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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They just reduced the functionality of a unit I already own. I want a refund now for the lost functionality.
Um, no, they didn't. First of all, read this. Second, the iPod doesn't support DRM content from anyplace other than Apple. Even if Apple intentionally disabled it, Real cannot predict legitimate changes that might be made to the product or the DRM technology that might break it. And guess what? Real's trickery reflects poorly on APPLE. If they're so concerned about getting their music on iPods, maybe they should be the champion of DRM-free music, eh? After all, non-DRMed music in numerous formats plays on the iPod just fine. Real's whole reverse-engineering house of cards was built on shaky ground to begin with. As for the issue of DRM in general, the iTunes Music Store and quite possibly some of the success of the iPod wouldn't exist today if Apple hadn't allowed for SOME DRM in their store. Apple made it as invisible as it could, and also, Apple's product win is the tight integration between iTunes, the iPod, etc. It's their right to treat their products as they see fit. And if this really concerns you that much, then yes, by all means, don't buy any more iPods.
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
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
The files are already in a format(other than the DRM) that the hardware understands. Why should I not be able to play it? Why should I have to convert from MP3 to MP3 to allow a piece of hardware that understands MP3s to play it?
This is where I have the problem, not Apple wanting to sell more music. You can play any music you buy on it as long as you buy it from Apple. That would be like buying a Ford and having to buy gas only from a Ford authorized station, and if you go to a Chevy authorized station your car stops running.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think allowing Real to bypass their DRM technology can be called a "feature" of the iPod. More like a bug. Apple squashed a bug and its name was Real. Real has a history of being nothing more than a pest to the industry anyhow. Why should this be any different?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
At least with windows media, they aren't trying to get me to install a bunch of other crap with it.
;)
That's only if you don't consider windows XP "a bunch of other crap"
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
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
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?
...was to support DRM to begin with.
Nobody needs DRM to sell music on their store. Remember that the people going to the online stores are paying for something they know they can get for free. DRM hasn't made anybody go to the store, the customers' sense of ethics and moral standing did. The recording companies know that the DRM being used in stores is easily circumvented. So not only are the DRM schemes used in stores unnecessary, the people pushing for them know they don't work.
There is absolutely NO reason to use DRM in media files, from the point of view of all stakeholders. It doesn't even put a dent in piracy. So why bother?
Eventually the entertainment industry will realize that DRM is pointless. When all the negotiating was underway, it was a concession Apple made to launch the store. And now that the store is in place, it would cost more money for them to rip out the DRM then it would be to just leave it be.
Really, what do you want Apple to do, support MORE DRM? I actually am GLAD Apple broke Real's scheme for getting DRM on the iPod. Less DRM is better. 1 DRM format working instead of 2 is better. Ultimately 0 is best, but that will take the entertainment industry swallowing their pride enough to take off the blinders and let DRM die; and Apple deciding it's worth developer time and money to rip out the DRM code.
So until that time we have HYMN and tools like it to liberate the data and Apple keeping all the other DRM formats at bay. At least on their turf. It's not ideal but it's better than what would happen if DRM had even the teeniest bit more traction.
What'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.