourced files and excluding them through their control over the iPod's firmware on the devices owned by their customers (and did the customers get told Apple was breaking the compatibility they paid money to Real in anticipation of when they were given the option to receive the new firmware? No?). Apple did it because it could do it, but all this talk of 'maybe it was an accident that it stopped working with Real files' is utterly naive. Apple is treating the iPods out there as if they owned them, and they do not. The customers own the iPods, and what the customers legally do with them is their business.

And Real would be entitled to sue, on my theory.

This is about Real trying to strong arm Apple into supporting their own crappy, proprietary format, not about some poor company that sold files that Apple said would work, and then broke them.

What crappy, proprietary format is that? Real was selling files that worked on the iPod using Apple's protection scheme. Does Fairplay become a crappy, proprietary format when Real started using it?

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[Refrag]

Actually, you're right. Trillian has no right to interoperate with Yahoo's servers unless Yahoo gives them permission. But, that has nothing to do with Apple and Real.

Real is using an unsupported method to get their restricted songs onto the Ipod. Apple changed their firmware and it broke the method Real was using. Since this wasn't a supported method Apple has no obligation to Real or Real's customers.

And I'm glad anytime some company's DRM backfires on them.

Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

How is what Apple is doing any different from Lexmark trying to make their printers reject any ink jet cartridges that aren't digitally signed by Lexmark?

Well, Apple lets you use any standard files in their ipod. Nor have they tried using legal means to ban anyone from hacking the ipod, or even just using Real's files. This is a lot closer to Lexmark updating the firmware of a couple of models of their printers which made a particular 3rd party's ink cartridges return an error, because they were trying to use a special feature Lexmark built in where the printer reports the ink levels to some servers at Lexmark, and sends you auto replacements. After Lexmark told all users that the third party ink cartridges using that feature would probably break after their next update.

Now, Apple evidently has found a technical basis for identifying Real-sourced files and excluding them

If you were selling an authenticated service, and you found one of your competitors had reverse engineered your security, and was tricking your servers into thinking that the files were signed by you, are you saying that you would have no right to correct the security hole???

Apple has no legal basis to bar Real from doing what it did.

Umm, Apple has every legal right to do what they did. They are not a monopoly, and it is hardware they sell. They can send out any updates they want.

The customers own the iPods, and what the customers legally do with them is their business.

True enough. What exactly has Apple done that any customers have a problem with? They updated the firmware on 2 models of ipod, and it happens to break functionality with Real's hack. No one even noticed or cared. They did this over a month ago. And anyone is free not to install the new firmware, or to hack it after the fact. Real is free to come up with a new work around to fix their hack.

all this talk of 'maybe it was an accident that it stopped working with Real files' is utterly naive

I don't see any proof either way. Maybe it was intentional, maybe not. It seems odd to me that if they are trying to break compatibility that they only updated 2 of their 6 supported models. Why not all of them?

What crappy, proprietary format is that?

Real media, you know .rm files. That is what Real has been trying to force or cajole Apple to support on ipods for years. Real complaining about restrictive DRM is the pot calling the kettle black. They have been promoting their own for years, and installing spyware along with their player. This is not exactly someone that attracts my sympathy.

In any case, this is a non-issue. Apple updated some firmware and may or may not have intentionally broken a hack of their DRM scheme, that they specifically stated would not be supported, for a format that no one uses and was created simply as a bargaining chip by a bunch of unscrupulous spyware purveyors in a failed attempt to blackmail Apple. The only people that care at all are people that like to argue about DRM issues and people astroturfing for Real.

This is freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't want Real networks. Apple offers us choice and we choose Apple. Digital Rights management gives the protection against piracy and guarantees that a profitable company will support us.

Re:This is freedom.

[SoSueMe]

... and we can all live in a happy place where we can be safe and secure in the knowledge that a profitable company will support us.

GAK!

I told you so...

[ziggyboy]

Many Mac people would say that the world would have been a better place had Apple been the Microsoft of today. The fact is, Apple would be as f---ed up if they took over the personal computing.

A business is a business and that's just it.

Re:I told you so...

[TheWama]

Well, the thing I don't like about Microsoft's stuff is it works badly, if at all. Despite Apple's DRM decisions, the iPod-iTunes combo functions better than any other combo out there. So yes, the world would be better, because shit would work right.

So, methinks you can hate MS and still like Apple, in fact, you can even hate (what) Apple (is doing) and still love Apple ('s products). Whodathunk?

As for businesses, they are only as good as the people that make them up. Apple gets all the brilliance of Mr. Jobs, and some of the quirks as well. If it bothers you so much, you can always stick with Gates and Ballmer, I hear they're great guys!

Re:I told you so...

[Lord Kano]

Exactly. Apple is a business, nothing more and nothing less. Like any other business they will do whatever they have to in order to protect their revenue stream.

Just because they have the coolest toys doesn't make Apple any less of a business or any different than any other business.

LK

Re:I told you so...

[GigsVT]

It would be worse. Much worse. At least we can still build our computers from commodity components on a competitive market. Apple would have us tied up in proprietary hardware and software.

Re:I told you so...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's a bitch when MAC users want to go upgrade their hard drives or memory... hardly anybody sells that stuff for MACs, and it always costs about 3-4 times as much as PC stuff. And don't get me started on those MAC monitors. Sure they look nice, but you can't use a regular old PC monitor with your MAC if you don't have the $4,000 to buy the entry level MAC one. It's bullshit, I tell you.

Apple takes careful aim..

[davidtupper]

and shoots themselves in the foot. Again. If I pay for music I should be able to play it on any hardware I own capable of audio reproduction, not just the files "authorized" for that piece of hardware. Or conversely, not just on the peice of hardware "authorized" for those files.

Or maybe I am just a dreamer...

Re:Apple takes careful aim..

[Anonymous Coward]

Real vs. Apple isn't going to let you play music on any hardware you own. They're not fighting about that.

They're fighting about the fact that Apple doesn't think Real's money is good enough for it, while Real will try take what it wants/needs without paying for it.

Re:Apple takes careful aim..

[nokiator]

Again. If I pay for music I should be able to play it on any hardware I own capable of audio reproduction, not just the files "authorized" for that piece of hardware. Or conversely, not just on the peice of hardware "authorized" for those files

This is why I still buy CDs instead of downloads from iTunes, etc. Music industry's attempts at switching to various copy-protected CD formats seemed to have failed over and over again. Ripping CDs to the digital format of your choice is just a few minutes worth of effort per CD.

Re:Apple takes careful aim..

[Issue9mm]

It's not Apple's fault that Real produces DRMd content. It's not Apple's fault that the iPod (which far predates the Real music store) doesn't play Real's Harmony encoded content. It's not Apple's fault that you can't download plain-jane MP3s off of Real's site.

Apple's iPod plays all ITMS songs, as well as regular MP3s and can convert WMVs. If Real's site distributed music in a widely understandable format, then they wouldn't have had to worry about Apple updating firmware and breaking Harmony.

Further, we have no way of knowing that Apple intentionally broke Real's encoding. It is far more likely that they simply fixed another bug, or added some completely unrelated feature, and that just happened to break Real's hack. For all we know, the reason that Apple didn't want Real's hack to exist was for this very reason... if they break it, accidentally or not, they're held to blame for it. It might have been bad coding on Real's part that causes it to no longer work, but we certainly don't know, and I'm not holding Apple accountable for supporting Real's proprietary encoded DRM method.

-9mm-

Re:Apple takes careful aim..

[HeghmoH]

Pay careful attention. Real is distributing DRM'd files which they hacked to be compatible with Apple's hardware. Apple did not disable naked, un-DRM'd MP3s or AACs, they only disabled Real's half-assed reverse engineering of their DRM scheme. Your complaint should be with Real, not with Apple.

Re:Apple takes careful aim..

[I_Love_My_Mac]

Or maybe you're just an idiot? Seriously, did you really, I mean -- REALLY -- think that Real hacked music would work on your iPod forever, especially after Apple went out of their way to tell the public that they were most likely going to stop it in the real soon future when it first came out? Don't be an ass just to make your little "anti-corporate" stance.. there's plenty of other things to poke at then this.

Re:Apple takes careful aim..

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I pay for music I should be able to play it on any hardware I own capable of audio reproduction."

I agree wholeheartedly. You should be able to. So hopefully you're not so stupid as to buy DRM-crippled music!

I find that buying music at Allofmp3.com satisfies your requirement of being playable on any audio hardware.

Re:Apple takes careful aim..

[Queer Boy]

yeah, DRM sucks. Next time you'll take your asshat off before buying DRMed files.

Re:Apple takes careful aim..

[Theaetetus]

If I pay for music I should be able to play it on any hardware I own capable of audio reproduction, not just the files "authorized" for that piece of hardware. Or conversely, not just on the peice of hardware "authorized" for those files.

1) Purchase DRM'd music from Real
2) Convert DRM'd music into a non-DRM'd format
3) Transfer to iPod

Oh, wait, you mean Real doesn't allow you to convert those DRM'd tracks you bought? Why, those bastards! If you pay for music, you should be able to play it on any hardware you own capable of audio reproduction, not just the files "authorized" for that piece of hardware!

(I think your anger at Apple is misplaced)
(Try Real instead, for not supporting those tracks you bought from them)

-T

Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple would be monumentally stupid not to do what it did. Real Networks has been trying to force some of those iTunes dollars to go their way. So in the name of freeing folks from iTunes, they'll parasitically try to siphon the profits Apple earns from its innovation and marketing.

Which is not bad for consumers in the short run.

Re:Of course...

[anagama]

• So in the name of freeing folks from iTunes, they'll parasitically try to siphon the profits Apple earns from its innovation and marketing.

I think the issue here is that people spend in excess of $250 on an ipod. Granted, Apple wants to make money selling songs, but first and foremost, it sells the hardware. When I buy hardware, I look for something I can use as I wish. I know there are millions who don't. That's sad. But I shouldn't have to buy a special music player for each different service in the world. I should be able to buy a single piece of hardware that will play music from all of them.

Here is how Apple is being evil - they are intentionally crippling their hardware to be incompatable with other services. For a hardware company, that's just wrong. Unfortunately, Apple is not solely a hardware company. But that can also be a weakness. Someday, a device will be made that looks nice and can connect to everything. I would think Ipods would lose their luster at that point and become cute little paperweights.

Re:Of course...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Here is how Apple is being evil - they are intentionally crippling their hardware to be incompatable with other services.

What you say is possible, but unlikely. First of all Apple does not really make money selling music, it is a break even proposition for them that they maintain to promote the ipod and as a strategic investment to slow MS's embracing of digital music. Second, if Apple planned on making a firmware release to mess with Real, why wouldn't they release it for all of their ipods, instead of just some of them? They are 100% correct to refuse to support some other companies products, especially after making it very clear that the format is unsupported by them, and will probably break. If Real's music no longer works on ipods after an update that it Real's problem. They were the ones that sold music to people, telling them it would work on ipods, when it was in a format not supported by the device manufacturer.

If Sony or someone introduces a free and standard DRM format, that can be applied to any music format and that does not have any licensing fee, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Apple adds support. In the mean time, Apple supports a half a dozen non-DRMed formats, and one DRMed format that can be legally un-DRMed. I'd say that is about as good as anyone can ask. The only thing they could do would be to open fairplay (which they probably do not have the rights to) or write and release an open alternative. The danger with this course, is, of course MS will embrace it by releasing music in that format, then breaking compatibility, and crushing Apple's music business.

Apple sucks, move along

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to see here except this post being modded -1 flamebait by the fanbois.

Ah! I was waiting for this one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Apple fanboys have successfully defended "no freedom" and "digital rights management" and scored themseleves "+5 insightful".

Way to to, Apple fanboys !!!!

You guys amaze me.

(shakes head)

Hmm, is this why the update was "quiet"?

[Tibor the Hun]

I was wondering why the update was extra quiet, as opposed to Windows updates which have the whole IS world clamoring and telling users not to update. (ie. SP2)

Re:Hmm, is this why the update was "quiet"?

[pkinetics]

When MS releases patches, they are often security fixes. As in, if you don't run this security patch, your machine will be exploited by this very nasty virus, and its your fault.

Re:Hmm, is this why the update was "quiet"?

[Tibor the Hun]

Well, i was referring to the article's coy observation that "apple quietly released the iPod update", whereby he made it sound that apple did it quietly so that users wouldn't know what was being done to their iPods.

The point I am trying to make is that all of Apple's updates are quiet and unobtrusive, as opposed to Microsoft's who has released patches that break the OS and various applications.

In all honesty, however, I do remember that one of Apple's patches did hose down some external hard-drives.

And you don't have to let it

[Anonymous Coward]

Subject says it all

And where do I

[stuffduff]

And where do I get a mod for that?

I mean how many minutes will it be before a mod is available? Probably well under an hour when the right person gets the upgrade and loses a substattial part of their library!

We remember.

[Anonymous Coward]

Realnetworks supported Linux.

Apple didn't support Quicktime for Linux.

Re:We remember.

[minimunchkin]

Real's music store doesn't even support Mac. It's really hard to blame Apple for this one.

Re:We remember.

[MasonMcD]

This looks like a greater commitment to open source than just sticking QuickTime on Linux.

Streaming Server
GCC
Kerberos
Open Directory
OpenPlay
CUPS
Rendezvous (ZeroConf)
WebCore (KHTML)
X11
A/G BLAST
HeaderDoc (like JavaDoc)

Re:We remember.

[mbbac]

What is your point?

Re:We remember.

[IamTheRealMike]

Streaming Server is only useful with the QuickTime client, which is Mac/Windows only.

Apple maintain their own GCC fork which adds support for new languages, and which can only be used on a Mac. But yes, they have contributed back to GCC - like many other companies selling proprietary hardware do (MIPS etc).

Kerberos - not sure what you mean here. I don't rememnber any open source software releases to do with this. Open Directory is a website as far as I'm concerned, what do you think it is?

OpenPlay isn't actually used by anybody, as far as I know.

CUPS has nothing to do with Apple. It was developed by Easy Software Products and I'm not aware of any significant contributions Apple made to it. They ship it with OSX along with some proprietary tools because it beat writing their own printer drivers.

Rendezvous - the code they released is so disgusting that nobody uses it. The Howl library is much preferred. I've actually read this mDNSResponder code from Apple and it's pretty atrocious. One huge C file where the biggest comment is some rambling justification of the bizarro indentation style it uses.

WebCore - they made no effort to work with the KDE community on this, preferring instead to fork KHTML so aggressively and quickly that the (undocumented) changes they made aren't getting back in. The "patches" come in the form of enormous patch dumps whenever a new WebCore release comes out, which is useless. I've worked with such patch dumps before and they typically have to be thrown away, or used at max as a reference.

X11 - what have they contributed to Xorg/Xfree beyond simple build/portability fixes? As far as I'm aware they simply took it and slapped a proprietary WM on top.

I never heard of the last two ... in contrast Real have released an entire multimedia framework, native players, and an open source hosting site to the Linux community. IE they released something actually useful to Linux users. Shocking I know.

Rob's Patented Comprehenisve Plan...

[bob670]

Real seems to be doomed by bad decision making and a complete lack of timing. They had streaming media all to themselves for a year or so and squandered that trying to parlay it into huge distribution deals. No doubt they were at least partially screwed by trying to make a deal with MS, which Rob should have known better than to try, and this ate up a few more years. Now we get regularly scheduled ovetures toward OSS (HelixPlayer) while they are still trying to make big money deals with the likes of MS, and forcably muscle in to Apple's stuff. So instead of the typical 3 steps to success that was so common in the dot.com era, I give you Rob's 8 steps to success in the age of digital media..

1. Create and distribute inferior technology

2. Whine and cry when you squander a market you had to yourself

3. Stew for 6 years

4. Suddenly realize you blew it and try to leech on to Apple success

5. Get smacked by Apple

6. Return to brooding

7. ???

8. $$$

hmmm...

[viva_fourier]

I thought phase 2 was going to be a 'quiet upgrade' of the iPod's mind-control equalizer features as to penetrate even the sturdiest foil hat...

Re:hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

No no you have it all wrong, that abrasive static you hear is not mind control. The supposedly superior ipod suffers from design flaws. Apple will need to focus on improving their quality control before they will be able to tackle mind control.

Re:Legality of Harmony

[redwoodtree]

Once again, Real did not hack the ipod to allow compatibility. Not even "Basically" as you say. They didn't reverse engineer, they didn't employ "hacker tacticts".

The ipod belongs to the owner who paid for the device. Not to Apple. If you want to load Real content on it or if you want to store your Microsoft XP home directory on there, you should be able to do whatever you want to do.

Thats why they call it the iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

Because I get to decide what you get to play on it. I being not you.

Fantasy world

[reptilicus]

---If I pay for music I should be able to play it on any hardware I own capable of audio reproduction, not just the files "authorized" for that piece of hardware---

So you should be able to play your 8 track tapes on your cd player?

What's that? You mean you'd have to convert the media format to do that? What's stopping you from doing that with your Real purchased tracks?

Re:Fantasy world

[davidtupper]

The files are already in a format(other than the DRM) that the hardware understands. Why should I not be able to play it? Why should I have to convert from MP3 to MP3 to allow a piece of hardware that understands MP3s to play it?

This is where I have the problem, not Apple wanting to sell more music. You can play any music you buy on it as long as you buy it from Apple. That would be like buying a Ford and having to buy gas only from a Ford authorized station, and if you go to a Chevy authorized station your car stops running.

Re:Fantasy world

[someonehasmyname]

Is the iPod supposed to just know how to unencode any DRM'd file?

What if I write my own DRM routine and encode all my music with it? Is is Apple's fault when my iPod won't play the file format that it wasn't designed to play?!

Real reverse-engineered the way the iPod unencodes their files and they proclaimed that their files will work on the iPod. Now they don't. Hell, they probably shouldn't be advertising their crap using Apple's brand name anyways.

Hey, let's help MS fix Windows. Let's decide that Windows can function if we replace NTKernel.exe with LinuxKernel.exe and watch Microsoft support that in all future versions of Windows. It'll be fun. Yay!

Re:Fantasy world

[IKnwThePiecesFt]

No, it would be more like having to buy gas from Ford(Apple's DRMed AACs) or any neutral gas station(MP3, nonDRMed AACs, AIFF, WAV) instead of Chevy(Real DRM AACs). You may have a point, but please keep your examples accurate...

Re:Fantasy world

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that in your fantasy world, neutral gas can only be obtained by refining it from oil (i.e. CDs) or illegally filtering additives out of specialty gas (i.e. removing DRM from purchased music). Both are a real pain, and one option is illegal.

Re:Great?

[EnormousTooth]

How, exactly, is that the "right thing" to do?

I want my 49 cents back!

[Smilin]

Maybe Real will launch a new "petition" website to get Apple to refund the 49 cents that everyone paid Real to get a song that will no longer play. hehe. Actually they are already working on a version of RealOne player that steals your file associations, makes your car run on leaded-only gasoline, refuses to uninstall from your dog and turns your iPod into a web banner.

Yet another story...

[flokemon]

...that makes me love my Iriver with OGG support even more :)

Re:Yet another story...

[nuggetman]

Fill in the blank:

OGG is relevant to this story because ________________

Re:Yet another story...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sexual intercourse?

Re:This is deplorable

[FooGoo]

Why would Apple care? The only people who would boycott are people who don't own Apple products or wouldn't buy them in the first place. There is no incentive for Apple to care. Buy an iPod and then complain then you have a stake in the game.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Tibor the Hun]

You're not a dreamer!
Just last week I was trying to play some songs that I've purchased on my '83 monte carlo.

My plan was to rev the engine really high to reproduce the base, rattle the trunk for treble, use the horn for midtones, and rig the muffler for the vocals.
But alas! No, nothing works. Fscking Chevy has disabled me to play purchased music on the hardware I OWN!
I think other chevy users will join me in hating chevy!

(ps. tip to mods... it's called sarcasm, not trolling)

New firmware:

[t_allardyce]

Seriously:

if (realnetworks_file && 30_day_money_back_expired) {
remove_ability_to_play_file();
}

way to go Apple!

embrace and extend

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like Real got the "Embrace and Extend" treatment from Apple.

Apple is becomming more and more like Microsoft - in all the evil ways, not the negligent ones.

The Hammer Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

What's it all about?

Is it good, or is it whack?

Re:The Hammer Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

good
http://thehammerrevolution.com

Re:The Hammer Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

IT'S ACTUALLY
http://hammerrevolution.com

So. Decide not to purchase them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is, once again, officially NOT cool.

I don't get it...

[nordicfrost]

...because you can just un-DRM the stuff you bought from the Real Networks store and then import it to the iPod, right? I mean, iTunes Music Store lets you have an un-DRMed version of your bought songs (actually, as many as you want) on CD so it is a no-brainer. Right?

brand loyalty

[farble1670]

Apple is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong.

i think this can be better phrased as: "nobody can stop them". sorry, but if our friends in redmond did something like this the /. community would be screaming bloody murder. apple is certainly under no obligation to actively, support real's DRM, but that's not what we're talking about. apple has taken specific action to disallow real's DRM.

apple is using it's monopoly in the digital audio player market to maintain it's monopoly in the online digital music market. what if microsoft used it's monopoly in the OS business to maintain it's monopoly in the browser business? oh! wait that already happend.

the only difference here is that /. loves apple, and /. hates real. folks should try to look a few millimeters past their brand loyalty.

Re:brand loyalty

[yabos]

They're fixing a hole in their security that allows others to get past the DRM. So what's wrong with that.

Re:brand loyalty

[JoshWurzel]

apple has taken specific action to disallow real's DRM

Not necessarily. Perhaps Real's hack was relying on some bug in the code, or on some bit being 1 instead of 0, or who knows what. Someone changed something in the course of business-as-usual, with no intention of breaking Real. It may have only been later that they discovered that Real music no longer worked, at which point management's repsonse was "hell if I care!" and the "problem" wasn't fixed.

(offtopic: I'm reminded of Office Space where they say "well, we fixed the bug, so the problem will just sort itself out naturally. We like to avoid confrontation.")

Without Apple's equivalent of a halloween memo, you'll never know if this was malevolence, incompentence, or apathy.

Re:brand loyalty

[liquidsin]

Apple has a monopoly on digital audio players? I think the anti-Apple crowd around here is worse than the anti-MS crowd. At least the MS bashers seem to keep their heads out of their asses. Apple is nowhere near a monopoly. There are dozens of "digital audio players" on the market, if not hundreds. Just because Apple makes one of the better ones, does not make them a monopoly. And your analogy of MS bundling browsers is plain retarded. This has nothing to do with bundling. Real was trying to make money off of Apple's brand name, plain and simple. Apple, the terrible monopoly that they are, lets you play ANY mp3 or aac or wav file on the ipod, but restricts DRM to their own. Real, in their infinite stupidity, was selling (for money) music that was DRMed with a hack to work around that limitation. If they don't come up with a new trick, it's their own fault that their customers got fucked. So, if you bought music from Real, you can still play it on your pc and on whatever other devices are supported. You could probably even burn it, rip it, and put the rip on your ipod. So how is it that Apple is evil again?

Re:brand loyalty

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of the DRM is supposedly to prevent casual copying of copyrighted music, not lock the user into the Apple store.

Re:brand loyalty

[Anonymous Coward]

"get past the DRM"? Uh, no. This prevents iPods from playing AAC files with non-Apple DRM. There's no security hole in that. The iPod could and can play unprotected AAC files all day long.

Re:brand loyalty

[10Ghz]

So how is it that Apple is evil again?

By purposefully blocking competing products, and therefore limiting the choices consumers have. More questions?

What I mean is that while this might be legal, it doesn't make it right, as long as consumers are concerned. How exactly do we, as consumers, benefit from this? Why should we be cheering Apple to "Yes please! Limit our choices! Yes, we like it in the ass!"? WHY should we be defending Apple? Because they are "cool"? Because what they are doing is legal? Yes, they have the right to do this. No, that doesn't mean it's OK or that we should be cheering them for their actions.

What Apple is doing here, harms consumers. And in my book, this makes this action "evil". Hell, the stunts RIAA pull are all perfectly legal, but that doesn't make them right!

Re:brand loyalty

[Dogtanian]

Hell, the stunts RIAA pull are all perfectly legal, but that doesn't make them right!

All of them?

Just because something hasn't been tried in court and isn't likely to be tried in court doesn't make it "perfectly legal".

If you view companies as amoral profit-maximising entities (which is what most large companies are), it makes sense for them to do whatever they can *get away with* , and if that includes things that would be breaking the law but are unlikely to get to court for any number of reasons, then so be it. I would guess a number of the RIAA's tactics may be found illegal in such a situation.

Of course, they will also break the law if the (total) punishment is far smaller than the potential benefits.

This doesn't account for pissing off the public. In a non-monopoly situation, the public have an opportunity not to buy that company's products.

In a monopoly situation, the companies risks the public (through politicians) taking action against the monopoly. Ha ha..... yeah, I found that last bit pretty implausible too.

Re:brand loyalty

[10Ghz]

All of them?

Of course not, don't be absurd! if RIAA hires a bunch of new secretaries, it's perfectly OK. I was talking more about their claims of "filesharing will destroy music"-claims. their claims that "downloading is stealing!"-bullshit. Their claims that "we lost xx billion dollars due to filesharing!" or copy-protected CD's or any other similar crap they spout all the time. None of those things they spout are illegal as such. Wrong, yes. Illegal, no.

Of course we then have the issue of price-fixing, which is illegal, and RIAA (or more precisely, the companies that make up RIAA) has been punished for it.

Re:brand loyalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, you, as a general consumer, do not benefit, but we, as ipod consumers, do. Imagine for a moment that Real was wildly successful and a huge number of ipod users came to expect to be able to play Real music on their ipods. If that were the case, then Apple's options on how to evolve their product without upsetting their customber base become greatly diminished. Apple engineers and product managers would then have to spend a huge amount of time and money designing for and testing for backward compatibility. The easiest way to prevent this scenario from coming to pass is to act now to block Real's product before it becomes a larger problem for Apple. Thus, even if this were a deliberate act by Apple and not a sideeffect of other changes, there still is a benefit for existing ipod consumers; its keeps open the possibility for future innovation.

Re:brand loyalty

[10Ghz]

You are wrong. Basically, Apple could just let the issue be. That is, not purposefully deny consumers from using Real's service, but not support it either. But Apple doesn't do that, they purposefully try to block Real's service. They waste time and resources on this thing, instead of using those resources to improve their own service.

Like I said, they could just leave the matter as it is. Take no effort in supporting Real on iPod, but don't actively block them either. Doing that they would keep their customer-base happy and they wouldn't waste resources on this thing. What they are now doing does NOT in any shape or form benefit the consumer! Having alternative to itunes does NOT harm the consumers in any shape or form. And since some people think that Apple is doing this for the benefit of the consumers, really tells quite alot about Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field....

Re:brand loyalty

[Equinox]

Funny thing is, I have an Archos mp3 player that works just fine. Apple doesn't want Real using their DRM; I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that. People here would also scream bloody murder if say I stole your ID card for work and started playing around in restricted areas too.

Re:brand loyalty

[Anonymous Coward]

But Apple doesn't do that, they purposefully try to block Real's service.

They are? Then why the firmware only "block" Real's files on iPod Photo and iPod Mini? Why didn't Apple "purposely block" Real's files on other iPods? Heh!

Re:brand loyalty

[liquidsin]

This doesn't harm consumers. The hack that Real used to make this work was a security hole in in the Fairplay DRM. They fixed it. Fairplay isn't Apple's product to let everyone use however they want. They license the DRM tech. If Real can hack the DRM, there's a chance anyone else could do the same to more nefarious ends. Just because you like the implications of a security breach, doesn't mean the vendor has any obligation to leave it unfixed. Maybe if they hadn't patched this in firmware they would have lost their Fairplay license. You know damn well the RIAA won't let them sell songs without DRM. Fairplay is pretty lax as it is, but I'd hate to see Apple have to switch to something else because they decided to be nice and let Real ride their coat tails for free. Apple having to switch to another DRM that's more restrictive WOULD be harmful to consumers - the paying ITMS customers that Apple has a reason to care about.

Re:brand loyalty

[pjp6259]

This isn't really comparable to MS's OS business, but it is directly comparable to their X-Box business.

General consensus on slashdot when MS wanted to keep people from using mod chips on their x-boxes was that MS was evil for keeping people from their god given right to use hardware they bought for anything they want. Funny how when Apple does something very similar, the general consensus is that they are justified.

Re:brand loyalty

[liquidsin]

I have no problem with MS blocking modded xboxes from using Live - anything to keep the game honest and fun for everyone is fine by me. The problem I have is with the lawsuits. People *should* be allowed to do with their hardware as they see fit. If you don't like that your ipod can't play your Real files, don't update the firmware. If the new features in the update are beneficial enough to you, you'll install it. You have the choice. If the benefits of modding your xbox are great enough, you'll do it and not worry about Live - that too is your choice. Everybody acts like corporations are all pure evil for trying to make money. Don't like it? Don't buy their products.

That's another good question...

[SuperKendall]

I assume since they were trying to make the REAL AAC files identical, that Hymn would work on them as well - anyone know the answer to that?

I can possibly answer my own question myself (if they have the update for the original iPod, which I think they might). But I dislike the thought of paying Real anything even for a test...

More from the standpoint of simply not liking Real, than thinking they are doing anything wrong in this case. I fully support Real's attempt to try and create protected AAC files.

The one thing I have wondered though is how it is possible that Real is not violating FairTunes patents by using the DRM without permission.

Re:That's another good question...

[Anonymous Coward]

because there are no patents on MD5 and AES.

Re:That's another good question...

[Ath]

Unfortunately, Hymm (or any of its variants) do not so far remove the DRM that Harmony puts back onto the file. I do not know the technical details, but apparently the FairPlay-compatible DRM that Harmony uses it not exactly the same. Otherwise, this firmware update would not have broken Harmony.

This is Apple's platform

[bubba451]

Apple has not at all been coy about it's iTunes+iPod business platform. iPod sales support the iTunes store, which in turn increases the "value" of the iPod. Break that cycle and you start losing market share.

I don't think there's anyone out their who naively bought Real songs to put on their iPod. Anyone who's savvy enough to know it could be done had to know that eventually Apple was going to pull the plug.

Have you considered anything else?

[daveschroeder]

Have you considered that reverse engineering isn't guaranteed to work with changes to the iPod and/or FairPlay and/or the implementation of such, etc.?

Apple may have deliberately disabled Real's reverse engineering, but what if, for the sake of argument, some third party reverse engineered service became popular in some circles, and then was inadvertently broken due to updates in Apple's products, or because the parties responsible for reverse engineering aren't aware of Apple product and firmware roadmaps, etc.?

Then your answer is, well, they should just license to anyone, and make SDKs and whitepapers available regarding their implementation. Why? Who are you to say? It's their product. Furthermore, the tight iTunes(-only) and iPod integration - and the associated ridiculous ease of use - is one of Apple's biggest selling points for the combo. Why would they want to support anything that dilutes that?

If you don't want to support Apple because of it, fine. And their refusal to license may ultimately doom iPod to the same "fate" as Macintosh in the marketplace. But Apple isn't doing anything legally or morally wrong here; the only question is whether or not you want to support Apple for their decisions.

Re:Great?

[SoSueMe]

Apple is not the criminal. This is their SOP. Hardware lock-in coupled with software/service lock-in.
It is their business model.
It is their choice.
You like it or you lump it.

What?

[suwain_2]

I love Apple. I hate Real.

But why would Apple think I want them to take a feature OUT of something I already bought? Firmware updates should fix stuff and give me new features, but under no circumstances do I want them to REMOVE functionality that I once had.

Re:What?

[reiggin]

I don't think allowing Real to bypass their DRM technology can be called a "feature" of the iPod. More like a bug. Apple squashed a bug and its name was Real. Real has a history of being nothing more than a pest to the industry anyhow. Why should this be any different?

Re:What?

[Artega VH]

which feature did they remove? Where on a ipod feature-list is it written "ability to play Harmony DRM music"?

Nowhere.. now shut up and sit back down.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

now shut up and sit back down.

This coming from a supporter of the company that made the 1984 ad. How sad and pathetic that if it were to be remade, it would now be Steve Jobs' face staring down on the mindless and drone-like Apple users.

Re:What?

[Lehk228]

so any function not advertised is no longer a feature? funny MS never said that windows can play UT but if an update comes out that breaks UT i'd imagine people would be pissed, especially if MS was also selling an FPS which was not broken by the patch. I think you need to shut up and sit down.

Re:What?

[Artega VH]

I'm pretty sure that on the windows featurelist is "the ability to run windows programs" or something to that affect. So if MS releases a patch to stop a particular app from working then people should be bitching and moaning. Therefore your analogy is wrong and your argument bunk.. so I'll ignore the last part..

Re:What?

[hunterx11]

This would be more like Microsoft discreetly changing Windows libraries just so that new programs won't work in Wine. Not exactly a nice thing to do, but I hardly think Microsoft has any obligation to the Wine developers.

Re:What?

[Lehk228]

not at all, patching windows takes a product that works for the customer and makes it not work anymore, jus like apple did with Harmony based music files.

Obligatory GEB quote

[Florian Weimer]

Tortoise: Oh, yes. Well, you see, the Crab came over to visit one day. You must understand that he's always had a weakness for fancy gadgets, and at that time he was quite an aficionado for, of all things, record players. He had just bought his first record player, and beign somewhat gullible, believed every word the salesman had told him about it -in particular, that it was capable of reproducing any and all sounds. In short, he was convinced that it was a Perfect phonograph.

Achilles: Naturally, I suposse you disagreed.

Tortoise: True, but he would hear nothing of my arguments. He staunchly maintained that any sound whatever was reproducible on his machine. Since I couldn't convince him of the contrary, I left it at that. But not long after that, I returned the visit, taking with me a record of a song which I had myself composed. The song was called "I Cannot Be Played on Record Player 1".

Achiles: Rather unusual. Was it a present for the Crab?

Tortoise: Absolutely. I suggested that we listen toit on his new phonograph, and he was very glad to oblige me. So he put it on. But unfortunately, after only a few notes, the record player began vibrating rather severely, and then with a loud "pop", broke into a large number of fairly small pieces, scattered all about the room. The record was utterly destroyed also, needless to say.

Achiles: Calamitous blow for the poor fellow, I'd say. What was the matter with this record player?

Tortoise: Really, there was nothing the matter, nothing at all. It simply couldn't reproduce the sounds on the record which I had brought him, because they were sounds that would make it vibrate and break.

(More is here. Buy the book, those dialogues are really fun to read, even if you are scared by the remaining parts of the book.)

The Apple vs. Real battle will be fun to watch, and of course, Apple has no chance of winning within the system. We'll see when Apple realizes this, steps out of the system, and sues Real.

Anyone notice...

[The Only Druid]

Anyone notice that there's no REQUIREMENT that you update the software on your ipod? Thus far, Apple hasn't made ANY requirements to iTunes or the Music Store to require that you update your firmware on the iPod to continue to use the software. In fact, quite the contrary, you can continue to use all the various firmwares, so long as those firmwares included support for iTunes/the store.

Re:Anyone notice...

[adrew]

Maybe not the firmware, but I recently did a reinstall on my G4 and was using an older version of iTunes again. The first time I went to the Music Store (to snag one of the weekly free downloads) it told me that my current version of iTunes was too old and that I'd have to update it.

Never mind that this same version of iTunes had worked flawlessly at the store just a few months prior...

I hear Michael is planning one too.

[Anonymous Coward]

When installed on an unsuspecting Slashdotters PC, it launches IE and repeatedly loads Roland's blog and the Engadget website.

Re:I hear Michael is planning one too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez Michael! Can't you take criticism -- or even a joke -- at all?! Seems like somebody touched a nerve there, eh?

Not All iPods...just some.

[AtOMiCNebula]

Apple hasn't updated the firmware download for 3G or earlier iPods. The only iPods that have been updated are the 4G iPods (click wheel), iPod Mini, and the Photo iPod.

This doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Apple in the business of selling MP3s, or of selling hardware? To my naive viewpoint, it seems like they could make more money by supporting other music stores' formats. They are probably just afraid of the RIAA coming down on them...

Re:This doesn't make sense

[idsofmarch]

It's more than that, Apple is the only online (well-known) music store that doesn't sell files with Microsoft's DRM scheme. If Apple just becomes a vendor of Mp3 players then they must also allow WMA files, which makes WMA the standard. Now, all digital music is controlled by Microsoft. So, now Apple's machines become digital backwaters in relationship to WMP on OSX and therefore Apple's machines, the real bread-and-butter of their operation becomes even less important. Since the iTMS requires Quicktime this makes QT more important and WMP less attractive.

Re:This is deplorable

[Tsiangkun]

I call on a boycott of "Real". Anyone who does business with this half assed company deserves to be screwed over because they knew going into the transaction that "Real" is a shoddy company. I have lost no advertised functionality over the change in firmware

Once again, completely wrong

[daveschroeder]

No one is forcing you to update your firmware. NO ONE.

The firmware updates will only stay within the specified operating parameters of the device. There is no parameter that requires supporting reverse-engineered DRM content from other sources.

Now if Apple removed the ability, for example, to play MP3s, then you might have a point.

But they didn't, and Apple isn't forcing anyone to update firmware, therefore you're completely wrong, whether I'm "fanboy" or not.

Thanks for playing.

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[jmcleod]

Yes, just like nobody forced users to upgrade to newer versions of MS-DOS that broke applications that competed with Microsoft applications.

Now if Apple removed the ability, for example, to play MP3s, then you might have a point.

You don't understand. For Apple to remove the ability to do anything from a piece of equipment it does not own is (I can't say illegal, because I really have no idea) unethical, especially since what they removed is the ability to interface with a competitor.

Whether it's illegal or not has nothing to do with its wrongness. If people were merely renting the iPods then Apple would have a moral basis, but that's not the case.

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[Dixie_Flatline]

Apple hasn't changed the iPod, YOU have. By downloading the firmware and installing it, you've given tacit approval to Apple to modify your firmware in whatever way they please. They haven't come in and changed the firmware chip, nor have they actually made the software update to the firmware themselves - that was all you.

It's not unethical, either. You should know the risks involved with updating your firmware, whether it removes functionality or not.

Incidentally, the new features on most iPods aren't really worth downloading in any case. (And they usually stop updating the firmware of iPods that aren't the current generation. My 3G iPod no longer gets useful firmware updates.)

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[timmyf2371]

The iPod was designed to play their DRM'd AAC files and MP3 files. There was never any intention of supporting other DRM schemes and therefore the removal of the ability to play Real's files would merely be classified as an optional bug fix.

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[mdolton]

No company has a moral obligation to make things easy for it's competitors. Are you upset that your Xbox doesn't play PS2 games? Are you upset that your local Ford dealer won't sell you the Chevy you want? Are you upset that Walmart doesn't display Target and Kmart's prices next to it's own so you can easily compare? Well, maybe you are, but that doesn't change the fact that none of these companies are obligated to do such things. Why should Apple be forced to give away their business to Real?

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, you're wrong. Douche. They wouldn't have a point if they removed mp3s because to be a music store you must serve DRM'd content or you won't get label support. Therefore by blocking Real, which they did, they stifled the competition. I highly, highly doubt that they fixed something or changed something on the ipod and it happened to break Real's reverse engineering. This is completely intentional, and completely an attempt to take out the competition.

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

For Apple to remove the ability to do anything from a piece of equipment it does not own is (I can't say illegal, because I really have no idea) unethical

Perhaps, then, by that logic, Microsoft should stop fixing bugs in Windows because it removes Windows' ability to crash.

--AC

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit YELLING fanboy.

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! Nice analogy. Best post in this article. Well done, fellow AC.

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[initialE]

I'll tell you what's going to happen, every ipod that comes out of the factory is going to have the latest firmware preloaded inside it, and it's also probable that future purchases from the iTunes store is going to require this firmware update to support the songs purchased. In any case, you're going to update. Period.

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"whether I'm "fanboy" or not."

You know you're a fanboi and yet you revel in it.

That's really...um...pathetic.

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[pyite]

Wow, you're being quite ignorant. I'm sorry, but it's true. Real is relying on an undocumented, proprietary technology to sell its files. Apple is under no obligation to make sure it keeps working. NONE. As mentioned, Real is free to sell plain vanilla MP3s, and they will work fine on an iPod. 100% Fine. YOU ARE THE ONE who does not understand.

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[dubl-u]

It's not unethical, either. You should know the risks involved with updating your firmware, whether it removes functionality or not.

By this logic, it's ethical for somebody to be a crook as long as we all should know that he's a crook. So I guess you should call up Sanford Wallace and tell him that his latest scam was ethical.

Personally, I'd say that knowledge and consent are a big part of ethics. Apple presents themselves as the nice guys, as the underdogs. Intentionally and silently removing a capability from a product they sold to somebody, as they are alleged to have done, without saying, "Hey, if you get this update you can't listen to your music," doesn't strike me as in any way ethical.

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha...thanks for playing?

WTF?

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[jmcleod]

If you read the article, you'll notice that there was no indication that Apple was altering their firmware to break Harmony. They just slipped it in. Why do that if you think what you're doing is on the up-and-up?

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[Dixie_Flatline]

I think Apple's been pretty up front about how their hardware works. They say, "Our iPod works with the iTunes music store, and ONLY the iTunes music store. Like it or lump it."

If you then go out and buy an iPod and expect it to work with other music stores, you're a fool.

If someone then goes and hacks it so that it DOES work with another music store, but Apple changes it so that it works EXACTLY THE WAY THEY SOLD IT TO YOU, there's nothing unethical going on, especially if YOU'RE the one that ended up making the change to your device so it didn't work. They haven't changed the iPod, as I said before. They've left it up to you do actually modify the device. If you do, that's your problem.

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[Dixie_Flatline]

Apple has never promised that their hardware would work with another music store. When Harmony was announced, Apple SAID that they would do what they had to do. Surely you didn't expect them to leave it alone.

Someone pointed out that the change in the firmware could have done something as innocuous as invalidated some memory offsets that Harmony was relying on. We don't know.

But in any case, Apple's story has ALWAYS been that their player ONLY works with the iTMS. That's the way they market it and sell it. If you don't like it, don't buy it in the first place. After that, if it starts working with another music store, but Apple somehow 'breaks' it, all they've done is make the player do EXACTLY what they sold it to you to do. Play music, and work ONLY with the iTMS.

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[dubl-u]

They say, "Our iPod works with the iTunes music store, and ONLY the iTunes music store. Like it or lump it."

Sorry, is that in an advertisement I haven't seen? Or did I miss that footnote on Apple's iPod site? Because that's about the most research your average consumer will be doing.

I'm not saying it isn't legal, of course; caveat emptor and all that. But given all of Apple's we're-the-alternative-to-1984 self-promotion, you could see how most consumers would expect otherwise.

Re:Once again, completely wrong

[geoffspear]

Are all of the security updates to OS X unethical too? Many of them remove the ability of my computer to do things. For instance, my computer will no longer automatically launch newly installed helper applications in response to random URI protocols to allow someone to hack my system. Should I be threatening to sue Apple for breaking my computer?

iPod

[halcyon1234]

Let's look into the Future Machine:

Slashdot News From Exactly 24 Hours From Now:
People have already figured out how to hack through the new firmware update, allowing RealNetwork's music to once again play on the iPod.
Don't panic.

Re:iPod

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm nominating you to get a Wiki page instead of Sollog.

online music store isn't really the issue

[jxyama]

right now, real hacking iTMS DRM is for no one's benefit but real's. it is not offering "consumers" any more benefits. here is the reason: online music store isn't really an issue right now.

the barrier to entry for consumers into the world of portable digital music is the music player, NOT the online music store. most people don't care how they might save 10 cents per track when they are faced with the decision of dropping $200+ on a digital player. they will decide which player is the best and if they want to buy music for it online, they will not complain that the said player only works with a limited number of online stores. (because all of them have about the same price, same songs, etc.) (proof: in the article, real says they sold 3 million tracks in 3 weeks they had "49 cent" half price sale. iTMS sells that much in a week and a half at 99 cents.)

iPod is the most popular/profittable player out there - and that is an open market. everyone is free to buy whatever the player they want. they will all work with standard electric outlets, most computers and most popular music formats. real is doing nothing but leeching off of iPod's success while giving not much in tangible benefit to the consumers, not to mention apple. if they really wanted to help the cause for the consumers, instead of hacking iPod DRM, they should be talking to music industry executives so that they can offer music without DRM.

We are all collateral damage to them

[gelfling]

It is we who pay in money, in obsolescence, in broken things, in frustration. We are the collateral damage in the battle between who is a bigger asshole in the music sharing industry.

Here's what I recommend Apple, Real, MPAA, RIAA: Go fuck yourselves, but first go to Home Depot get some sharp tools and fucking kill each other with them. Then, when one of you is standing proud and aroused amidst the gore on pile of children's skulls, we'll talk to you, whoeverthefuck you are. Until then PGFY (please go fuck yourselves)

Re:We are all collateral damage to them

[wwahammy]

Thank you, I'm glad someone said that.

another reason for apple to fail

[hkht]

what a dumb business desicion. i don't have an ipod and won't get one. no matter how much i may love apple gear, i'm sick and tired of their elitist beliefs. it all comes down to mr. jobs always having his nose stuck in the air. not to be able to play all ready purchased music, so we just waste our already spent money and it's no big deal? guess it's a concept a billion-aire like jobs would never understand his confused notion that his loyal followeres will always be loyal. think again.

When all else fails, screw the customer.

[winkydink]

After all, you already have their money, why would you care about giving them choices?

Re:When all else fails, screw the customer.

[reiggin]

It's called capitalism. You know, protecting your product and your profit margins. You and your commie/socialist kin would like to think that some utopian system exists to provide you with "choices" regardless of whether or not there is a cost to the bottom line of the company that offered you up the initial "choice." If you didn't want a closed system, you shouldn't have bought an iPod. That's like people complaining about not being able to see the entire Windows source code after paying for a XP license. Gimmeabreak.

And you say that they're screwing the customer? How? They sold you the iPod with an understanding that you were limited to the iTunes Music Store. And now you are upset when a hack is no longer availabe to allow you to bypass the iTMS/iPod system? It's a HACK by a company that is trying to undermine Apple and cut in on their turf. It should be illegal, not a celebrated "choice" for the customer. Do you think Rob Glaser viewed it as a "choice" for the customer? Heck no, he didn't! He viewed it as another last-ditch effort to save his worthless, sinking company, Real Networks.

Re:When all else fails, screw the customer.

[phillymjs]

Anyone who bought an iPod based on the fact that an unapproved hack would allow them to play DRM'd music purchased from Real, is an idiot.

Everyone else who bought an iPod knew exactly what they were getting when they made their choice, and has no problem with this. It's not like Apple (or any competing music stores or portable digital music player vendors) hid the fact that the iPod only works with DRM'd tunes from the iTMS.

~Philly

Re:When all else fails, screw the customer.

[winkydink]

Perhaps you should read some of my other postings before calling referring to me as commie/socialist. Apple could have worked something out with Real in a way that did not affect the customer, if they so chose.

If this were the leader in another segment blocking out their competitors's access, folks would be screaming bloody murder. When Apple does it it's fine, when Microsoft does, it's heinous. You can't have it both ways, much as you'd like to.

Re:When all else fails, screw the customer.

[Big Boss]

The difference is that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, Apple is not. Apple *MAY* be the "market leader", you may even argue that they are a monopolist. But the fact remains that they have not been convicted in a court of law. I would think you would have your work cut out for you if you tried to change that. The iPod may be a leader, but I doubt they have even 50% of the market. iTMS is hardly in a better situation.

While I think it's damned stupid for Apple not to play DRMed Real and WMA files, it's thier business and they can do whatever they want to it. Hell, they could probably cross-license the patents and get permission for free! They would have to write the code, but it would open up whole market segments. I'm not an MBA though, so maybe there is a good reason Apple chooses not to go this route.

I see this as no different than Sony not supporting MP3 on thier players. It's stupid, but it's thier right to be stupid if they want to. IMO, Apple should add Real, WMA, OGG and FLAC at the very least, with DRM support where possible. I don't like DRM, but I can just choose to buy music that doesn't have it. Some people like the various music stores, and if it sells iPods, I would think it would be a win.

Disclaimer: I own a 15GB iPod, and I think it's a wonderfull device. I don't own stock in Apple or any other company mentioned in this post.

Re:When all else fails, screw the customer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just noticed your sig and read your journal entry on the junk faxes. Glad you nailed the jackass, but what you did with the "winnings" makes me sick. Did those junk faxes + your time fighting the case actually cost you $6,000?? I'd be willing to bet that hell no, they didn't. Then why the fuck did you get all greedy and spend that money, not rightfully yours, on yourself? Asshole.

You may have had a legitimate case, but these sorts of damages are exactly what's wrong with the legal system. They encourage frivolous bullshit lawsuits that tie up the system because people are looking for a big fat payday. Punitive damages should be kept to punish the wrongdoer, but the plaintiff should not get one red cent beyond reasonable, itemized compensation for actual damages. No emotional distress bullshit (you CAN NOT put a price on that, any attempt to do so is pointless - life sucks sometimes, deal with it; therapy is another story, and should be included in itemized damages), no $500 a freaking fax ($1000 actually with your lawyer). That probably cost you, what, 20 cents max? Probably much less?

Instead, punitive damages should go to a charity of the court's choosing. Preferably related in some way to the case. Or to some government fund to help reduce overall taxes. The bad guys get punished but the lameass "good" guys don't get all greedy and clog things up with bullshit.

I understand you settled out of court so in effect it was a private transaction, not subject to any hypothetical laws or judicial conventions I propose. But I still maintain that it was unethical for you to spend that money as you did, because it was not rightfully yours. The faxer did not do $6,000 worth of damage to YOU, so you are not morally entitled to $6,000 in compensation. The faxer did deserve the $12,000 penalty because he was surely doing it to others, plus it would deter him from doing it again.

You should have given that money to charity - maybe bought a few iMacs for an underfunded school computer class.

Screw Real

[GeXX]

Good! About time someone does something about this company that is out of control. First they make a media player that just plays it's own format, nice slim, easy to install, not alot of crap with it, then they turn it into bloatware, and want to play everything, and practically hi-jacks once's system almost as bad has gator. Then they come on, try to hack the ipod to play there shitty format, and then when apple locks them out, they bitch. Damned near force you to buy there pro software that doesn't do much more then there bloatware. I really hate it when I have to install it to view some content on the web, I'd much perfer for them just to use mpeg or windows media. At least with windows media, they aren't trying to get me to install a bunch of other crap with it.

If real doesn't like it, stop being a unethical company and make your own player, or partner up with some other smaller company that already makes mp3 players, and make something good out of it.

Re:Screw Real

[rainman_bc]

At least with windows media, they aren't trying to get me to install a bunch of other crap with it.

That's only if you don't consider windows XP "a bunch of other crap" ;)

Re:Screw Real

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Windows XP

You do know you can get Windows Media Player for Mac, right?

What he would have liked to say....

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a plan so comprehensive you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel.
- Rob "Blackadder" Glaser

http://www.createsomething.net/quotes/black_adder. html

Re:This is deplorable

[machine of god]

I CALL FOR A BOYCOTT ON ALL OF APPLE'S PRODUCTS.

Wherever thou shalt go, oh fearless leader. To where will you be leading the hoardes of believers first?

Next firmware...

[Nik13]

Next firmware will probably lock out ogg er... Nevermind ;)

Comprehensive plan

[SamMichaels]

1. Wait for some hackers to do a workaround.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!!

Nice..

[robpoe]

Now not only will I not get an iPod, I will no longer dream about them in my sleep (as if!)

This DRM shit is getting on my nerves.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Real messed up and made the files they make some how noticible.

Re:Legality of Harmony

[JHromadka]

The ipod belongs to the owner who paid for the device. Not to Apple. If you want to load Real content on it or if you want to store your Microsoft XP home directory on there, you should be able to do whatever you want to do.

You can put whatever you want on the iPod. It's seen as a hard disk. It may not do anything useful with those files in your XP home directory, but you can move them from one computer to another.

So?

[Metzli]

If people are so upset about the iPod firmware update making their Real songs unplayable, then maybe they shouldn't update their firmware. This seems simple enough. The new Apple software won't cause disruptions for you if you don't install it. If you did, then revert back to the previous firmware version.

I'm really curious why this is such a big deal. Apple made the device and the firmware (for a profit), Real reverse-engineered things to get their songs to play (for a profit), then Apple changes the iPod firmware not to play Real's songs (again, for a profit). If this is such a travesty and people are so upset, perhaps they should help Real reverse-engineer things again (so Real can make a profit). This just seems like a p*****g match between two competing companies, which in-and-of-itself isn't overly earth-shattering.

Re:So?

[Xenna]

Because *we* the consumers are the ones that suffer when our 0.99 tracks stop playing on our players.

Disclaimer: I never bought one DRM'ed music file and I don't plan to. I own an iRiver H140 that's just a fully featured music player without a marketing masterplan to rule the universe attached. Thank you very much...

Then you're not going to be buying anything

[daveschroeder]

Because every other store (besides Real and Apple) that uses DRM is Windows Media. Those players won't play songs from the Real or Apple stores ("whatever I buy"). The iPod won't play DRMed WMA files. So you're either not buying anything, or you'll be waiting for some format to "win".

Re:Then you're not going to be buying anything

[GigsVT]

There are music stores that don't use DRM period. You could just use those, instead of paying 10 times more for crippled files.

Re:Then you're not going to be buying anything

[Anonymous Coward]

THEN YOU CAN USE AN IPOD.

Re:Then you're not going to be buying anything

[realdpk]

emusic.com isn't quite 10 times less than iTunes and real's service, but at around 25 cents a track (what I've been paying) it's damned competitive. No DRM, just MP3s.

I'm not going to be picking up a iPod either -- Apple isn't really surprising me with their antics here.

Re:Then you're not going to be buying anything

[Twanfox]

iRiver, I believe, provides an MP3 player similar to the iPod, it's just not Apple. I think that's it. FM Radio + MP3's. Best of both worlds.

Now, if only it played Minidiscs as well.

Re:Then you're not going to be buying anything

[GigsVT]

allofmp3 is about 10 times less.

Re:Then you're not going to be buying anything

[realdpk]

emusic.com is legal in the US. allofmp3.com probably would not be.

Re:Then you're not going to be buying anything

[GigsVT]

It's not my responsibility to ensure the place I buy my music pays all royalties due. That's between them and the record labels.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

We need a DRM standard

[MobyDisk]

We need a DRM standard so that we only have one thing to crack before we can play our music files on whatever we want. :-)

Personally, I'm getting tired of using the "analog hole" to rp my mp3s to LPs and 45s. :-)

Not conveniently, no

[jfengel]

You certainly could go that route: Harmony to CD to MP3 to iPod. What a pain in the ass.

The whole reason people bought an iPod is because it's an extremely friendly, easy-to-use object. Real wants to capitalize on that by selling music for it, but they want their own DRM, too. So they hacked the format, trying to give you the best of both worlds, at least as far as they're concerned.

Your route avoids the reverse engineering through the "CD hole", but even aside from the effort and possible loss of quality (from the Real format to the CD format at least, plus the re-compression to MP3 or AAC if you want to rip that way) there's the fact that you have to use a physical CD in the mix.

I suppose with an RW CD you could reuse the same disk, but has anybody written a CD ramdisk yet? Something that pretends to be a CD burner but which in fact just caches to RAM, or to the hard disk? I can't think of any use for it except to fake out iTunes. You still get the re-encoding losses but at least you're not actually spinning up a physical object to do a purely computational task.

So I wouldn't call it a no-brainer. The fact that something can be done doesn't mean most people will want to do it. They're not preventing every loophole, just the ones that require no work on the part of the end-user. That's probably enough to drive away 99% of the business that would use Real with an iPod and back to iTMS, where Apple wants them.

You Best Me To It.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought exactly the same thing when I saw this modded down!

The parent is +5 but this gets -1.

That's some seriously strange modding for a seriously funny post.

Personally if I had points I'd have scored it +5 Insightful.

Who buys music from Real??

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone stupid enough to buy anything from Real deserves what they get. I'm glad you can't play them on your iPod anymore.

Real is just trying to hitch on to Apple's bandwagon. If Real had a product that had any worth, they would be able to make money themselves without riding on someone else's coattails.

Bunch of losers!

Re:Who buys music from Real??

[Captain Trolltalk]

So what you really mean that users should not be allowed to make their own purchasing choice and get music from Real if they so desire?

There is a baffling hypocrisy here.. I remember the same crowd of people, even some of the same exact users here, who bellowed about how "Micro$oft" is evil and a monopoly because they merely bundled MSIE with Windows.

Well guess what? Here we have Apple bundling their own music service - iTunes with their MP3 player. Not only do they BUNDLE their own music download service (I don't think that in itself is evil, but I am using the same logic that people here in the past have used), but they LOCK OUT OTHER MUSIC SERVICES. Lets not forget how people still to this day whine about Microsoft's undocumented API's that gives Microsoft's products an advantage over the competition.

How would you react if Microsoft decided to lock out all other browsers except MSIE? Oh you all would have a fit of rage and there would be protests all across America!

Flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I should have known.. posting anything that criticizes Apple is forbidden!! How silly of me..

I agree...

[Thu25245]

I want a refund now for the lost functionality.

RealNetworks definitely owes you a refund.

Uh...

[daveschroeder]

No, all the "rest" that support protected Windows Media do NOT outnumber the iPod. That's the point. Apple has 92% share of ALL hard-drive-based players, INCLUDING ones that play Windows Media format. 92%. They have something like a 75% share of ALL music players. INCLUDING ones that play Windows Media format, and INCLUDING the crappy 128MB "MTV" flash players. Apple radically outnumbers ALL OTHER PLAYERS combined, including ones that support Windows Media. So while you're correct that every other store seems to be supporting Windows Media, the iTunes Music Store has something close to 80% of all online purchased music downloads worldwide, massively eclipsing any other store. Also, Apple is expected by analysts to sell 100 million iPods next quarter. That's *four times* what they sold last quarter. The sales are going up exponentially. It might not always be this way, and I wish Apple would license too for its own good, but that's the way it is now.

Re:Uh...

[mrchaotica]

I sure hope you're right, because as long as HYMN exists and a WMA-equivalent doesn't, I'm rooting for Apple!

Same sort of thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.turnitin.com/

Re:Same sort of thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

no, turnitin.com is there to find cheaters...plain an simple.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm adding you to my friend list.

I don't love apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Macs are for fags.

Re:Updates have a TOS agreement

[redwoodtree]

Doesn't it bother you that the people who you bought your hardware from can change how you can use it sometime in the future?

What if your Ford Focus came out with a firmware ugprade that didn't allow you to drive it on Highways anymore, but only on toll roads? Or something really weird like that?

Isn't this just about the same thing? This is a piece of hardware, a disk with audio.

Have you considered anything else?

[daveschroeder]

Have you considered that reverse engineering isn't guaranteed to work with changes to the iPod and/or FairPlay and/or the implementation of such, etc.?

Apple may or may not have deliberately disabled Real's reverse engineering, but what if, for the sake of argument, some third party reverse engineered service became popular in some circles, and then was inadvertently broken due to updates in Apple's products, or because the parties responsible for reverse engineering aren't aware of Apple product and firmware roadmaps, etc.?

Then your answer is, well, they should just license to anyone, and make SDKs and whitepapers available regarding their implementation. Why? Who are you to say? It's their product. Furthermore, the tight iTunes(-only) and iPod integration - and the associated ridiculous ease of use - is one of Apple's biggest selling points for the combo. Why would they want to support anything that dilutes that?

If you don't want to support Apple because of it, fine. And their refusal to license may ultimately doom iPod to the same "fate" as Macintosh in the marketplace. But Apple isn't doing anything legally or morally wrong here; the only question is whether or not you want to support Apple for their decisions.

I'd Rather

[sbszine]

I'd rather they reimbursed me for the hours spent cleaning their browser-hijacking spyware out of people's systems. Yes, I know the latest versions don't do this any more, but Real lost any sympathy from me years ago when they started doing this shit. I hope Apple sends them to the poor house.

Re:Legality of Harmony

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly...if you want to load Real DRM songs on your iPod you should be able to. Just don't expect Apple to be the one to write the code for it. You do own the physical iPod but Apple controls what it wants in the firmware upgrades. If you want your Real music to work, don't load APPLE'S firmware update.

Correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

Real player supports Linux right now and the helix based versions are not half bad.

Apple still doesn't support any of their end user products on Linux and probably never will.

You don't negotiate with hackers

[amichalo]

This all comes down to good business sense. Real wanted to negotiate with Apple to open up their DRM.

Real did not bring enough to the table to convince Apple to do so.

So Real decides to hack Apple's DRM.

In what way is Real acting ethically at this point?

Apple defends its rights by patching the vulnerabilities in their DRM.

In what was is Apple acting unethically at this point?

By not responding to Real's threat, Apple would be opening themselves up to lawsuits by the shareholders for not protecting their intellectual property rights.

Re:You don't negotiate with hackers

[Ahnteis]

Uh since when is controlling what software is put on consumer hardware a good thing for the consumer?

As noted numerous times in this thread, if Microsoft did this, everyone would hate them. Since it's Apple though, it's somehow all right?

You seem to think that Real hacked into Apple's DRM.
Nooo. (Said in Bill Engval voice.)

All they did was come up with a COMPATIBLE DRM for their own music.

Re:You don't negotiate with hackers

[amichalo]

ou seem to think that Real hacked into Apple's DRM.
Nooo. (Said in Bill Engval voice.)

All they did was come up with a COMPATIBLE DRM for their own music.

But it was the fact that they made this format immediately after failing to negotiate with Apple that makes it so hostile.

It wasn't like it was the open source community creating a compatible DRM, it was someone else wanting to make a buck off Apple.

Re:You don't negotiate with hackers

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that wrong to make a buck off of Apple? Think of the numerous companies who make compatible peripherals which work with the iPod.

Ultimately, Real just created a format that would allow for consumers to play an extra file format. Is Apple losing money by allowing this? No, it's not. Therefore, Apple is just being evil by disallowing this.

Re:You don't negotiate with hackers

[xigxag]

By not responding to Real's threat, Apple would be opening themselves up to lawsuits by the shareholders for not protecting their intellectual property rights.

Seems that periodically this meme gets trotted out, totally without substantiation. I call "bullshit." For one, IBM has famously failed to "protect" a great many of its IP rights, notably those it has open-sourced to Linux. And this has met with nothing but applause from the open-source advocates populating this site. Certainly if IBM had been sued by its own shareholders for giving away source-code, it would be big news here.

It seems to me that the officers of a company have a great deal of latitude to make business decisions without being second guessed by the individual shareholders, and barring some kind of flagrant breach of fiduciary duty, are basically not accountable for their actions, other than being forced out of office, of course.

If I am mistaken, that's fine, just clarify my error. But if not, can we please let this silly Slashmeme die?

Re:You don't negotiate with hackers

[amichalo]

I offer this for consideration.

In the case of a trade mark, if the mark owner knows of an offending use (that is not satirical and therefore not protected by Amendment #1), and does not pursue an injunction of the offending use of their protected mark, then the mark can be determined to be void, since the mark holder is not defending their own rights to the protection of the mark.

Now please consider the situation where Company R approaches company A, asking to be cut in on Company A's technology. Company R does not bring enough (money/partnership/cache/etc) to the table to convince Company A of an agreement. In frustration, Company R then simply decides to develop their own, completely legal, reverse engineering of the technology.

At this point, Company A ust decide to implement countermeasures to Company R's technology or else do nothing, and set a precident that if you want to reverse engineer Company A's technologies, they are free for the taking - no licensing or partnerships required.

The bottom line is that Apple has innovated a great many things and a great many companies have become what they are by building a business from Apple's innovations. I see this as Apple taking a stand against those who would seek to take what is not theirs - the success of iPod and iTunes - away from Apple.

if dvd formats were locked and incompatible...

[bonafidehan]

then there would be an uproar from the public because we have always expected that when we pop a dvd from one distributor into any dvd player, it works. Of course, this is the result of an agreement among companies to provide this "luxury" to consumers. However, why should we expect any less from internet music vendors? For those who think that this incompatability is ok, then you should accept that when the next format for high-density storage comes out to replace dvds, it should be ok to you that one player may not play your entire collection, never mind that it should also be ok that competing distributors would force makers of players to regularly lock other formats out (in the case of Apple, distributor and maker of player are one). Of course, that's beside the fact that nobody buys music legally from any other place. But, if the iPod becomes a lagging player in its market, wouldn't you want the collection of music you've gathered over the years to be able to be transferred to other similar players?

Re:if dvd formats were locked and incompatible...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its called region coding.. and in many countries, it is illegal to have a "modded" DVD player that plays all DVDs...

Re:if dvd formats were locked and incompatible...

[bonafidehan]

I agree that region coding limits the ability to play dvds in everywhere. But how many times do you move between countries?

The point I'm making is that when you buy a dvd from Sony Pictures and one from Universal, both play on the same player, if you aren't internationally nomadic.

You CAN use any song from another service

[nra1871]

You can use music from Real or Napster or whereever on your iPod. Burn those songs to a cd and then import the cd into iTunes. Kinda clunky yes, but not a major hassle...especially for the technically inclined crowd around here.

Re:You CAN use any song from another service

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what's less of a hassle? Stealing the music.

Re:You CAN use any song from another service

[argent]

Yep, and after some hard disk problems and having to email Apple to deauthorize my computers, I back up all my music to audio CD. It's the only format that you can actually keep a backup of that you can be sure of recovering.

Can everyone say "ANTI TRUST"

[popo]

Go ahead, try it...

"Anti" then "trust"...

How sickening is it when you have a company like Apple who has championed innovation over anti-competitive behaviour, suddenly move to the other side of the bus as soon as the monopoly works in their favour.

Shame shame shame on you Apple. You don't need to play this game. You've innovated your way to hundreds of millions in revenues. Now you're playing like Microsoft, and guess what, you've lost me as a customer. Think I'm going to re-download all those songs from the iTunes store? Not bloody likely! I'll pirate them, or wait for a reverse engineer hack to convert them.

You're actually holding the *consumer* responsible for shopping for the best deal. (Which was Real's music store). Guess what, you and the entire music industry should be bloody well stoked that we were shopping *at all*

Looks like its back to free music for me.

Shame on you Apple. Shame.

Re:Can everyone say "ANTI TRUST"

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

I'm sure Apple is listening to your admonitions. Now, go soak your head.

Re:Can everyone say "ANTI TRUST"

[Anonymous Coward]

Like this behavior is anything new for apple.

Hello?

[Lord_Dweomer]

Ok, I'm pretty neutral on this whole thing, but from an audience perspective, here's what iPod owners who used Reals Service are going to be hearing and saying:

Apple: We're locking them out.
iPodowners: You're ruining music we paid for from someone else. Take it out on them, not us.

Real: Please buy our music, we can't guarantee it will work on the most popular music player out there, but buy anyway.
Realserviceusers: Either make it work on our iPods this instant or give us back our fucking money.

Either way, given the litigious way we live here in the States, I predict at least one class-action lawsuit against either Apple or Real or BOTH! Fun for the whole family.

On a serious note though, it really sucks that those customers who bought the music to put on their iPods (and therefore gave money to BOTH companies) are the ones that are getting screwed and having to suffer until this is resolved. I know the companies are doing it for profit reasons, which is their obligation as a publicly held company, so I have no qualms in wishing that someone with more skill than I create a workaround to this problem and give the control back to the customer (not consumer).

Oh, and P.S.
Hey Apple, I thought you always said the iTunes music store was just a way to boost iPod sales. Why are you letting something that is beneficial for iPod sales be hampered by the need to make money on the music store?

This is the type of question I would be asking them right now were I a shareholder.

Re:Legality of Harmony

[redwoodtree]

Then we agree. So there's no point in people bitching that Apple change this or Apple changed that. Like many other people have said, this was totally obvious that Apple would do this.

What bothers the most is people who get mad at Real or get mad at Apple and somehow think the hardware is a sacred entity protected by God and Government!

Not angry just disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this stinks, Apple may be a more popular company than Real with the Slashdot crowd but this sucks. It is just a big company using it's market share of portable music players to maintain a monopoly of online music sales.

All this does is reduce competition which is always bad for consumers.

angry Real customers

[Jodka]

I'm sure the RealNetworks customers who bougth tunes for their IPODS and now can't play them are going to be upset by this. Both the them.

Re:angry Real customers

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh you're one of those tyranny of the majority type of folk. Whew, I'm really glad I live in a free land where my rights and ideas are protected even if they're not popular here in the good ole usa by that constitution... oh wait, never mind. of course I'm a party member, of course I support the war, in fact I'm volunteering to take a 50% pay cut (with joy) to demonstrate my loyalty. praise god and may he bless the 4th reich. dispicable terrorists. blech...

fuck apple

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, I don't like real, or their format, but intentionally breaking support is wrong. One of the reasons to hate microsoft is the things they do with file format support to encourage you to do things their way. despite how slick apple hardware/os looks, that's some fucked up shit right there. I hope apple gets their asses sued for trying to be a monopoly and acting in an anti-consumer/anti-competitve way. Really I don't know who out there actually would encode their stuff into a realplayer format or trade .rm files, but still, that's not a good excuse. I hope Apple fries for this.

Real's on Crack

[Phoenix-IT]

I don't like Real's position in this because they are trying to double-screw the consumer. Real's DRM always looks much more restrictive than FairPlay.

Real want's to sell music that capitalizes on Apple's success but still severely limit the consumer.

"Let's crack a popular device so we call sell our music and it can have access to it; but, at the same time, sill prevent the consumer from using what they paid for in any way they wish."

They want the iPod to access their locked down files while you still don't have access to them; when they could just unlock them completely and none of this would be required. Aren't iPod transfer's "technically" one-way, so why is real's DRM needed anyway? Why not just dump a normal MP3 on the iPod?

Locked music is a useless endeavor anyway; I can find anything from any music store on limewire if I searched.

I do buy my music though. I don't believe in complaining about fair use rights while being a pirate at the same time. I even buy itunes exclusives, as some are really good. If the DRM becomes an issue I'll find a can (i)opener.

Re:iPod box should clearly state DRM limitation...

[MmmDee]

...so that buyer can know prior to purchase, caveat emptor and all that jazz, IMHO. Of course not every product we purchase has such explanations, I simply believe it would be helpful given the relative newness of MP3 players and the lack of technology acumen of most buyers.

The only link I find on Apple's website (using their search engine for DRM) gives this short blurb: iTunes does not play unprotected WMA files, but instead converts the files to the file format selected in Importing preferences. iTunes for Windows cannot import or play WMA files that are protected by Windows Media Digital Rights Management (DRM).

So, just how is one supposed to learn about other DRM restrictions? And is it fair to change things after a purchase? For example, the above restriction would seem to eliminate WalMart.Com (DRM'd) as a song source.

While I agree with your statement that Apple is doing nothing morally, legally, technically wrong; the question of ethics is something else. I don't own an iPod, but I presume once you purchase one and open the box, there's a pamphlet inside mentioning specifications, ie, what the player will/won't play. The cya phrase of, "specifications subject to change without notice", hardly seems "ethical" in any context.

Good news, everyone!

[plover]

Anticompetitive or not, this is actually good news for all of us.

What could possibly be sweeter to the anti-DRM market to have the DRM providers snipping at each others heels like dogs fighting over turf?

No amount of "waah, DRM bad!" whining is as effective as pointing to two DRM providers that are pissing on each other, saying "that's what you get with DRM -- companies that can't even figure it out amongst themselves." Even an RIAA toadie would have a hard time putting a positive spin on a move like this.

I, for one, welcome our new DRM turf-fighting warlords. (As long as they keep fighting...)

Don't you all just love this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damnit, this is what happens when we let the owners of technology dictate to us! Why are they owners? Because they are the first? Or because they are the first to patent? Whatever, they do not own what we license!

Whne you decide you have had enough, quit going to proprietary standards and start moving towards Open Source standards!

Then, when you decide you have had enough, you can change the code!

Nothing else matters! NONE of these companies are trustworhty!

apple is rotten with the worm of arrogance.

[hkht]

sure it can do whatever it wants with it's product and when enough people stop buying their products like me for one, all they have to do is go to microsoft for another loan. i'll just wait for intel to reach 5.00ghz and then i'll get a p4 3.0 for two hunderd bucks or less from the junk shelf. ur type of thinking will always be the reason apple fails.nose in the airism. apple honestly thinks that having a retard design is what people are looking for in a computer?? (the normal dude doesn't think about terabyte processing and the risc processor) it works for some but not most. radical design was the commodore 64 and it's trinitron monitor. i relied on a mac for so long in my business and was looking foward to another apple but eventually said f@#k it, too much cost, too much closed, too much trouble, too stupid design. also there was no real help at fry's or any outlet .and then to top it off u realize that the at apple think just like u do, u think u are all quentin tarrantinos, i make the movie u come to see it i don't give a damn what u think. apple better care what i think if they want my business. i'll still dream of an apple but by that time i'm ready to buy, intel will be good enough and i'll stick with them. and of course there will always linux to make ur old processors look good and functional at acceptable levels and as we all know for free.apple is rotten with the worm of arrogance.

Incredibly stupid of Apple, surely?

[Angostura]

I'm a bit of an Apple fan-boy, but this decision seems bizzarre

• Apple makes most of its revenue from iPod sales. iTunes revenue is comparatively small and the store is used to drive iPod sales
  
• If someone else's store also drives Apple's iPod sales by supporting the device, how is this possibly detrimental to Apple
  

Apple doesn't object to 3rd party developers producing apps for the Mac after-all. I really don't get this.

Re:Incredibly stupid of Apple, surely?

[Warlock7]

It's not about the unit sales, it never has been. It is all about the DRM.

All that Real has done, is get the iPod to play their DRM'd version of AAC files. This does nothing to help Apple get their DRM to be the prevalent one.

No, he can't.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here.

His next trick is going to be posting as many "stories" as he can (no matter how inane or irrlelvant) in an effort to push older stories containing any criticizm of him off the page.

He often does the opposite of this when he's posted a self-serving story, usually one with links to Roland's crap-du-force adblog, or if it's a slavish, butt-kissing piece about hi latest love-interest.

When that happens he'll leave the story on the front page as long as possible, even if it means having a huge number of later ones posted ... the record so far is 26 stories running as he hung his tribute to Raven Adler at the bottom for an entire weekend.

Obliged to support stated features

[nurb432]

They are obliged not to change the feature set later on.. such as preventing mp3 play..

Even though they don't have to support real, they do have *some* obligations to their customers.

Re:Obliged to support stated features

[drew]

well, so far they haven't changed any supported features. it still plays mp3, aac, and playfair encrypted files from itms. no feature that they have ever advertised has been removed.

in america, anti-trust and..

[KingPunk]

anti-competitive behaviour isn't exactly legal,
unless you're a bigass software/hardware mfg,
and you got boatloads of money, you can buy yourslef out of most the mess
and just say that you're protecting a "trade secret"
heh. bs!

this is the main reason why i haven't bought an ipod.
i wouldn't mind paying 300+$ for one, if i knew it would work,
across multiple platforms, with diffrent clients.
thats why i don't run windows, because im forced to use X product.
and now that i run linux and bsd, its hopeless to actually
get something decent, like the ipod & software, to work on it,
atleast without a major hitch or two.

i invision a day, when a company won't be telling me how i can, or CAN NOT use their product.
if i pay for the damn thing, i better well be able to use it how i see fit.
/end rant

Is Apple Crazy?

[hipster_doofus]

I thought the reason Apple produced iTunes was really to sell iPods, as they don't make much $ off of iTunes. If that's the case, then aren't they out of their bloody minds to shut down another vendor who's steering people to their hardware free of charge?

I haven't read too much on this subject, but am I missing something here? What's wrong with Real providing the option to use iPods on their service?

Re:Is Apple Crazy?

[fozzmeister]

Because its a future power game, if apple iTunes is the _only_ place to get music in future (which is what they are hoping) then they can meet with the music execs and dictate terms.

If all music becomes legal and digital and online this situation does not seem too unlikely.

Open FIrmware?

[nurb432]

Is this a possiblity yet?

Not that i care about compatiblity with realnetworks, but its not a bad thing to start thinking about.

Maybe not what you think...

[abertoll]

I'm skeptical about the idea that Apple did this to restrict Real files. The reason is: it's a bad move.

I think Apple stands to make a bigger profit out of selling iPods than selling the music for iPods. The reason is Apple has to pay someone else for that music, and the markup is so low. However, if you can keep putting more space on an iPod and getting people to upgrade...

Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who thinks that their dismay with digital music incompatabilties is analagous to the horrors of war doesn't have a good understanding of either music or war.

Re:Sad

[gelfling]

Anyone as irony challenged as you is probably a Libertarian, or retarded.

Apple's didn't target the hack, exactly.

[multriha]

There's no doubt that Apple knew the update would break Real's hack. They aren't idiots, that would have checked. The question is whether they intended to break it.

Personally, I think they looked at what Real did, realized that it was the result of a bug in the DRM code, and fixed.

real = evil

[Anonymous Coward]

duh.

The comments in this story make me sick

[WCMI92]

Take out Apple and replace it with Microsoft and the rage and venom against the company doing this would fill hundreds of pages.

Apple could club baby seals or kill newborn babies and people here would give them a pass.

Anyone who lived though the dark ages of the home PC (the 1980's) can tell you that had Apple won (and IBM/Microsoft lost) an Apple monopoly would be so horrid and so EVIL that everyone here would dream of what we have now...

Imagine if Apple had the same share of PC sales they do for Mp3 players. Apple decides they don't wand you installing Linux on "their" system (that you bought) because Linus won't pay their extortion fees, and includes a "fix" to disallow it on an UNRELATED irreversable firmware "upgrade" that you have to download and install because of a BUG in "their" system that YOU paid for.

That is what we WOULD have had in that world. It's true that MS is bad (and I despise them), but with the OPEN PC (as opposed to the closed Apple box) you have a CHOICE as to what you want to run.

Apple has ALWAYS had this "our way or the highway" attitude, not just with the ipod, but with their computer line since the 1980's. Looking at their market share in 1990 compared to now, I guess most chose the highway.

How Apple survived the 1980's and Commodore (who always produced a superior, lower cost product to the Mac) I will never know. Gross mismanagement at Commodore, most likely (and there was plenty of that).

Re:The comments in this story make me sick

[Anonymous Coward]

Take out Apple and replace it with Microsoft and the rage and venom against the company doing this would fill hundreds of pages.

I wish I had mod points for you! Seeing so many on Slashdot supporting closed format market dominance bullying just because it is Apple is... sad.

Re:The comments in this story make me sick

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I wish I hadn't wasted my mod points yesterday. I would have definately given you some of it.

Re:The comments in this story make me sick

[videodriverguy]

Thanks - you said it very well. I wish I had mod points right now

Strangely enough, as I write this I am 'attempting' to sync some new CDs (purchased and ripped to my PC) to my original 20G iPod. I wish I hadn't even tried.

The latest version of iTunes just comes up with an error (-69 WTF?) after transferring a batch of 10 or more files. The latest Musicmatch doesn't even support the iPod anymore, even though it was the supplied player (please insert $$$ as well for the latest version of that). Even my trusty EphPod system is giving trouble, after I had to erase everything from the iPod and start again.

I believe the root problem is the cheap, trashy Firewire cable that comes with the iPod - as long as the device is fully charged it works better.

And, please, no one reply and say I should use a Mac - all of my work involves PC's, and a Mac for me would be just baggage. Also, of course, I don't remember the original WINDOWS iPod coming with a warning that you have to buy a mac.

Hah! I think I must have that one!

[Shturmovik]

It explains so much. ;-)

Sorry, have to agree with parent

[svin]

NO ONE forces you to install windows updates, but usually they contain something important. On a side note they might break compatability with Samba or some other open source project, that Microsoft views as a competitor (And some of the time this may be a coincidence - the rest of the time?).

I'll give you that the firmware update probably isn't as necessary to install as service packs. But usually firmware upgrades makes whatever device you apply them to run (significantly) better.

If Apple had choosen to make a seperate "don't-play-real-networks-mp3s-on-Ipod" upgrade, that did nothing else, then the situation would be different. But I bet you they bundled it with some significant gain of functionality, speed, etc. Thus the users are forced to apply the update to gain these benefits. As a side-effect one of Apple's competitors are locked out of the Ipods.

BTW the broken compatibility might just be a coincidence (In which case it is hard to blame Apple), but given the history of the whole affair, I don't think it is.

Re:This is deplorable

[Anonymous Coward]

And I call on a boycott of stupid posters on slashdot. (And that would be harder than kill Apple, which is already dead for years ;D )

Are you really dumb or what?
Let me explain slowly:

Real = crappy software company
Real ask Apple "can we share your money"?
Apple says no.
Real try to steal the money and get caught.
Total= Real sucks.

And once again: YOU CAN USE NUMEROUS NON DRM'D FORMAT ON AN IPOD AND ITUNES. IF YOU DON'T LIKE DRM, DON'T BUY DRM'D SONGS. NEITHER FROM APPLE NOR REAL.

Apple never supported Harmony, why should they take care not to break it? How do you know they did it on purpose, anyway? Had dinner with Steve lately?

Anyway, go buy a 80's looking mp3 player and PC and shut up.
I'll keep living in 2004, soon 2005.

Re:This is deplorable

[Anonymous Coward]

I have lost no advertised functionality over the change in firmware

And if MS changes Word format just to fuck over OpenOffice? Or something similar with Windows to screw a competitor. Just as ok?

Maybe this t-shirt is for you...

[Zentac]

No offence, but you should be more open to criticism on Apple or be able to make a bit of fun off yourself, so this might be for you: http://www.zestuff.com/product.php?productid=35&ca t=13&page=1

Re:Maybe this t-shirt is for you...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a funny t-shirt, and I like it. Though personally, I would have made it using the gay-pride/gay-rights && mac being oppressed and discriminated against... that would have been a lot more funny. I guess just because black people actually were very abused, in a way I see that as trivializing an important struggle in history. That said I know it's just a joke, and with that, having read many messages in this thread, I think it's gay (sorry to all the gay folx), and a rainbow theme would be more appropriate for the sorts that swing Apple's way. But just as appropriate for the others. Maybe the all the anti-apple ppl and the fanboy zealots should get together and go make out. MMm nibbling on your whitehead pimples is so sexy and your greasy unwashed hair is such a turn on steve. oh bill, I love you. I love you too... (aweful sounds)...

problem solved....

[ToeNipples]

http://www.allofmp3.com/

Apple has not done anything wrong, Real has.

[Anonymous Coward]

The ability to play Real's files never came with any iPod. Real forced it to work, and Apple never warrantied it. As a matter of fact, they explicitly stated just hours after Real announced their hack that future firmware would likely break Real's system. Also, there is a distinct likelihood that Apple did not even intentionally break Real's stuff; Apple SHOULD NOT have to hold its programmers to another requirement, that being making sure that some technology that is not well integrated with the system still works after any modifications are made. Supposing that it was intentional, once again, everybody was warned ahead of time. The only potential problem would be dishonesty on Real's part--even if they can keep hacking the iPod, no conumer should be in such a vulnerable position.

And seriously, could one single person give me a valid reason why they would want to buy a song from Real's music store, and not the iTunes Music Store? Now that the 49 cent promotion is over, I don't see a reason to stoop to such a level. The iTMS is clearly among the top music stores (many people insist it is the best), whereas the Real store can't even compete with Apple even when they are losing money on each sale. They boast selling 3 million songs during their promotion, but who cares? They took a million dollar debt or so for that, and did not even meet Apple's output with such competition.

Evil Is As Evil Does

[meehawl]

Apple is and always has been as evil as MS. It's just that MS is so much more successful from doing it that everybody notices them, while until the iPod Apple played the role of the weedy bully nobody paid attention to. Now that it finally has a market niche pretty much locked up (DRM music) suddenly it's noticable how reluctant Apple is to play nicely with the other kids.

Re:Evil Is As Evil Does

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a paranoid idiot. Sorry.

Re:Evil Is As Evil Does

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck off you dumb apple head you dont even know your sucking of the corprate dick

Re:Updates have a TOS agreement

[Big Boss]

You don't *HAVE* to install the firmware upgrade. Hell, there isn't even one to install for my 15GB iPod. The whole thing is stupid and nothing more than a corporate pissing match. They should get together and come up with something that will work and they can both get something from. Instead they point fingers and lay blame.

Real's format was never supported by the iPod officially. To re-use your car analogy, it's more like buying a Focus and being upset that it doesn't run on Jim Bob's Water (Jim Bob *SAID* it works!). Even if it seemed to before. Ford never said it would, so if it did for a while, that's a happy coincidence. But they shouldn't be forced to support it.

Lock down the users, riiiight....

[skalogre]

So, remind me why I should buy an overpriced locked down music player such as the iPod. Yes, I know about the design blah blah blah (trust me, I do have some knowledge in human factors) but the device should still do what I want not what I am forced to. And yes I know I can re-record the songs in a vendor neutral format.

Re:Lock down the users, riiiight....

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Frankly, I don't really care if you buy an iPod or not. And, I suspect Apple feels the same way. If you can't see the benefit of superior design and implementation it is a reflection on you, not on Apple. Wake me when that "vendor neutral format" makes it's big splash.

Great all around!

[chrysrobyn]

Real: Congrats on the reverse engineering. It's great when a product can be extended beyond the original intent and do more stuff or do the same stuff better. Additional file formats and additional services in the market are only a benefit for the consumer. Choice is good.

Apple: Congrats on the update, whether necessary or not, that bollocksed up the Real software. The Apple iPod experience involves a consistant interface and a consistant experience with iTunes that leads consumers to try out OSX. It's your software update, it's the consumer's choice to run it, just as it is the consumer's right to make a non-standard update and try out Real choices. Anything that Apple can do to improve their already great product is great for their present and future customers.

Everybody wins. Real gets some spare change and a little extra publicity. Apple gets a software update out there to help out their customers who seek additional support. If I can remind everybody, this software update actually includes stuff some people might want (hearing the click wheel through the headphones is a welcome feature in my mind). It is not Apple's responsibility to help Real out, and Real signed up for this arms race. I'm going to keep Real stuff off my iPod and enjoy the software updates... if I ever need to replace my original 5gig iPod that they're done releasing updates for.

Hi

[duffbeer703]

At what point will you people realize that Apple's modifications of iTunes & iPod firmware and licenses are a really, really bad thing?

Apple has already made pointless & compulsory changes to "Fairplay" DRM, and have demonstrated plenty of zeal in locking out any other vendor who produces significant plugins that may potentially threaten its supremacy in online music.

Even Microsoft never did this -- Netscape & Quicken always ran fine on Windows even back in the bad old days.

Hooray for Slashdot!

[TechnologyX]

"..and he said Real had a "comprehensive plan", whatever that means."
Good job Michael, that's two stories in one day that you've added your useless opinion on!

Incrementalism

[boristdog]

Just like the Patriot Act slowly taking away your liberties, Apple is slowly going to lock out all ability to play music that is not from iTunes, or at least not ripped on a Mac.

You just wait a couple of years... /I'm tinfoil ready!

Bitrate

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting points of view... I haven't made up my mind.

But nobody has mentioned that Real's AAC files are 192 kbps vs. Apples 128. At least at a glance, Real's files are of higher quality. They are not selling the same product.

Re:Bitrate

[Warlock7]

Nobody has mentioned that Real gets their files from CD and Apple gets theirs from the original master recordings either. So, you are correct, they are not selling the same product. Real's product isn't necessarily better, as you seem to be implying it is. It's another Glaser trick, he's a lot like PT Barnum or the Wizard of Oz. Great show and smoke, but no Real substance (pardon the pun). The OMRs are superior to the CDs initially and the extra 64 kbps doesn't make enough of a difference, unfortunately.

Re:Bitrate

[PenGun]

I tested the codecs pretty extensivly and as they claim a well made 64k .aac sounds about as bad as a 128k mp3. A 192k .aac has to sound way nicer than a 128k .mp3. The ones I make bare this out anyway.

PenGun
Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Re:Bitrate

[Warlock7]

So, how much of a difference did you see between a 128 kbps AAC and a 192 kbps AAC file? Is it all that distinguishable? Those are the files used by Apple and Real respectively.

Also, did you do any of your testing with original master recording rips vs. CD rips? That's the other difference between Apple and Real.

Re:Bitrate

[PenGun]

I have been fooling with codecs for DVD encoding. I have only encoded CD quality .wavs and the results with lame for mp3 and freeaac for .aac are quit clear on my equipment. As I said 64k .aac are about as good as as 128k .mp3.

This stuff is free download it and try it.

The apple quicktime .aac encoder is the bomb in this field.

PenGun
Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Re:Bitrate

[Warlock7]

I use it on a regular basis for both CD and DVD encoding. All of the iApps are free too and are very good for free software. I haven't used lame. I agree that AAC is superior to MP3.

Oh, it's a logic puzzle

[Queer Boy]

Person A has the choice between shit, crap, and dung.
Person B only has the choice of steak.

Which Person has the better option?

Re:This is not insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone hacked the iPod. Whether this update intentionally broke the hack or whether breakage was not intended, does not matter. It's up to the people who did the original hackery to re-hack it. That's just the way it goes in the hacking world when you're dealing with someone elses equipment.

Apple is not moving towards 'Apple-approved-music-only' It's widely known that non-drm mp3 and aac files will play just fine on the iPod. The majority of my music is non-drm. So if you purchase from real or anyone else, and they have DRM, you're just going to have to burn to cd and re-rip.

You were never guaranteed that files from Real would work on your iPod. Apple only guarantees the iTMS.

Don't be an assclown.

Re: MacFags

[Jah Shaka]

Just makes you detest those MacFags doesnt it...

Let's call it like it is

[snuf23]

First off Real's "hack" was not Apple endorsed. They wanted an inroad into Apple's installed base of hardware for their DRM music product. That's pretty easy to understand.
Apple is in no way wrong to close them out. Since they are competing in the same market space as Real - it only makes business sense that they would.
So is this good? Well for the consumer it means LESS choice. Less choice is not good. While this is the obvious business move by Apple, that doesn't make it better for the consumer.
Apple and any other music player manufacturer has no incentive to block usage of mp3 or ogg or other non-DRM format. These formats are not tied to online sales of songs and pose no threat.
On the otherhand if Apple had support for DRM laden WMA, Real or other formats - that would represent a possibility that an individual would not spend his music dollar at the iTunes store. Hence the greater choice to the consumer directly translates to lack of revenue for Apple. The only way Apple is going to want another service's music to be playable on the iPod is via licensing agreements which equal cash in Apple's pocket.
In a nutshell what Apple has done is logical and sound business practice given the current market for online music. However, this is no way means that it is a benefit to consumers who lose functionality in their iPod.

That being said.. does anyone actually buy music online from Real?

Oh?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to bitch at anyone here, bitch at Real. They could have sold naked mp3 or aac which would have played just fine on the ipod.

Exactly which record label would have licensed Real (or anyone else) to do that?

Perhaps I missed the big announcement, but I've been under the impression that most rights holders were not only very much in favor of DRM but were also interested in expanding limitations on what you could do with music you purchased in any format, and even more so with music you had not.

Re:Oh?

[drew]

they probably are not licensed to sell nonDRM'd versions. i don't really care either way- they deserve to lose their customers by advertising that they could provide something that they couldn't. at this point the only way they can provide what they advertised is to license fairplay or strip the DRM off the songs people have already downloaded. if they can't do either of those, then they owe their customers a refund.

Keep In Mind...

[Caraig]

Realnetworks is also the inheritor to a long line of sneaky, underhanded tricks. They were among the first companies to include spyware and trojans with their product. They're a company with a history of scummy business practicesand lack of respect for the end-user. That's the main reason they're not getting any sympathy here.

Not to mention that they were QUITE adamant themselves about the licensing of their 'Real' streaming media 'technology.' This is just what they did coming back right to them.

In other words

[Zareste]

Real: "Ha! We hacked your iPod purely for the good of the people! Now it's open for everyone to use! Incidentally, we're not revealing the DRM method."
Apple: "You suck! I hate you! You know what? We'll see who gets the last laugh after we SCREW ALL OUR CUSTOMERS!"

DRM War

[dokebi]

has begun. DRM is the best method for companies to lock their customers to their format, so much more effectively than Beta/VHS, CD/DVD/HD-DVD, DAT/Minidisc et al. And the winner will be the One who bundles Their DRM with Their Operating System. Guess who'll win?
Which means companies should be working together, not against each other. Because traditionally MS has done very well in controlling fractured markets. And consumers (hopefully) will choose non-DRM formats among all the confusion.

Re:DRM War

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter. You can still choose not to use it, by ripping CDs to MP3, for example.

Fuck 'em all.

DRM= Piracy

[kin242]

Yet more proof that DRM is a rip-off. I buy CDs. That way I can have DRM-free ultra-high quality audio files that will be useable for the rest of my life...

Oh?

[Anonymous Coward]

also, if they really wanted to provide drm'd files that were guaranteed to be compatible with the ipod, they could have licensed playfair from apple.

Earlier articles on the Harmony/Ipod situation at least implied that was not the case, as Apple would not licence the technology.

However, the rest of your argument is well-reasoned, as clearly Real is licensed to sell nonDRM'd versions of all the music in their store.

DRM War

[dokebi]

Yes, consumers should. But DRM is fact of life for copyrighted content sold over the internet[*]. More importantly though, I can see MS taking advantage of the fractured DRM space, and pushing their own DRM through Windows. How do you fight a DRM standard that comes with every copy of Windows?

* I know of and like magnatune.com. But most of legal on-line music isn't sold this way.

Wrong wrong wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comparison is flawed. Comparing a hardware peripheral to a document file format used on a desktop is Apples to oranges (pun intended). If Microsoft built and sold a standalone, hardware DOC reader that wouldn't allow non-MS Word DOC files to be read from it, then you'd have a more equal comparison - and the argument would be the same - Microsoft has the right to manage which formats can be read on their device.

Apple is simply attempting to retain their right to license their propiertary DRM extension to the AAC format that Real felt it had a right to reverse engineer for profit.

*That* is why it's acceptable in this case.

Why can't anybody see the truth?

[Warlock7]

If Apple allows this questionable scheme, it is a scheme, to continue then they will lose their licensing agreement with the labels which allows them to run the iTunes Music Store. Then no more iTMS and Rob Glaser is selling you your music which he will raise the price of, he already has since his little media stunt.

The iPod is the single most open digital music device on the market today. It supports the playback of more audio formats than any other device like it. It supports AAC, MP3, Apple Lossless, AIFF, MP3 VBR, WAV and Audible. It also supports the DRM from the iTMS.

It does not support any other form of DRM, which is really what has Rob Glaser's panties in a bunch, as it won't support the Real DRM. So, he tries to convince everybody that his little stunt will "open up the iPod" when all it did was allow his DRM to be supported. He didn't introduce OGG, there's no WMA on there. It's a smoke screen that he's created to get everybody back onto his failing format. The only thing that Real has done is create a bunch of hoopla for every Apple hater out there to jump onto the bandwagon. He's opened up the iPod to his proprietary DRM and nothing else. Real fooled a lot of people into believing their hype in order to keep their company alive. They sell their AAC encoded, Real DRM'd files at a loss and get a bunch of naive people into their camp.

Now when Apple comes back and stops their product from breaking their licensing agreements that they set up with the labels, as they said they would, those naive people that thought they were getting a great deal are going to cry foul.

Re:Why can't anybody see the truth?

[Anonymous Coward]

>The iPod is the single most open digital music >device on the market today. It supports the >playback of more audio formats than any other >device like it. It supports AAC, MP3, Apple >Lossless, AIFF, MP3 VBR, WAV and Audible. It also >supports the DRM from the iTMS.

This is not correct. Does the iPod play OGG? FLAC? Right. Now get a life and look outside your Apple centric world.

Re:Why can't anybody see the truth?

[Warlock7]

That is completely correct. What other device supports all the formats that the iPod does and the other two as well? None. Now, get a clue and don't be a coward.

Re:Why can't anybody see the truth?

[Felonious Ham]

What is with you Apple zealots? How is the ability to play Real DRM'd files on a new platform a bad thing? I've bought music from both, and while I like itms, Real has a higher bitrate for the same price. Why wouldn't you want more choice? Oh... that's right! You're zealots!

Not true!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is patently false. There are plenty of inferior minds to control!

huh?

[interactive_civilian]

stuffduff said:

I mean how many minutes will it be before a mod is available? Probably well under an hour when the right person gets the upgrade and loses a substattial part[sic] of their library!

Spelling errors aside, you do realize that this only affects songs purchased from Real, right? Please show me any user technically oriented enough to mod the firmware of an iPod that also based a substantial amount of his/her music library off of stuff purchased from Real.

Hell...I'd be impressed if you could show me a non-technical user that even knows that Real is trying to sell music in a similar way to Apple...

Oh brother

[Anonymous Coward]

"I will continue to use iTunes because I think it rocks."

Okay, so now we know iTMS is geared towards 16 year olds. What a strategy. No, it doesn't rock. You pay *more* for your songs than if you had purchased the CD. The songs aren't as good as the CD, you get no liner notes, lyrics, and when you're tired of the music, you can't resell it.

Oh, but wait. You get it *right* then. Unless iTMS doesn't sell that artist. You give up an awful lot because you can't wait 2 days.

"Apple took a huge risk with their iTunes/iPod strategy "

No son. No they didn't. There was virtually no risk, because they didn't invest that much in infrastructure. Sonny-boy, even Walmart has the equivalent of iTMS.

"Someone may come along tomorrow with a product or service that will put Apple's music business in the toilet. "

Yeah, its called a CD. Lower price, better quality, no DRM, and I can resell it when I'm done. Sounds like a winner to me.

"Apple's created their market and they're doing a great job nuturing it."

No, apple didn't create this market, in fact, Napster created this market. Apple is a small player in the "market".

Apple fanboi-ism is like a brain tumor. It makes you see all flashy lights and nice colors and makes you ignore the reality of the situation.

Please. Come back to the planet and smell the coffee.

Re:Oh brother

[SamSeaborn]

Okay, so now we know iTMS is geared towards 16 year olds. What a strategy. No, it doesn't rock.

It neatly lets me import all of my CDs to my computer at home and work. It lets me assemble playlists and burn mixed discs. It lets me easily share playlists or my whole library to others in my home and at work. It all "just works", with a slick interface, and it's a FREE download.

You're wrong. That rocks.

You pay *more* for your songs than if you had purchased the CD. The songs aren't as good as the CD, you get no liner notes, lyrics, and when you're tired of the music, you can't resell it.

Firstly, I've never bought a song from iTunes Music Store. Even without that feature, the software rocks.

Secondly, how are they more than CDs? I can buy most full albums for $9.99 at iTunes. That's cheaper!

Besides, 99 cents for a good quality music file I'm legally allowed to burn on as many CDs as I want is a great deal. *Especially* if I just want to buy one song.

By the way, used to be you could walk into any record store and buy a single in the form of a 45rpm. Throughout the history of the music industry, charts listed the best-selling SINGLES -- no jackets, liner notes, or lyrics -- this has been happening since the 1950s and it was never considered a rip-off before.

No son. No they didn't. There was virtually no risk, because they didn't invest that much in infrastructure.

Apple invested *plenty* developing a cool, tiny, stylish piece of hardware with GIGA-byte capacities. That's a major undertaking for any company.

And I was there when the web-cast was shown; guys like you *laughed*! They laughed at everything: its size, the price, and the massive harddrive -- "who wants thousands of songs?", they laughed and laughed and laughed. And now they're all talking about how obvious it all was.

Sonny-boy, even Walmart has the equivalent of iTMS.

Yeah, *EVEN* Wal-mart. That tiny mom-and-pop outfit that sells 25% of all the CDs in the USA. Wonder why they want in.

No, apple didn't create this market, in fact, Napster created this market.

Steve Jobs begged and pleaded with the record executives to sell their music on-line. All they wanted to do was *shutdown* all web-based music distributors like Napster.

Apple is a small player in the "market"

Jobs had the vision and the drive to make it work. And now Apple *owns* this market.

Apple fanboi-ism is like a brain tumor. ... Please. Come back to the planet and smell the coffee.

You wouldn't know a good product if you saw it, and obviously even your *hind-sight* isn't 20-20.

Sam

Re:Oh brother

[Anonymous Coward]

"You pay *more* for your songs than if you had purchased the CD"

Dude, sorry to be the one to break it to you, but 99 cents is actually less than 17 dollars.

Re:Oh brother

[blowdart]

Steve Jobs begged and pleaded with the record executives to sell their music on-line. All they wanted to do was *shutdown* all web-based music distributors like Napster.

The industry was selling on-line before iTunes, heck even msn UK had a store Apple started selling.

Painting his Jobs-ness as some sort of saviour who forced the evil music industry on-line is frankly a lie.

Re:Oh brother

[Anonymous Coward]

None of it was a mainstream thing before Apple brought it to the masses. Yes, it was there, I saw it many times, but it just wasn't appealing.

Sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, it's not like they have been trying to introduce DRM on CDs...

How about some FLAC support, then?

[dstone]

It's all fine and good that Apple doesn't want to support company X's DRM. They're under no obligation to do so, and I certainly didn't purchase my iPod under the impression that they would support DRM other than their own.

Apple kindly supplies MP3 support as a nod to the millions who use it, rather than forcing some silly stubborn transcoding (*cough* Sony *cough*) into a proprietary DRMed format. Thank you for that, Apple.

But I rip my CDs to FLAC because it's great insurance against CD loss, damage, and an Open Source format guarantees that my terabytes representing my fair use of my music will always be decodable and transcodable, in theory. FLAC is a mature, well-documented, nicely tagged, easily playable format.

I highly doubt it's technology or firmware limitations, so is it just a numbers game that compels them to support MP3 but not FLAC?

Price fixing..

[oliverthered]

The UK are taking apple to court over price fixing, and did they ever sort out that issue with the beatles?

Re:Price fixing..

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The UK are taking apple to court over price fixing, and did they ever sort out that issue with the beatles?

The whole UK price fixing thing is idiotic. Basically there is a law in the european union that says you have to charge the same price for goods and services to people in all member countries. They also told all the recording industry associations to license music at one price across the EU. The recording companies haven't, so to license music in each country costs a different price, and licenses are only good within that country. Apple sold licenses for different prices in different countries (because they are different things from a business perspective and cost Apple a different amount). Now the UK is complaining because the BPI (UK version of RIAA) charges more than other country's mini-monopolies and UK customers are complaining. So for Apple to comply, they would have to either unnecessarily raise prices in the rest of the EU, or subsidize UK purchases with money from purchases in other countries (basically funneling money to the BPI from the rest of Europe). To top it all off, Apple runs the itunes store as a promotion and a hedge against MS, so they are not even making any money off the deal.

Re:Price fixing..

[geoffspear]

Do other retailers automatically update their prices in realtime as the values of the pound and euro vary? If not, the UK government should:

1) Take everyone selling anything to court.
2) Realize their economy has been destroyed by the legal costs involved.
3) Shut the hell up about how great the pound is and just switch to using the euro like everyone else.

The euro exists for a reason. A single market without a single currency doesn't work right, and lawsuits aren't the way to solve that problem.

First thng on the News today.

[oliverthered]

How much cheaper an Ipod is in New York (US) than York (UK).

They could have picked and one of 10's of other players.

Apples always been a vendor lock-in company, they even killed off the clones of the MAC, the difference here is that Media has for a long time been in the pocket of Apple, and the media arn't talking about portable MP3 players, their talking about IPods.

You know what? Fuck Real.

[eples]

They put the effort into promoting the "Music Freedom of Choice" site, and the thing hasn't been updated since AUGUST. musicfreedomofchoice.com.

And their Harmony page still advertises Harmony as being compatible with iPod: RealPlayer with Harmony Technology.
So in short, fuck Real.

If you're going to do something, then fucking do it. Otherwise go the fuck away.

Not a good idea...

[nova20]

It just gives iPod users one more reason to fire up Kazaa.

Re: "if Apple did it on purpose..."

[dumky]

I think this is the best point in the thread: it really depends on Apple's intent.
If they did that change to fix a bug or implement a feature, and it accidentally broken Real's files, that would be fine. But if they did it simply for that purpose, it's rather lame given their dominant position on the music/player market.

Lies, all Lies!!

[Nom du Keyboard]

Unlike CDs, songs sold by competing online stores are often not directly compatible with different brands of MP3 players.

If they're MP3 Players they'd play all MP3 files since there's no DRM on MP3 files.

Keep locking stuff out and...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Keep locking stuff out and eventually people will quit buying your product no matter how cute and/or hip is.

Cute and hip lose out when you can't play what you want to play on it anymore.

Let me put it this way...

[Khuffie]

If Microsoft came out with an MP3 player that didn't support music bought off the iTunes music store, people here would raise hell and complain about how "M$" (it's MS people...M$ just makes you sound like a whiny kid) is evil.

Re:Let me put it this way...

[zpok]

"If Microsoft came out with an MP3 player that didn't support music bought off the iTunes music store, people here would raise hell and complain about how "M$" is evil. "

Let me put it this way... There's no music shop apart from the iTunes music store that sells to mac users.

Let me put it another way... All along MS has kept its DRM WMA Windows only.

And yet another way... there's no mp3 player apart from the iPod that supports iTunes music shop songs - not their fault actually. But guess what, I don't care, nobody with an iPod does. Else they wouldn't have bought it.

Seriously, I don't mind Apple's scheming one bit. What I do mind is that no one is bothered by the fact that all the others lock out Apple users by default. Even Sony. Go figure. And then we're supposed to be embittered by Apple's move to keep its seamless experience the prevailing one? No way Jose! I say More Of The Same.

serves them right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but it seems that RealPlayer was actually just trying to legitmately use their store to benefit from the popularity of the ipod. They knew that apple didn't like it, they just did it, and got away with it. If you ask me, they should have paid royalties or something simular to apple.

Daveschroeder

[NutscrapeSucks]

Daveschroeder mainly shows up here in times of GeekRage with some canned karmawhore post about how Apple Can Never Be Wrong.

He's most likely an Apple Employee astroturfing. Either that or a sad no-life apologist troll, but he's been a very successful at getting bites today.

Yeah turfboy, you got a stalker.

If this had been Microsoft you'd all be wigging...

[popo]

Oh please... the amount of blind mac love on this board is making me want to spew. Let's face it, Apple just pulled a totally anti-competitive move that does nothing but increase its own market share at the expense of its customers. If this had been Microsoft reaming us all there would be maybe 3 people on the 'shut up and take it' side of the argument (and they'd all work for Bill) but change the "Microsoft" to "iPod" and everyone bends over and lubes up.

Sure I think Real is a POS company with POS products and lame business practices. But the one thing that gets me is that as an iPod owner they *did* provide an alternate to iTunes shopping.

No no no... Fuck Real

[cryptochrome]

Once there was a company that had the only decent streaming video in town. So they cornered the market on content, bloated up their software with ads, and then sat on their asses while the money rolled in. And just for good measure, made it difficult to download. What kind of company makes a video player that requires virtually all system resources, and then puts animated ads on the sidebar? So whose stellar hardware/software combination do you think they decide to leech off of when their lousy plan starts falling apart? Maybe the one whose operating system you neglected the most, with lousy ports months late? You think Apple was just going to sit there while let you suck their profits away while you drag their reputation down with you?

Goodbye parasites. Fuck you and the shitty bloatware you rode in on.

How quickly they forget.

[tm2b]

I'll bet Real loves that this particular framing of the issue has been picked up. It really ignores some very important aspects of the history of the legal commerce in digital music from just the last year or so.

Think way back, a scant two years ago. The RIAA was basically dead set against any form of on-line selling of high quality music. The best that peope were doing legally was providing clips of songs to sell realspace media. Some companies were monkeying around with ideas like space shifting and library locking, but they were all at odds with the recording industry. That is, until Apple came along as a trusted partner and managed to seduce the recording industry into a compromise that everybody could live with.

What Apple did was to go to the music labels and say, "Look. We control the software on the PC, we control the store, and we control the iPod. We can make it safe for you to sell inexpensively on-line by putting modest limits on what users can do, but making it difficult to leave the reservation with high quality recording. You sell recordings, we sell iPods, and you don't even have to ship CDs. We all win, because people want to buy if prices are reasonable, and we can do that while making sure that you don't have to worry about getting ripped off on a massive scale."

What Real does by selling music into Apple's scheme, without entering into a licensing agreement with Apple, is suddenly endanger the whole position that Apple has with the record companies. Suddenly another unconnected corporation is pissing in Apple's pond - and worse, they're themselves engaging in anticompetitive practices (the $0.49 song dumping they tried to use to undercut Apple), trying to splice their own proprietary system into Apple's infrastructure!

In Apple's place, I'd be pissed too. They went to a lot of trouble to reassure the RIAA and find a balance that would profit everybody, in an arena in which the recording industry wasn't at all sure they could prosper in the first place. Real is coming along and trying to disrupt that as much as possible - of course Apple's going to fight back.

Refusing to raise Real's cuckoo's eggs isn't even close to unreasonable.

Re:How quickly they forget.

[illtud]

What Real does by selling music into Apple's scheme, without entering into a licensing agreement with Apple, is suddenly endanger the whole position that Apple has with the record companies.

WFT are you talking about? Real have their own deal with the record companies (they're not selling bootlegs!) and the companies don't give a hoot whether they get their moolah from Real or Apple.

Re:How quickly they forget.

[caudron]

Suddenly another unconnected corporation is pissing in Apple's pond

I wouldn't call them unconnected. They are selling licensed music from the RIAA's affiliates, just like Apple. They are connected to the whole mess in some way. It's not like the RIAA and Apple are trying to do the legit thing and some bizarre upstart showed up unannounced selling music against the artists' wishes. The only issue here is whether they can offer playback on Apple's hardware without licensing from Apple.

The RIAA has already agreed that both companies can sell their music and has, therefore, implicitly agreed that both companies have acceptable DRM measures in place.

Personally, I say that if people insist on dealing with these people at all, they should do it in a way that is legal and doesn't require draconian DRM measures.

Re:How quickly they forget.

[Anonymous Coward]

What Real does by selling music into Apple's scheme, without entering into a licensing agreement with Apple, is suddenly endanger the whole position that Apple has with the record companies. Suddenly another unconnected corporation is pissing in Apple's pond - and worse, they're themselves engaging in anticompetitive practices (the $0.49 song dumping they tried to use to undercut Apple), trying to splice their own proprietary system into Apple's infrastructure!

Please. It's anti-competitive practice to lower prices?! WTF? Real is trying to cater to the music BUYERS by having better prices and allowing the buyers to play their songs on as many players as possible. And you call that anti-competitive? You sound like an Apple fanboi. Apple is doing what they are doing to take away CHOICE from you, the music buyer. That's it, and that's that. They want to force you to buy your music at THEIR store. This is equivalent to Wal-Mart making a special deal with Sony so that Sony products are only sold in Wal-Mart stores, at fixed prices. Would you think that that was anti-competitive?

Re:How quickly they forget.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. It's anti-competitive practice to lower prices?! WTF?

Uh, yes, it is. It's called "dumping"-- selling goods below cost strictly to undercut competition, and it is considered an unfair trade practice and is in some cases illegal. Real stated they would take a loss to run their $0.49/song promotion, so they clearly sold songs for a price below what they paid to license them from the copyright holders. That, my dim-witted friend, is a textbook example of dumping.

Re:How quickly they forget.

[dan the person]

No, dumping is when you sell goods in one market at a significantly lower price than what you sell in another (typically home) market.

Real only had one price as far as i am aware.

As for whether you can sell music below cost, how do you determine the cost of each song you sell? Once the cost of producing and marketing the album have been covered, each additional copy online is almost pure profit.

Uh huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your comparison is flawed"

You're only saying that because it conflicts with your world view.

Prove me wrong. Tell me something that Apple has done that have been wrong, anti-consumer, and just plain stupid.

I can probably come up with 2 dozen.

I'll bet you can't name 1.

What apple did wasn't to update the hardware, they updated the *software*. Not that it matters; the guy's rant was right on the mark.

Apple is being an asshole in this case mainly to show that they're willing to be an asshole, not to provide their customers with any discernable benefit.

And the fanboi in you looks it like a football game where anything apple does to get ahead is acceptable.

Please. Just. Stop.

Re:Uh huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it conflicts with my world view. In my world, companies have the right to protect the licensing of their proprietary formats that other companies try to use without permission.

So you're telling me those 2 dozen things that you can come up with are "wrong, anti-consumer or just plain stupid" and in no way are because they don't conflict with your world view?

Right.

If you don't like it, don't buy Apple products and quit bitching about them screwing you over. The rest of us are tired of the idiocy of bitching about corporations and classifing people as 'fanbois' in a lame attempt to add validity to an argument.

Its too easy to shoot you guys down

[Anonymous Coward]

"Second, the iPod doesn't support DRM content from anyplace other than Apple"

I just looked on the box, and in my iPod manual and it doesn't say anything like this. I'm guessing you just made this part up?

BANG. Shot down another lame duck

[Anonymous Coward]

" Apple *is* supporting their customers."

In what way does this support their customers?

Or did you mean to say "Apple is simple doing their best to lock their customers into their proprietary format...at least the ones stupid enough to buy from iTMS"

Anyone else...

[Anonymous Coward]

If this was anyone else I'd be pretty pissed at Apple, but RealNetworks' anti-user products put them right there with cell phone companies and car dealerships in my book.

Burn Real, Burn.

Re:If this had been Microsoft you'd all be wigging

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a pro-microsoft troll, who could use a real operrating system, and a spanking. Bow to my superior iPod, it kicks real systems and rio crap ass. Blow me, and let apple compete.

What?!?!?!?!

[Marquis de Sade]

Here is how Apple is being evil

All I know is that I just bought a Kirsty MacCall and a Travis disc and I just rip'd 'em with my powerbook. Transfering 'em over to my iPod was a snap. Now I'm danc'n to the cool shit and I don't even have to listen to Bono! Rock on! :)

SLAP!

Sounds like BS

[rspress]

What iPods have been updated not to work with Real Purchased songs? I bought my 3G ipod in May of this year and it is still running the same OS v2.2 that it shipped with....which is also the current version in all iPod updaters released since that time. Any updater I have downloaded did not update my iPod. I assume if Apple were going to make the Real tunes unavailable and I think they should, then how come they did not do it across the board on all models?

Mods? Dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you mod this guy up? He basically just said that choices are considered bugs in Apple's platform, and that since Real has a bad past, they do not represent a viable choice today, and thus do not belong in the market. Both are non sequiturs.

"OK" if they do it , but doesn't mean it's OK .

[ayeco]

Defend Apple all you want, this stinks. Bottom line, Real sells music b/c it has DRM - it's how they get the industry's permisison. now apple tried to shorten Real's market. Good business move? Sure, according to numbers. Good busisness move? Horrible, according to PR. Typical Apple? Dead on.

Another reason I'll stay away from Apple products.

The issue is not DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason Apple is so uppity about this issue is because they care about the customer's experience. Apple's whole pitch is that the PC world is unpredictable and unsafe. They want the iPod (and iTunes) to show 'the rest of us' how technology can and should work. Whether it achieves this is a debate I won't get into.

However, I think it is important to note that Apple is doing more here than trying to maintain a music monopoly. As a previous poster noted, certain select companies ARE getting access to FairPlay. Just not Real. And why not? Let's look at Real. They are a company notorious for producing second-rate, ad- and spyware-ridden software with so-so support and a poorly-reviewed music store. Anyone remember the Glaser interview here on Slashdot? Many questions were along the lines of: "Your company has a pretty crappy reputation. Think you can fix this before it goes under for good?"

The fact is, if Apple allows a company like Real to openly say their software supports the iPod, consumers' woes may well reflect on their impression of the iPod. What if someone has trouble getting their iPod working with Rhapsody? Not only are they frustrated, but I bet they're frustrated with their Apple device. And all of a sudden Apple has to make sure that software/firmware updates don't break Rhapsody compatibility. Sure, you might say that's Real's responibility - but remember again that Apple's goal is to attract iPod users to the Mac platform. That won't happen if the consumer perceives "Apple's update broke my iPod. It won't work with Real anymore."

I know we're not used to rooting for a closed system, but in all honesty that's because Microsoft's solutions are often buggy, unintuitive and insecure without even providing the type of hardware assurance the Apple combo has (what Apple terms 'The Whole Widget'). If Apple can make the good stuff, make it work, and continue to give me what I pay for, I say more power to them. People don't mind having Starbucks on every corner because they make damn tasty drinks, you know?

It really makes all the difference in the world, whether a company is more concerned about its customers or its bottom line. In Apple's case, its customers ARE its bottom line, I believe to the users' benefit.

You're a moron, plain and simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, if the firmware update was solely to break Real's hack (And that's all it is, an unauthorized, unsupported HACK), then why haven't ALL iPods been updated across the board with the firmware that breaks it? Only the last two or three iPod models released were targeted by the 11-15-04 firmware update, which is the one in question. That updater told me my 3G iPod was already up to date when I tried to install it, and the last firmware update prior to that that I actually installed came out before the Real hack.

Second, there's nothing anti-consumer about this move. Apple makes no secret of the fact that the iTMS is the only music store whose wares can be played on the iPod, and vice versa. Hell, even Apple's music store and music player competitors call attention to the fact in their advertising. Everybody knows going in that the iPod-iTunes system is a closed one when it comes to DRM'd music. Nobody bought an iPod just so they could buy Real's DRM'd music-- trust me on this. People have made their music store choice by the time they lay down cash for a portable player.

Third, Real would be laughed out of court if they tried to sue over this. Let's put it into terms you can understand: Apple has a store taking up half of a lot in an area with high real estate values. Real asks to build a store on the vacant half of said lot. Apple declines. Real ignores Apple and builds a store on the empty part of the lot anyway. Apple decides to improve their store and use the remaining space on that lot themselves. They need to clear that half of the lot, and in the process Real's store gets bulldozed. Can Real sue? Nope. They had no permission to be there.

The REAL naughty thing Apple did...

[Anonymous Coward]

...was to support DRM to begin with.

Nobody needs DRM to sell music on their store. Remember that the people going to the online stores are paying for something they know they can get for free. DRM hasn't made anybody go to the store, the customers' sense of ethics and moral standing did. The recording companies know that the DRM being used in stores is easily circumvented. So not only are the DRM schemes used in stores unnecessary, the people pushing for them know they don't work.

There is absolutely NO reason to use DRM in media files, from the point of view of all stakeholders. It doesn't even put a dent in piracy. So why bother?

Eventually the entertainment industry will realize that DRM is pointless. When all the negotiating was underway, it was a concession Apple made to launch the store. And now that the store is in place, it would cost more money for them to rip out the DRM then it would be to just leave it be.

Really, what do you want Apple to do, support MORE DRM? I actually am GLAD Apple broke Real's scheme for getting DRM on the iPod. Less DRM is better. 1 DRM format working instead of 2 is better. Ultimately 0 is best, but that will take the entertainment industry swallowing their pride enough to take off the blinders and let DRM die; and Apple deciding it's worth developer time and money to rip out the DRM code.

So until that time we have HYMN and tools like it to liberate the data and Apple keeping all the other DRM formats at bay. At least on their turf. It's not ideal but it's better than what would happen if DRM had even the teeniest bit more traction.

What if...

[Anonymous Coward]

What if Apple computers got extremely popular, let's say 80% of the market, but Apple never let anyone other than Apple develop for the platform. Dell and HP are still out there, but people keep buying the Mac because it works better and has become a bit of a fashion statement.

How is this all of a sudden evil and monopolistic? A product took off, that's all. Apple isn't stopping anyone from making their own music stores and MP3 players. Certainly there are companies out there whose R&D budgets can dwarf Apple's. How many different players, stores and features are there on the market? Who is forcing these people to go with iPod/iTunes?

Steve Jobs himself said it best - consumers have a choice, the other guys just don't like the choice they are making.

Everyone needs to take a step back and realize the difference between a product taking off, and a company abusing a monopoly to deter competition. Apple has decided on a closed system, fine. I, for one, don't see how this limits my choice of other devices and stores. Real asked for the key to the safe, Apple said no, Real broke in anyway, Apple changed the combination. Seems about fair to me.

Re:What if...

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Your assessment is dead-on. Unfortunately, I don't think it will sink in, because most people are idiots.

HAHAHAHA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Best. post. ever!

Well it's pretty good anyhow.

Isn't it the same IE do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has over 80% market share. It is enough to be called monopoly.
Situation is similar to this - MS changes HTML rendering in IE in the way that files generated by OOo or Mozilla Composer would look bad or not at all.

Does it look ok for You?

Robert

Re:Isn't it the same IE do?

[Anonymous Coward]

HTML is a standard and you, my friend, are dumb.

How is this different?

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw a comparison between OO.org and Word earlier. Here's the more accurate comparison:

MS develops a way to encrypt Word files so that only the intended recipient can open them, and only with Microsoft Word.

OO.org reverse engineers the MS encryption and creates their own "encrypted files." For the time being, since they hacked Microsoft's encryption, the files are touted as being compatible with OO.org AS WELL AS Microsoft.

Microsoft says in their next security patch, OO.org hacked encryption files will not be supported.

People on /. bitch that once again, M$ is monopolizing the encrypted document world.

In other news...

[otter42]

I have quitely decided to not buy anything to do with Mac.

Which is quite unfortunate, because I really had every intention of giving the iBooks a shot. However, I simply cannot support a company which cannot support the competition.

Re:In other news...

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Cry me a river. The competition doesn't support iPod, either.

Including yourself?

[Kaseijin]

If Apple allows this questionable scheme, it is a scheme, to continue then they will lose their licensing agreement with the labels which allows them to run the iTunes Music Store.

Nonsense. The labels don't care what kind of locks Real uses to shackle their music as long as their customers can't unlock them. If anyone stood to lose a contract, it would be Real, since the files created by Harmony can be decrypted by Hymn, but in fact major labels have praised Harmony.

The iPod is the single most open digital music device on the market today. It supports the playback of more audio formats than any other device like it. It supports AAC, MP3, Apple Lossless, AIFF, MP3 VBR, WAV and Audible. It also supports the DRM from the iTMS.

I count PCM in two flavors (WAV, AIFF), two open formats (MP3, AAC), one proprietary (Apple Lossless), and two encrypted (iTMS, Audible). Compare to the Rio Karma: PCM (WAV), two free formats (FLAC, Vorbis), one open (MP3), one proprietary (WMA), and one encrypted (WMDRM). You might like the iPod's list better, but it doesn't take any prizes for openness.

It does not support any other form of DRM, which is really what has Rob Glaser's panties in a bunch, as it won't support the Real DRM.

The problem from Real's perspective was that Apple won't let anyone else use Apple's DRM. Again, it doesn't matter whose locks are used, just that there are locks.

Re:Including yourself?

[Warlock7]

I haven't seen any labels praising Real's behavior, you'll have to provide support for that claim. As for contracts, you're simply wrong. If Apple allows others to mess with their model, then the labels will lose confidence in their ability to protect their media and they won't renew, it's that simple. Real's contracts are irrelevant, as this is about Apple stopping Real from screwing with their device.

As for the lists, Apple has 7 (8) and the Rio offers 6. So, the list is longer for Apple. As I stated before, they have the most support for any device out there. I don't see what your point was there.

The problem from Real's perspective is that they couldn't negotiate a deal to get their own DRM onto the iPod. Your interpretation is what Glaser wants you to believe, as it isn't really true. Apple does allow others to use their DRM. They've worked out contracts with HP and Motorola already. HP has the HP branded iPod deal which allows them to use Apple's DRM and Motorola has the cell phone deal that allows them to playback Apple DRM'd files through their cell phones.

The future is all about DRM and whose is going to be used the most. What kind of business decision is it to let other DRMs be used on their devices? Bad.

Glaser went into negotiations with Apple and was turned away since he can't offer anything Real (pardon the pun). Glaser wants the Real DRM to be used somewhere, anywhere. This is why Real is failing. They have nothing to offer in the way of competition, so they attack the big DRM company, Apple. Then they start a media circus and lie to the public about what they are doing and the public takes the bait.

Re:Including yourself?

[zeet]

Which 7? You listed 7, but you counted MP3 and VBR MP3 seperately. Okay, here goes, using the same sort of math for the Rio: WAV, MP3, VBR MP3, WMA, WMDRM, OGG, CBR OGG, FLAC. Bingo, the Rio plays 8 formats. C'mon.

Re:Including yourself?

[Warlock7]

You can't even do your own math. I didn't list seven, I listed eight, you counted seven. I didn't include VBR in that number, that's why I listed the "(8)" and I left out VBR AAC alltogether. The number seven comes from your statements, from your post: "PCM in two", "two open formats", "one proprietary", "two encrypted". 2+2+1+2=7.

If you want to attempt to explain your inability to see your own numbers and play by the rules you laid out, then we can do it this way: WAV, AIFF, MP3, VBR MP3, AAC, VBR AAC, Apple Lossless, Audible and to figure in against your inclusion of the DRM'd WM files, we also have AAC-DRM (iTMS). So, by your logic the iPod handles 9 formats. Still more on the iPod than the Rio.

Just deal with it, the Rio isn't as open as the iPod, no matter what you think or how you want to attempt to manipulate the numbers to suit your needs. If you want to play games with the numbers, then you have to do it for both sides in order to be fair.


If you really want to get technical, the iPod also supports another form of DRM through the Audible format. I didn't count it twice as I don't believe that you can get Audible files that aren't DRM'd.

Great!

[bredk]

I think this is great - I'd hate to see "BUFFERING..." on my iPod.

Bring on the EU court case.

[TractorBarry]

Well this looks to me like another matter to bring to the attention of the EU.

Shit like this, no matter how good the O/S is, is what keeps me well away from Apple products.

When, oh when, will manufacturers get the point ? The device stores and plays back music. It's up to the comsumer where they source that music. It's up to the consumer if they want to hack the device. They've bought it. It's theirs.

Fucking monopolistic bastards. Apple are every bit as bad as Microsoft just with a "smugger than thou" attitude.

Re:Bring on the EU court case.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of monopoly.

That'll teach you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Serves you all right for buying horribly proprietary hardware.

Buy iRivers, avoid all this horseshit!

The future is DRM music only

[klubar]

It's not clear whether it will be the ipod or some other device but the outcome is pretty certain. In the future portable music devices (and home ones too) will only play authorized DRM music. There will be some format upgrade that has enough value for many consumers to buy new players and music...and surprise it will be DRM'd. There will always be decrypters, but most people will not care. The ipod is the closest thing out there it a "closed" system--one store, almost forced software upgrades (if you want to use the store).

80% share of what?

[klubar]

It depends on how you define the market...for $200 plus hard disk devices it's probably closer to 95%, for portable music devices (including CD players, classic walkmans) it's probably closer to 5%. Also are you counting units or dollars? I still see many more classic CD (+MP3 disk) players and even tape players than iPods. Not everyone can afford (or wants to) drop $300 on a new toy...especially when they know that a cheaper version will be coming out in a few months (or years).

Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time I checked, iPod owners seemed pretty happy with the iPod/iTMS combination. This news is not going to keep anybody from buying Apple products, except those that had no intention of doing so anyway.

are-you also-pro correct-dash placement?

[shwouchk]

I am pro-reverse engineering

Why does everyone hate real today...

[un1xl0ser]

I hated Real when they included spyware, and had their misleading and difficult to get to download pages. I also hated that they wouldn't give any info about their codecs so we could use it on Linux/BSD.

Since they open-sourced Helix and worked on that project, and has a version of RealPlayer for Linux which for me has been advertising free, what's the problem?

I just think that people have to drop their beef with the company when it changes its tune. If your going to keep your first impressions for life then just shut up and move on.

Maybe I'm just deceived by their recent actions, but I don't see what everyone's problem is.

Re:Why does everyone hate real today...

[digid2]

The problem is that some people purchased music from Real. I would never purchase music or any other product from Real, they have a bad track record, and I saw this coming when they announced that their music could be played on the ipod. Some people made a big mistake dealing with this company, instead of the itms or just purchasing a CD and converting to MP3's. I for one don't care for any DRM with my music! If I want something I will purchase the CD and rip it my self. It is nice to be able to buy just 1 or 2 tracks from a CD, but again to protect my $$ in the future I want MP3's digid

Also possible to de-install the firmware

[Jeppe Salvesen]

You can also just de-install the firmware and instead use the prior version that allows you to play those files from Harmony if you are dissatisfied with the new firmware.

Anyhow - I dislike the fact that Apple controls pretty much the entire value chain. That is bad for competition, as such a widely defined product raises significant barriers against introducing new products that really competes in terms of functionality and ease of use and media availability.

Why would anyone buy an ipod?

[SI285]

I don't understand why anyone buys a product that has so much DRM, is updated to lock out third party utilities and enhancements, had terrible battery problems which apple denied until forced to come clean, and locks the end user into Apples vision of what digital music should be.

Wait a minute...I know, they're fashionable! I guess fashion rules after all.

I use an IRiver IH120 20gb player. It has NO DRM, excellent battery life, optical input and outputs, supports mp3, wav, wma, ogg, plus I can update it with new features via firmware updates.

It also cost less!

Extremely nothing to see here, come on!

[zpok]

What's wrong here people!

Apple updated its iPod firmware and Real got locked out again. Big deal, they've been told. I might not think this very nice, but that's the way it is.

BUT IT TOOK PEOPLE ONE MONTH AND A HALF TO FIND OUT!

So get real here, where are the victims of Apple's anti-social behaviour, where are the duped customers??????

The real news - if any - is that apparently Real has at least one (1) iPod customer, the person who found out a 50 days after the fact that his song(s?) is locked out.

His Jobsness has told everybody who wants to hear it that if there are compelling reasons to do so, he'd open up his DRM scheme. Well, that may seem very anti-social, but not more than every other company does or tries to do and when all is said and done, I guess at the Real side of things, there aren't that much compelling reasons to be found.

But go ahead and "don't ever buy Apple". Say no to Monopolists. Shees, which high definition DVD format are you going to boycot? Are you faithful to Betamax still? How's your 8-track doing?

Re:Extremely nothing to see here, come on!

[TiggsPanther]

Apple updated its iPod firmware and Real got locked out again. Big deal, they've been told. I might not think this very nice, but that's the way it is.

I think this about sums up the situation. The amusing thing about the discussion on here is that opinions seem polarized. The major camps are fully-pro one side and fully-anti the other, trying to make out that only one side here is acting badly.

The real outcome here is that both sides (the actual companies, not necessarily the /. camps) come over as acting a little childish about the whole thing. Both sides could have acted better - a lot better.

Apparently Real did officially ask to be allowed to use Fairplay itself to allow music purchased from them to be iPoddable. Score one for Real.
Apple said no. Well within their rights to do so, though seems a little stingy. So far this leaves Real looking a little ahead.

Real says "Screw you" and finds a workaround anyway. Has a distinct air of childishness about it. Does, however, open up iPod users to having more choice. Noble end, shady means. Not sure this was Real's smartest move.

Real says this is to do with "Freedom of Choice". Not something I think Real are qualified to say, all things considered.
The two companies I'd class as being least into "Freedom of Choice" when it comes to media formats are Real and Apple.

Apple state from the outset that future firmware would probably disable it. Not nice, but honest. No stringing the users along.
Real continue to use "works with iPod" as a selling-point on their site. Granted they do mention that only certain software (firmware, I guess) work with it but they say that future versions will be added - without a single mention that newer versions make break compatibility.
Using unguaranteeable compatilibity as a selling point - not smart.

Apple made the iPod as a closed system. Their choice, maybe not a great one. No support for Ogg Vorbis or FLAC. No official Linux client (unless they released one since I checked last week) or official plugin for Linux players. No official way of accessing their store outside of Windows or MacOS. There are certainly reasons why I don't have an iPod, and why I'm unlikely to get one any time soon. Not exactly in their favour.
Real basically hacked their way in. And press-releases aside the main reason seems to be to make a buck. It does give the customers more choice, but it does also seem like Real stand to make a fair bit by riding on Aple's popularity.

I'm not really too impressed by either side. But whereas Apple come over as snotty, Real come over as being arrogant. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of either side. I just get the feeling that Real could've handled this in a better way.
Going the "Freedom of Choice" route for a while without reverse-enginering and leaning on Apple to license them Fairplay instead might well have got them a larger amount of support.

Blah, blah, blah, iPod can't, blah,blah, blah.

[jotaeleemeese]

1.- Thanks for remind the iPod fanboys that they don't own the music in the ipod they use. Apple wants and if allowed will get full control of the, for bunnies sake, other companie's DRM files.

2.- Nobody was asking Apple to support squat. Nobody broke Apple's stonrgohlod on their precious (iTunes DRMed stuff). So what exactly is the problem?

3.- Typical Apple. They struck gold with ipod and are going to drive it south with their paranoid tnendency to control any and every single aspect of anything they have designed. They could had become the biggest PC manufacturer, but their innate attachment not to let it go meant that another more flexible, open architecture, became king. Better they enjoy the ride, with such blindfolded, infurating decissions, they will lose cutomers as fast as they did to the IBM PC camp in the 80s.

Poor sod.

[jotaeleemeese]

Since when it is illegal to reverse Engineer things?

Oh yeah, you are USian. Read above.

Re:Poor sod.

[emilymildew]

Read above what? These are two US companies. I don't understand the problem.

CD's don't cost 17 dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

I just bought a bunch of brand-new CD's for $7 each. http://www.bmgmusic.com

If you don't want to go there, CD's at Costco cost about $11 each

Then there's used for $3 each

Then there's cutouts that typically sell for $6 to 9 each.

I don't know anybody who pays $17 for CD's.

Yeah, well...

[http101]

My media player can kick your media player's ass. iPods are for uneducated losers with too much money anyway. "We don't want your media playing on our player - its too good for your tunes!" Wah, wah, wah... shut the fuck up. I'll just be happy listening to my own media in my truck. Flamebait rules!

Re:Legality of Harmony

[emilymildew]

Wait, how did Real not reverse engineer the DRM that Apple uses?

And do you think that Real is going to apologize to their customers for giving them music that might work on an iPod but might not? Or are they going to blame Apple? This seems like sour grapes to me. Real wanted a cut of Apple's action and when they couldn't get it, they did this and are going to blame Apple for being inflexible.

Re:This is deplorable

[Anonymous Coward]

pwn3d

Breaking only occurs for 4th generation and Mini's

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't anyone notice, for instance by checking http://www.apple.com/ipod/download/ that the updates are only for the Mini's and fourth generation iPod's.

If breaking Real's files was the goal, Apple would've also updated the firmware for the other iPods, as they're probably still the largest group out there.Furthermore, this is also possibly the group which has had most opportunity to put files from Real on their iPod in the first place.

Real are hypocrites.

[Anonymous Coward]

They create software to pirate an iPod to play music from Real's Rhapsody music store, claiming it to be in the interest of compatibility.

One problem, Rhapsody has no Mac version!

Mac users can't even download this music in the first place. So while they're claiming fairness and compatibility, they effectively give the finger to the majority of iPod users.

Real are hypocrites.

[Myrkridian42]

I agree. Rhapsody music store has no Mac version, and Rob Glaser said there isn't going to be. Where does Real get off criticizing Apple for not giving iPod users "choice"? I can't even download Real's songs using my OS of choice. (not to mention the OS of most iPod owners) Thanks but no thanks, Real.

Explanation

[SuperKendall]

since I figured Real used some of the code from this app. Why would you assume that?

Well, I was thinking possibly they would be using something from Hymn to get at the key and use it to lock their own files with your account name... to be honest I had not looked very closey, or even really thought it through all that far. Basically just at the level of two programs working with protected AAC files and assuming some things from Hymn could be used.

Everyone has a very good point that I shouldn't expect much like that since Hymn is removing DRM while Real is trying to add it...

The overlap is DRM

[SuperKendall]

To be fair, the overlap is right there in your message - DRM. Both programs (Hymn and Harmony, I knew what you meant) work with DRM. It's true they have different goals but thinking about the problem very abstractly it's not so hard to imagine a program that understands the files well enough to strip DRM protections would also offer some insights in how to reverse the process.

Does Hymn work with Rhapsody?

[steve_bryan]

I suppose for very little money I could test this possibility but I am curious if anyone has been able to routinely uncripple (ie remove DRM from) tracks purchased from Real.

We remember.

[Anonymous Coward]

Realnetworks supported Linux.

Real Networks also filled computers with nagware and spyware. When was the last time you saw iTunes invade someone's privacy or pop up a nag screen?

I am anti-DRM engineering.

[Pendersempai]

Yes, reverse-engineering is great. The difference is not that Apple is my sweetheart or that Real is pure corporate evil (which are both true) but that I hate DRM so damn much.

Open-source software is something else we can probably agree is a good thing, but of course we wouldn't support an application designed to operate a concentration camp. Granted that's extreme (go ahead and call godwin on me), but the point is that a good thing can be used for a VERY BAD end, and the badness of the end can outweigh the goodness of the path used.

All you've got is stereotyping and namecalling.

[Warlock7]

Real doesn't use original master recordings so the extra 64 kbps is insignificant, virtually meaningless. But why would I expect some drone to comprehend this? I don't, because I don't believe that you're capable of it. What choice are they offering? Use their DRM instead of Apple's. Woo boy, that really opened up the variety that we didn't have available to us before. Thanks for the choice to use your DRM Glaser.


If you had bothered to read my post rather than just being a closed minded reactionary stereotyper, you might be able to understand that the Real DRM is a threat to Apple's business model in more than one way. It's a threat to Apple's ability to maintain their contracts with the recording labels due to their perceived inability to maintain their DRM which would lead to the end of the iTMS. It's also a threat to the true purpose of all of these online music stores, the proliferation of the DRM itself.


Apple made the business decision to deny Real to have access to their media playing device. That's their decision, not yours and not Reals. So, Real, decides to start a false media advertising attack against the one device that supports more formats than any other on the market today by claiming that they are a closed device.

Re:All you've got is stereotyping and namecalling.

[Felonious Ham]

Real doesn't use original master recordings so the extra 64 kbps is insignificant, virtually meaningless. But why would I expect some drone to comprehend this? I don't, because I don't believe that you're capable of it. What choice are they offering? Use their DRM instead of Apple's. Woo boy, that really opened up the variety that we didn't have available to us before. Thanks for the choice to use your DRM Glaser.

For the sake of argument, I'll grant you the 192kbps chicanery, but how about the choice to buy music at a lower price? Even I, as "some drone" can appreciate the simple fact that 1/2 half off is better full price any day. Will this affect Apple's profitability, or itms's viability? I don't know. And I don't care.

If itms and real music store were to disappear tomorrow, there would be four more rivals to take their place. And who would I be rooting for? The store with the cheapest price, biggest selection, and greatest portability, in that order.

Apple made the business decision to deny Real to have access to their media playing device. That's their decision, not yours and not Reals.

This is true. It is Real's decision to make their DRM format to be compatible with the most popular music hardware. It my decision to "encourage" this openness by voting with my dollars. itms is a lovely interface, it really is, but as I don't worship or tithe to the Apple religion, it's just software and just another option. God bless choice.

Re:All you've got is stereotyping and namecalling.

[Warlock7]

Granted half off is great. But that pricing has been scaled back to only count for "new releases" on the Real site now. You can only sell so much at a loss for so long before you put yourself out of business. BuyMusic.com is a prime example that the whole "pricing is everything driving the market" concept is false too.

Lowest price is Real, on a handful of tracks. Greatest selection is Apple. Greatest portability, depends on what you choose for your portable device. My preference goes more in this order: Quality, non-MS proprietary products, selection and then price. I don't see myself as an "Apple zealot", but I am very anti-MS in most of my views.

You are right that it is Real's choice to break other licensing models to make their files compatible on as many devices as they like. It's also Apple's prerogative to break this functionality as they choose. Apple didn't hide the fact that they would do just that. A day after Real had their press conference to announce their intentions, Apple said that the next revision of their software would break Rhapsody, and that is what they did.

I find it most amazing that nobody seemed to mention, or care, that this happened for nearly a month. The update was made available November 18. Funny that now it's news. Just goes to show how few people appear to be using the Real service to begin with.

It's also rather interesting to see that this hasn't had much of an affect on Apple either. They just announced their 200 millionth downloaded track. No other seller seems close to this kind of volume yet.

Please don't take the drone comment to heart. I just have an issue with people calling anybody that defends Apple's right to do business the way that they choose as a zealot. Which is how I took your previous comments.

fool?

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

it is not about approval, it is about the current state of the legal system. I went on to say that we can (and perhaps hinted that we should) challenge this. But going around bitching about "whah... my ipod don't not play no more of them real songs... wha..." is simply not productive.

and if Intel licenses its BIOS to you with a clause which says "only Palladium approved operating system may be used with this BIOS software" and you buy that hardware, you better believe I approve of you not breaking your licensing terms. because I'd like people to not ignore other licenses, such as the GPL, LGPL, BSD, etc, licenses.

Are you blinded by your desire to pirate music that you have sold out your belief in not being a hypocrite? We can't pick and choose the licenses we want to honor. I don't want people to pirate my software, so I don't pirate music.

Bass-ackwards

[Kaseijin]

I haven't seen any labels praising Real's behavior, you'll have to provide support for that claim.

It was widely reported when Harmony debuted. Real's press release might jog your memory:

"Interoperability of devices and jukebox software is one of the biggest challenges for today's music consumer," said Thomas Hesse, Chief Strategic Officer and Head of Global Digital Business, BMG. "RealNetworks' Harmony Technology is the first to address this issue by giving the consumer flexibility and choice."

"EMI's goal is to allow consumers to access our music on as many legitimate platforms as possible, and seamlessly, across a range of devices. RealNetworks' Harmony Technology will make it easier for consumers to enjoy their digital music in a truly flexible way," said Ted Cohen, SVP Digital Development and Distribution, EMI Music.

As for contracts, you're simply wrong. If Apple allows others to mess with their model, then the labels will lose confidence in their ability to protect their media and they won't renew, it's that simple. Real's contracts are irrelevant, as this is about Apple stopping Real from screwing with their device.

Again, the labels don't give two shits about any model other than their own; it doesn't matter whether Apple or Real sells a song as long as the label gets a cut and the buyer can't decrypt it.

As for the lists, Apple has 7 (8) and the Rio offers 6. So, the list is longer for Apple. As I stated before, they have the most support for any device out there. I don't see what your point was there.

My points were (unstated) that counting VBR MP3 separately is unnecessary, since just about everything manufactured this century supports it, including the Karma; (implied) that a second flavor of PCM is less useful than, for example, a free lossless codec; and (primarily) that citing support for Audible's proprietary and restricted format as evidence of the iPod's openness is ludicrous. By that logic, Microsoft Windows is the most open OS.

The problem from Real's perspective is that they couldn't negotiate a deal to get their own DRM onto the iPod.

The letter Glaser sent to Jobs suggested that Real license Apple's DRM.

Apple does allow others to use their DRM. They've worked out contracts with HP and Motorola already.

HP just sells iPods; Apple's DRM isn't even a black box to them, it's a black box inside a white box inside a cardboard box. I had forgotten about the Moto deal (which still hasn't yielded an actual product, right?), but I was speaking of music sales; Real isn't trying to make an iTMS-compatible phone.

The future is all about DRM and whose is going to be used the most.

Apple's refusal to license its DRM to Real generates iTMS sales at the expense of Apple DRM users.

Glaser wants the Real DRM to be used somewhere, anywhere.

No, he and the rest of Real want the songs they sell to be playable on any suitably restricted device. That means using Apple's DRM on iPods, Microsoft's on everyone else's portable audio players, and their own on personal computers (since there isn't a suitable standard, Microsoft's is tied to WMA, and Apple won't license theirs). Real think the long-term money is in music, not crypto, and Apple's reaction shows agreement.

I am not zeet

[Kaseijin]

As for the counting, see my direct reply.

Re:I am not zeet

[Warlock7]

No, you are not zeet.

I apologize for the mistake I made in not checking the user names when I responded to zeet as if that were you.

Yes you do seem to be bass-ackwards.

[Warlock7]

Well, EMI is a recording label. BMG, however, is not a recording label. They are a redistributer. There don't seem to be any other labels that are in agreement and I would question the validity of the one person at EMI that made that part of a statement that was quoted in the press release from Real. The perspective shown there obviously aren't an industry-wide held belief. The only reason that Real wants to make Harmony the defacto standard is to get their DRM in as many devices as possible.

The contracts that Apple negotiated with the labels, which opened up the market to all the other copycats that are out there today, do depend upon the maintainability of the DRM attached to the files sold. The way that Real has "hacked" the iPod software in order to allow Harmony to mimic the Apple DRM is a threat to the security of the DRM. Your interpretation of the ramifications of what Real has done is myopic.

The letter that Glaser "sent to Jobs" was another media stunt that came after the corporate negotiations failed when Apple denied them the rights to use or have access to any of their software or hardware. The idea of licensing the Apple DRM doesn't make any sense when Real wants to distribute their own DRM, which is the only logical long term goal of distributing music electronically if you aren't producing it yourself. The letter was released to the press by Real, supposedly at the same time that he sent it to Jobs. That's not the way business is done, unless you want to sway the rabid masses. Funniest thing about it is that they got so many to believe it.

HP has a contract with Apple that covers the hardware and the software, so it does include the DRM. Motorola and Apple just announced that they are going to release a device that sounds like it will extend the iPod to work as a phone too. As for the Motorola phone that plays Fairplay DRM'd files is due out in '05. That too includes the licensing of the DRM. Regardless of what you think.

Real isn't interested in making any hardware devices, that's why they need to leech onto whatever device they can to try and justify to people why they should buy their music files and their DRM.

You and I have no clue as to what kind of a deal Real offered to Apple when they supposedly asked to license Fairplay. It doesn't really matter what it was, Apple decided it wasn't in their best interests or the best interests of their customers. This isn't in any way "...at the expense of Apple DRM users." as you want to believe. This solidifies their ability to provide high quality products.

Real is in a bind. They don't have the position to save their failing business. So, they use questionable, which are still to be determined as to whether they are legal, methods to piggyback on the success of others when they were told that they couldn't.

Your interpretation is naive. Real wouldn't be losing money to sell music with their DRM if they weren't interested in getting their DRM out there to try and maintain a hold on the market that they're losing due to horrible business practices in the past. They screwed over their users over and over again by making inroads for spyware and charging for bad, incomplete and buggy software. Their losing their grip as others flock to the other formats. They weren't interested in doing music distribution until everybody else started doing music distribution and they saw the writing on the wall. The DRM. Their ego is deflating and they are desperate to try whatever they can to maintain their company. You and a few others have bought into it and they now have a tiny foothold with their DRM. To think that they are interested in selling music, which has been shown repeatedly to be a money losing option, is to be ignorant of reality and the direction that the industry is headed. They want to get their DRM into as many devices as possible so that people like yourself will need to rely on them staying in business to maintain the Harmony software and their DRM so that you

Post of the year

[Zhe Mappel]

A beautiful post in many respects. Thanks for bringing some needed clarity to this discussion.

I see your point, but...

[Scudsucker]

...the RIAA isn't worried about the online music store sky falling on their heads anymore. Even if Apple hadn't updated the firmware, the RIAA wouldn't up and pull out of online stores. They couldn't do it at the drop of a hat anyway, because they signed long term contracts, at least with Apple. Besides, I doubt they even care, as the labels are still getting their cut through Real if people buy from their store and stick it on the iPod.

alternatives?

[alizard]

Apple put itself in that corner. They had the cash in hand in the bank to buy Universal, buzz I heard said that they could have gotten it for way under the asking price with a few golden parachutes.

If they had done this, they could have dynamited the RIAA label business model at great profit to themselves, the artists, and the rest of us. Everybody wins except the parasites. Would an iPod sell better with 100 free legal downloads of Universal products? Would getting Universal way under the asking price have reduced the "value" of the other labels, making them affordable targwts for HP, IBM, Dell, etc. and giving us a record people run by more or less sane people who don't see profit in paying RIAA lobbyists? We'll never know.

Instead, they decided to stay a loyal RIAA customer. Their doing this reinforced the business model that prevents them from selling music profitably. Jobs made the short-sighted and stupid decision to make his profit on the hardware only. Great, assuming that Apple has the only people on the face of the earth capable of making a music player and pay-per-download system with a cool UI. This is, of course, the wrong end of a sucker bet.

This isn't an Apple-killer, just an example of the kind of thinking that's kept a clearly superior OS from becoming a dominant player instead of an eternal niche market.

And the Apple fanboys will keep on buying and defending Apple.

If you can't think of a snappy comeback...

[Kaseijin]

BMG, however, is not a recording label. They are a redistributer.

BMG operated over 200 labels, including Arista, the RCA group, and the BMG group. In August, it became half of Sony BMG.

There don't seem to be any other labels that are in agreement and I would question the validity of the one person at EMI that made that part of a statement that was quoted in the press release from Real. The perspective shown there obviously aren't an industry-wide held belief.

I haven't seen any labels criticizing Real's behavior; you'll have to provide support for that claim--and again, the fact that they're still doing business with Real is a pretty good hint. Do you generally reject the idea that a senior vice president making a statement for a press release speaks on behalf of the company, or do you have some specific reason to dispute the statement from EMI other than it being terribly inconvenient for your position? Do you think ythat you in a better position to speak for EMI?

The way that Real has "hacked" the iPod software in order to allow Harmony to mimic the Apple DRM is a threat to the security of the DRM.

Harmony doesn't touch the iPod software; it transcrypts the songs into a format the iPod understands.

The letter that Glaser "sent to Jobs" was another media stunt that came after the corporate negotiations failed when Apple denied them the rights to use or have access to any of their software or hardware.... The letter was released to the press by Real, supposedly at the same time that he sent it to Jobs.

The New York Times claims that the letter was leaked by "a person close to Apple", so you're implying that the Times reporters were part of the deception or that they were played by one of Glaser's shadowy minions. Either way, some evidence is in order.

The idea of licensing the Apple DRM doesn't make any sense when Real wants to distribute their own DRM, which is the only logical long term goal of distributing music electronically if you aren't producing it yourself.

Everyone selling WMDRM tracks disagrees. Real claim to disagree, and their actions match up pretty well with their stated motivations--if they're trying to secure a future for their DRM in portable devices, removing it and replacing it with someone else's isn't going to help. Apple's actions indicate disagreement--they're trying to ensure that their DRM isn't used in any store but their own. You revisit this theme repeatedly and at greater length. For the sake of brevity, I'm only going to address it this once; don't interpret omission as concession.

HP has a contract with Apple that covers the hardware and the software, so it does include the DRM.

They haven't done anything beyond what's possible with a truckload of retail iPods and the public QuickTime API. If they have some privileged access, neither they nor you have shown it.

Motorola and Apple just announced that they are going to release a device that sounds like it will extend the iPod to work as a phone too. As for the Motorola phone that plays Fairplay DRM'd files is due out in '05. That too includes the licensing of the DRM. Regardless of what you think.

As I stated above, I forgot about Moto, but they aren't relevant to my statement in context, which was about music sales.

Real isn't interested in making any hardware devices, that's why they need to leech onto whatever device they can to try and justify to people why they should buy their music files and their DRM.

Real's justification is that it offers better fidelity and compatibility with more devices than most other competitors. Supporting Rhapsody wouldn't be as strong a selling point for the iPod, but it's at worst neutral.

You and I have no clue as to what kind of a deal Real offered to Apple when they supposedly a