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.
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.
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.
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.
Realnetworks supported Linux.
Apple didn't support Quicktime for Linux.
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?
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.
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. ...
.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.
...
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
Microsoft is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
.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?
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
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.
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 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.
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..."
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.
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