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.

41 of 718 comments (clear)

  1. What about Hymn? by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:What about Hymn? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

    2. Re:What about Hymn? by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      MORTAR COMBAT!
    3. Re:What about Hymn? by badasscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

  2. "comprehensive plan" by k4_pacific · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  3. Thoughts by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Thoughts by yabos · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

    2. Re:Thoughts by Bronz · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

    3. Re:Thoughts by oobob · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

    4. Re:Thoughts by abertoll · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      "he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
  4. Once again the user gets screwed. by fredistheking · · Score: 3, Interesting


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

  5. I am pro-reverse engineering. by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I am pro-reverse engineering. by Issue9mm · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

      -9mm-

    2. Re:I am pro-reverse engineering. by prockcore · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

      The ipod isn't done until Real wont run.

  6. Big Surprsie... by DiscoNick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

  7. iTunes has absolutely zero to do with this by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Well, don't use iTunes by cinderful · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Slashdot has turned into Livejournal.

  9. Who cares? by sulli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You shouldn't use DRM'd files anyway.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  10. The reason why the story is old by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  11. Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE by glrotate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

    2. Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE by HeghmoH · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    3. Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE by rainman_bc · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

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

    5. Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Real's software used to be annoying

      Look again.

      --

      -
      Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
  12. Re:Don't you just... by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  13. We remember. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Realnetworks supported Linux.

    Apple didn't support Quicktime for Linux.

  14. Re:Well, don't use iTunes by SamSeaborn · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Well, here's yet another reason not to use iTunes ... I think iTunes sucks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sam

  15. brand loyalty by farble1670 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    i think this can be better phrased as: "nobody can stop them". sorry, but if our friends in redmond did something like this the /. community would be screaming bloody murder. apple is certainly under no obligation to actively, support real's DRM, but that's not what we're talking about. apple has taken specific action to disallow real's DRM.

    apple is using it's monopoly in the digital audio player market to maintain it's monopoly in the online digital music market. what if microsoft used it's monopoly in the OS business to maintain it's monopoly in the browser business? oh! wait that already happend.

    the only difference here is that /. loves apple, and /. hates real. folks should try to look a few millimeters past their brand loyalty.

    1. Re:brand loyalty by liquidsin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple has a monopoly on digital audio players? I think the anti-Apple crowd around here is worse than the anti-MS crowd. At least the MS bashers seem to keep their heads out of their asses. Apple is nowhere near a monopoly. There are dozens of "digital audio players" on the market, if not hundreds. Just because Apple makes one of the better ones, does not make them a monopoly. And your analogy of MS bundling browsers is plain retarded. This has nothing to do with bundling. Real was trying to make money off of Apple's brand name, plain and simple. Apple, the terrible monopoly that they are, lets you play ANY mp3 or aac or wav file on the ipod, but restricts DRM to their own. Real, in their infinite stupidity, was selling (for money) music that was DRMed with a hack to work around that limitation. If they don't come up with a new trick, it's their own fault that their customers got fucked. So, if you bought music from Real, you can still play it on your pc and on whatever other devices are supported. You could probably even burn it, rip it, and put the rip on your ipod. So how is it that Apple is evil again?

      --
      do not read this line twice.
  16. This is Apple's platform by bubba451 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Apple has not at all been coy about it's iTunes+iPod business platform. iPod sales support the iTunes store, which in turn increases the "value" of the iPod. Break that cycle and you start losing market share.

    I don't think there's anyone out their who naively bought Real songs to put on their iPod. Anyone who's savvy enough to know it could be done had to know that eventually Apple was going to pull the plug.

  17. Obligatory GEB quote by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  18. Once again, completely wrong by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  19. online music store isn't really the issue by jxyama · · Score: 3, Insightful
    right now, real hacking iTMS DRM is for no one's benefit but real's. it is not offering "consumers" any more benefits. here is the reason: online music store isn't really an issue right now.

    the barrier to entry for consumers into the world of portable digital music is the music player, NOT the online music store. most people don't care how they might save 10 cents per track when they are faced with the decision of dropping $200+ on a digital player. they will decide which player is the best and if they want to buy music for it online, they will not complain that the said player only works with a limited number of online stores. (because all of them have about the same price, same songs, etc.) (proof: in the article, real says they sold 3 million tracks in 3 weeks they had "49 cent" half price sale. iTMS sells that much in a week and a half at 99 cents.)

    iPod is the most popular/profittable player out there - and that is an open market. everyone is free to buy whatever the player they want. they will all work with standard electric outlets, most computers and most popular music formats. real is doing nothing but leeching off of iPod's success while giving not much in tangible benefit to the consumers, not to mention apple. if they really wanted to help the cause for the consumers, instead of hacking iPod DRM, they should be talking to music industry executives so that they can offer music without DRM.

  20. Re:What? by reiggin · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?

  21. Then you're not going to be buying anything by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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".

  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. You CAN use any song from another service by nra1871 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  24. Good news, everyone! by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Anticompetitive or not, this is actually good news for all of us.

    What could possibly be sweeter to the anti-DRM market to have the DRM providers snipping at each others heels like dogs fighting over turf?

    No amount of "waah, DRM bad!" whining is as effective as pointing to two DRM providers that are pissing on each other, saying "that's what you get with DRM -- companies that can't even figure it out amongst themselves." Even an RIAA toadie would have a hard time putting a positive spin on a move like this.

    I, for one, welcome our new DRM turf-fighting warlords. (As long as they keep fighting...)

    --
    John
  25. Why can't anybody see the truth? by Warlock7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  26. How quickly they forget. by tm2b · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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