Slashdot Mirror
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.
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).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It turns out that this "comprehensive plan" involves a free screensaver download that DDOS's the iTunes store.
Unknown host pong.
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.
So is Real going to refund the money that was spent on music that was "compatible" with the Ipod?
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!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
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.
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!
Like Ebaums World? You'll love Shizzville
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.
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.
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.
May I inquire why it should matter who you bought the music from as long as you own it?
Yes, there are women on Slashdot. Deal with it.
Slashdot has turned into Livejournal.
You shouldn't use DRM'd files anyway.
sulli
RTFJ.
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...?
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
--;
In Soviet Metallica, Hammer of Justice Crushes YOU!
--;
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!)
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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)
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
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!
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
Realnetworks supported Linux.
Apple didn't support Quicktime for Linux.
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
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. $$$
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...
and now back to the fallout shelter...
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.
---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?
How, exactly, is that the "right thing" to do?
I don't use Emacs; it uses me.
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.
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.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
Seriously:
if (realnetworks_file && 30_day_money_back_expired) {
remove_ability_to_play_file();
}
way to go Apple!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
...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?
Apple is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong.
/. 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.
/. loves apple, and /. hates real. folks should try to look a few millimeters past their brand loyalty.
i think this can be better phrased as: "nobody can stop them". sorry, but if our friends in redmond did something like this the
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
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
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.
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.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
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 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.
"Stumble before you crawl"
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
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.
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)
After all, you already have their money, why would you care about giving them choices?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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.
I have a plan so comprehensive you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel.
. html
- Rob "Blackadder" Glaser
http://www.createsomething.net/quotes/black_adder
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 will probably lock out ogg er... Nevermind ;)
///<sig
... 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!
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!
1. Wait for some hackers to do a workaround.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!!
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.
= Grow a brain...
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.
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
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.
"It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
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".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Fill in the blank:
OGG is relevant to this story because ________________
...and that's all there is to it.
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.
RealNetworks definitely owes you a refund.
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.
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 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.
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.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
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.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
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.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
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?
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.
There is a difference between what is supported and what is possible.
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.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
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!
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.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
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.
Bush is from the East Coast? Last time I checked, Texas was more to the middle than to a coast.
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.
No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.
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...)
John
Apple doesn't object to 3rd party developers producing apps for the Mac after-all. I really don't get this.
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.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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?
Five Dolla Moddy-Moddy?
Is this a possiblity yet?
Not that i care about compatiblity with realnetworks, but its not a bad thing to start thinking about.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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...
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
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.
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.
For context, click Parent.
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).
Corporatism != Free Market
It explains so much. ;-)
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.
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
Texas does border on a coast too. Ever hear of the Gulf of Mexico?
_
Free 27" Sony WEGA TV
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.
Texas is *not* on the east coast.
And neither candidate was born in Texas.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
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
http://www.allofmp3.com/
So says ToeNipples
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.
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
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.
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.
Da Blog
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.
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.
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.
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.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
And then he lived the next thirty years in Texas. What's your point?
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
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.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
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.
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
Person B only has the choice of steak.
Which Person has the better option?
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
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
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
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?
Sometimes my arms bend back.
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.
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
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!"
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
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.
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
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. ;)
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
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...
kin242.net
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.
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
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!
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.
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.
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...
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
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?
The UK are taking apple to court over price fixing, and did they ever sort out that issue with the beatles?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Anyone as irony challenged as you is probably a Libertarian, or retarded.
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.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
It's a goof job that Real hasn't worked out how to do that or it would have been locked out long ago.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
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.
I'm a 2000 man.
It just gives iPod users one more reason to fire up Kazaa.
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.
If they're MP3 Players they'd play all MP3 files since there's no DRM on MP3 files.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Cute and hip lose out when you can't play what you want to play on it anymore.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
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.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
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.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
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.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
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.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
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
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
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
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.
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. :-)
I post to satisfy a nervous tick!
...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.
Well, hey! If it's both regular and regulatable maybe I can use you on woodblock.
KFG
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.
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
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.
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.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
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).
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 $300 on a new toy...especially when they know that a cheaper version will be coming out in a few months (or years).
I use it on a regular basis for both CD and DVD encoding. All of the iApps are free too and are very good for free software. I haven't used lame. I agree that AAC is superior to MP3.
I am pro-reverse engineering
I hated Real when they included spyware, and had their misleading and difficult to get to download pages. I also hated that they wouldn't give any info about their codecs so we could use it on Linux/BSD.
Since they open-sourced Helix and worked on that project, and has a version of RealPlayer for Linux which for me has been advertising free, what's the problem?
I just think that people have to drop their beef with the company when it changes its tune. If your going to keep your first impressions for life then just shut up and move on.
Maybe I'm just deceived by their recent actions, but I don't see what everyone's problem is.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
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.
Stop the brainwash
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!
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?
I think, therefore I am...I think.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Since when it is illegal to reverse Engineer things?
Oh yeah, you are USian. Read above.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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!
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
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.
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.
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...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
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.
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.
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.
MORTAR COMBAT!
"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.
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. 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 letter Glaser sent to Jobs suggested that Real license Apple's DRM. 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. Apple's refusal to license its DRM to Real generates iTMS sales at the expense of Apple DRM users. 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.As for the counting, see my direct reply.
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
A beautiful post in many respects. Thanks for bringing some needed clarity to this discussion.
...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.
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.
Tech Public Policy stuff
BMG operated over 200 labels, including Arista, the RCA group, and the BMG group. In August, it became half of Sony BMG.
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?
Harmony doesn't touch the iPod software; it transcrypts the songs into a format the iPod understands.
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.
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.
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.
As I stated above, I forgot about Moto, but they aren't relevant to my statement in context, which was about music sales.
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.