After Oracle first made it's pennies-on-the-dollar bid, PeopleSoft said, "It's ok, we'll guarantee support, or your money back."
They were hoping it would be a poison pill. But Ellison just said, "That was stupid. You aren't maximizing shareholder value. We'll still buy you, but it'll be a lower price."
And customers still fled PeopleSoft, because "your money back" doesn't compare to implementation costs, which are much larger than purchase price. So, PeopleSoft could have said, "Ok, we'll even cover implementation costs!" and then it would be awfully expensive for Ellison to buy the company and terminate support for PeopleSoft's database products.
But then the chance of a shareholder suit would have gone way up.
I'm curious if this new deal with IBM says, "We both will invest <large value> in this new product. And if either of us breaks contract (like an Ellison owned PeopleSoft might want to) then we owe the other guy <large value>." in order to be a more significant poison pill for Ellison. And this poison pill might be easier to defend in a shareholder suit.
Hehe. Yep. I only got three peices of mail for you, and only in the first few days after I moved. Marked them return to sender. One was from the Department of Parking & Traffic or something. You probably just set up the forwarding a little late.
I'd been reading your column for a few months when I saw the mail. Certainly thought it was the weirdest coincidence.
Wait. That means that orange and lime green cabinets were your idea? I take back that "smart" statement:)
Eliot Van Buskirk writes his MP3 Insider column semi-regularly for C|Net. It's pretty decent. He doesn't scoop anyone, but he's smart. I didn't know he used the MP3 Insider name elsewhere.
He also forgot to set up mail forwarding. I just moved into a new apartment, and I keep getting mail for an Eliot Van Buskirk. I wonder if it's the same guy...
The IM client that Google purchased has more compelling graphics features. No avatars. Kinda neat. Nobody uses it. It's not integrated with AOL IM or Yahoo or MSN, but it beats finding a real imagehost for your blogspot blog, and if you have someone you actually want to talk to about pictures... it's perfect.
It's screenshot thing could actually make it handy for discussing GUI development... maybe.
Apple doesn't want to share FairPlay, while Real very much does want to share Helix. You seem to be operating under the assumption that Real is attempting some sort of Microsoftian market domination plan, but the impression I got from Rob's answers (to all the questions, including this one) is that this is not at all what they want.
It's his job to give you that impression. This is PR. I am not assuming that they're doing anything inherently evil. I was trying to get a question answered. I honestly don't know what Real's response would be to someone reverse engineering Helix DRM.
You're assuming a hostile response, when I think a far more likely response might be something like "I'd put them on my christmas card list."
Then maybe you are assuming. But I was definitely asking, not assuming. Yes, it is possible that my question was honestly misunderstood, and he wasn't dodging at all, but... I certainly didn't learn anything from his answer. Maybe there'd be Christmas cards involved, and maybe there'd be C&D orders. We don't know. I still think it's an interesting question.
Because Apple might not like their license terms. So. What would Real do to someone who didn't like their license terms, and implemented Helix DRM anyway? Would they sue, file DMCA complaints, & smear in the media? Iduno. I think they might. I imagine that Real hopes to gain both revenue and control of the industry via these licensing deals.
Apple would not and has not actively licensed FairPlay out to anybody.
I was under the impression that they'd licensed to Motorola and to Macrovision. Apple could make a lot of money from those two deals. But yeah, you're right, it's not yet a major trend for them. That is a significant difference.
That doesn't change my essential question: Real decided not to play by Apple's rules. What would Real do if someone decided not to play by their rules? Isn't this question valid?
Which do you think was the cheapest option for Real?
Reverse engineering. Otherwise they would have licensed it. If they'd offered <pinky>one hundred billion dollars</pinky>, I'm sure Apple would have accepted their terms. Reverse engineering was thus cheaper than licensing.
What if Apple could not accept Real's licensing terms? (HINT: They do not seem to want to license fairplay to Real.) In that case, Apple would consider reverse engineering to be cheaper than licensing. Diggit?
The scenario I describe does make sense from a business point of view if Apple and Real cannot agree on licensing terms. And it looks like they can't.
I was not aware Real sold any software to produce DRMed.rm files.
They do. "Helix DRM". I imagine that they would not like for Apple to ship a competing implementation that could cut them out of any part of the loop, without specifically limiting what Apple can do via a license.
Last I checked, they had dumped the RM format for the most part and are moving towards AAC. At least, their Harmony player...
Right, and I'm saying Harmony Player is A-OK. I'm not talking about that. Your point doesn't seem to relate to what I am saying.
How is selling music to customers who then listen to it bullying?
It's not. Everything they're doing with Harmony is perfectly fine with me. Making their software the exclusive way to deal with Helix DRM, however, is bullying just like Apple does with FairPlay. How is that not perfectly clear?
Apple can't do this to Real because it makes very little sense.
There would be plenty of ways for Apple to make money building products that can play Real's DRMed files. Helix DRM is a big deal.
Real is in the AAC business now.
If that was their only business, then you'd be exactly right. I'd have no reason to accuse them of bullying. They're doing it, just like Apple is, only in other arenas. Why shouldn't Apple do to Real's stranglehold on Helix DRM what Real has done to Apple's stranglehold on FairPlay? Did that make sense?
SCO SHILL: WE REQUEST AN EMERGENCY BATHROOM BREAK! JUDGE: Can you hold it? JIM CARREY: <gritted teeth>yes</gritted teeth> But I hear that holding it can increase the risk of prostate cancer and lead to erectile disfunction later in life! JUDGE: In that case, I better take a little break myself.
The problem here is that the two cases are not comparable in the least.
I admit that there are differences. You have compared and contrasted the situations. They are comparable.
Apple would produce a file that is similar in structure to Real's format or Real's Helix DRM in order to... do what, exactly? That's right, nothing. There's absolutely no reason for Apple to do what Real did.
Real is producing files that can be played on iPods while maintaining DRM. I am proposing that Apple could produce files that can be played in RealPlayer while maintaining DRM.
They did this by emulating Apple's DRM. They didn't break Apple's DRM. Their software does nothing to Apple's Music files.
I'm not sure why you're clarifying this to me. I am proposing that Apple should "emulate" Real's DRM. I am not proposing that Apple break Real's DRM, and I am not proposing that they do anything to Real's.rm files.
Apple doesn't have the same problem. Nothing plays Real's Helix format music at the moment, which is why Real can convert their music to Apple DRM, Microsoft DRM (in the form of a protected WMA), etc. Apple doesn't even *support* portable players that are not a form of iPod, and thus have less than no reason to reciprocate in this manner.
You seem to misunderstand. I am proposing that Apple could make Safari & Quicktime work perfectly with... the.rm broadcasts on the websites for NPR or the BBC. Lots of people use that. Apple could make money the same way Real does in this market, selling software for producing DRMed.rm files.
Your perspective seems to be the Real somehow wronged Apple, even though Real didn't mess with Apple's store, music, customers...
That is exactly not my perspective. I don't think Real has done anything wrong by allowing their customers to use iPods. I think Real has wronged consumers (a little tiny bit) by keeping their.rm file format closed and proprietary. Just like Apple wronged consumers by keeping FairPlay closed.
So now Real says Apple is being a bully, while they attempt to maintain a business model 100% based on bullying. When I say "Why shouldn't Apple do this?" Rob's honest answer might be "Because we would sue them, file a DMCA complaint, and do our best to smear them as hackers in the media." (Because Real can't break compatibility like Apple via an iTunes update. Their software is deployed.)
All Real did was enable its own customers to use iPods with their software. Simple as that.
And the way they did it was by building a competing implementation of another company's DRM system. So is that ok? Why shouldn't Apple do this?
Most people in my lab in college used email for file storage, transfer, and backup. It's an interface that everyone understands. And it's as reliable as any university computing resource.
Every time, no matter how clueless the user: "I'm sorry, but this floppy isn't repairable."
"That's ok. I emailed it to myself last night."
And, if they really did need something off the floppy, the PowerMac G3s with superdrives & MacOS 9 were way better at recovery than any of the PCs. Even with PC formatted disks. They certainly weren't useful for anything else...
4) Turnabout? - by Elwood P Dowd What would you do if the next version of Quicktime could play.rm files, even ones with DRM? Suppose that they respect the DRM, and only play on authorized computers. Suppose Quicktime Pro were capable of creating.rm files with DRM.
Why shouldn't Apple do this?
Glaser: We would be happy to cross-license our DRM and formats to Apple to enable exactly the kind of interoperability you propose.
As has been widely reported, we approached Apple about licensing their DRM several months ago. It was only after they rebuffed those initiatives that we came out with Harmony, which implemented software compatibility with their DRM as well as with Microsoft's.
Actually, I guess it's my fault for not framing the question more restrictively. But I didn't ask whether he'd like to cross-license with Apple. We all know the answer to that question. I'm not talking about whether he'd like to see that kind of interoperability. I'm asking what he'd do if Apple reverse-engineered Real's product like Real did to Apple. Because I want him to say, "Nothing. That's ok." If he can say that, he'd win a point or two with me. But he can't say it.
The really bad ones are already out in the wild, and they do not damage your data.
They wait 'till you go to an HTTPS site and then they log your keystrokes. It's about cash money for the villains, and not doing anything to get caught.
Supposedly they map the emulated APIs to host system APIs. They imply that you can run Wintel apps on OS X without Windows or an Intel processor.
In other words, they are either big fat liars, or they have silently employed more software engineers than Apple & Microsoft's OS teams combined. And they're stealing WINE.
With IBM's new donation, you could build a peice of consumer hardware that plugs into a wall socket & a phone line and runs your voice applications over the phone.
You could build 10,000 boxes and sell them around the world without any licensing fees.
That is somewhat different from a solution developed with Microsoft Speech Server 2004.
IPv6 IS the protocol of choice on the Internet 2 but it does, grudgingly, provide for IPv4. It doesn't EXCLUDE IPv4. But it does PREFER IPv6. And there are some things on Internet 2 which you can NOT do if you are limited to IPv4.
Right. But I'd guess (totally out of my ass) that the majority of Internet 2 nodes are Windows desktops in university dorms. No matter what I2 prefers, I betcha most of the end-to-end traffic is kazaa & gnut over IPv4.
I don't remember my computer in my dorm getting an IPv6 address assigned to it. But maybe I wasn't paying attention.
Do they run the backbones as IPv6-only? Does all that IPv4 get tunneled over IPv6? If so, that's rad.
Slashdot Mirror
After Oracle first made it's pennies-on-the-dollar bid, PeopleSoft said, "It's ok, we'll guarantee support, or your money back."
They were hoping it would be a poison pill. But Ellison just said, "That was stupid. You aren't maximizing shareholder value. We'll still buy you, but it'll be a lower price."
And customers still fled PeopleSoft, because "your money back" doesn't compare to implementation costs, which are much larger than purchase price. So, PeopleSoft could have said, "Ok, we'll even cover implementation costs!" and then it would be awfully expensive for Ellison to buy the company and terminate support for PeopleSoft's database products.
But then the chance of a shareholder suit would have gone way up.
I'm curious if this new deal with IBM says, "We both will invest <large value> in this new product. And if either of us breaks contract (like an Ellison owned PeopleSoft might want to) then we owe the other guy <large value>." in order to be a more significant poison pill for Ellison. And this poison pill might be easier to defend in a shareholder suit.
Hehe. Yep. I only got three peices of mail for you, and only in the first few days after I moved. Marked them return to sender. One was from the Department of Parking & Traffic or something. You probably just set up the forwarding a little late.
:)
I'd been reading your column for a few months when I saw the mail. Certainly thought it was the weirdest coincidence.
Wait. That means that orange and lime green cabinets were your idea? I take back that "smart" statement
Crappy novel
What quantum encryption techniques?
The only one I know of prevents eavesdropping.
All that stuff that's already encrypted & published will be hax0red.
Eliot Van Buskirk writes his MP3 Insider column semi-regularly for C|Net. It's pretty decent. He doesn't scoop anyone, but he's smart. I didn't know he used the MP3 Insider name elsewhere.
He also forgot to set up mail forwarding. I just moved into a new apartment, and I keep getting mail for an Eliot Van Buskirk. I wonder if it's the same guy...
The IM client that Google purchased has more compelling graphics features. No avatars. Kinda neat. Nobody uses it. It's not integrated with AOL IM or Yahoo or MSN, but it beats finding a real imagehost for your blogspot blog, and if you have someone you actually want to talk to about pictures... it's perfect.
It's screenshot thing could actually make it handy for discussing GUI development... maybe.
Apple doesn't want to share FairPlay, while Real very much does want to share Helix. You seem to be operating under the assumption that Real is attempting some sort of Microsoftian market domination plan, but the impression I got from Rob's answers (to all the questions, including this one) is that this is not at all what they want.
It's his job to give you that impression. This is PR. I am not assuming that they're doing anything inherently evil. I was trying to get a question answered. I honestly don't know what Real's response would be to someone reverse engineering Helix DRM.
You're assuming a hostile response, when I think a far more likely response might be something like "I'd put them on my christmas card list."
Then maybe you are assuming. But I was definitely asking, not assuming. Yes, it is possible that my question was honestly misunderstood, and he wasn't dodging at all, but... I certainly didn't learn anything from his answer. Maybe there'd be Christmas cards involved, and maybe there'd be C&D orders. We don't know. I still think it's an interesting question.
"Why didn't you license it from us instead?"
Because Apple might not like their license terms. So. What would Real do to someone who didn't like their license terms, and implemented Helix DRM anyway? Would they sue, file DMCA complaints, & smear in the media? Iduno. I think they might. I imagine that Real hopes to gain both revenue and control of the industry via these licensing deals.
Apple would not and has not actively licensed FairPlay out to anybody.
I was under the impression that they'd licensed to Motorola and to Macrovision. Apple could make a lot of money from those two deals. But yeah, you're right, it's not yet a major trend for them. That is a significant difference.
That doesn't change my essential question: Real decided not to play by Apple's rules. What would Real do if someone decided not to play by their rules? Isn't this question valid?
Which do you think was the cheapest option for Real?
Reverse engineering. Otherwise they would have licensed it. If they'd offered <pinky>one hundred billion dollars</pinky>, I'm sure Apple would have accepted their terms. Reverse engineering was thus cheaper than licensing.
What if Apple could not accept Real's licensing terms? (HINT: They do not seem to want to license fairplay to Real.) In that case, Apple would consider reverse engineering to be cheaper than licensing. Diggit?
The scenario I describe does make sense from a business point of view if Apple and Real cannot agree on licensing terms. And it looks like they can't.
I don't see what we have to argue about.
.rm files.
I was not aware Real sold any software to produce DRMed
They do. "Helix DRM". I imagine that they would not like for Apple to ship a competing implementation that could cut them out of any part of the loop, without specifically limiting what Apple can do via a license.
Last I checked, they had dumped the RM format for the most part and are moving towards AAC. At least, their Harmony player...
Right, and I'm saying Harmony Player is A-OK. I'm not talking about that. Your point doesn't seem to relate to what I am saying.
How is selling music to customers who then listen to it bullying?
It's not. Everything they're doing with Harmony is perfectly fine with me. Making their software the exclusive way to deal with Helix DRM, however, is bullying just like Apple does with FairPlay. How is that not perfectly clear?
Apple can't do this to Real because it makes very little sense.
There would be plenty of ways for Apple to make money building products that can play Real's DRMed files. Helix DRM is a big deal.
Real is in the AAC business now.
If that was their only business, then you'd be exactly right. I'd have no reason to accuse them of bullying. They're doing it, just like Apple is, only in other arenas. Why shouldn't Apple do to Real's stranglehold on Helix DRM what Real has done to Apple's stranglehold on FairPlay? Did that make sense?
SCO SHILL: WE REQUEST AN EMERGENCY BATHROOM BREAK!
JUDGE: Can you hold it?
JIM CARREY: <gritted teeth>yes</gritted teeth> But I hear that holding it can increase the risk of prostate cancer and lead to erectile disfunction later in life!
JUDGE: In that case, I better take a little break myself.
So now Real says Apple is being a bully, while they attempt to maintain a business model 100% based on bullying. When I say "Why shouldn't Apple do this?" Rob's honest answer might be "Because we would sue them, file a DMCA complaint, and do our best to smear them as hackers in the media." (Because Real can't break compatibility like Apple via an iTunes update. Their software is deployed.)And the way they did it was by building a competing implementation of another company's DRM system. So is that ok? Why shouldn't Apple do this?
Most people in my lab in college used email for file storage, transfer, and backup. It's an interface that everyone understands. And it's as reliable as any university computing resource.
Every time, no matter how clueless the user:
"I'm sorry, but this floppy isn't repairable."
"That's ok. I emailed it to myself last night."
And, if they really did need something off the floppy, the PowerMac G3s with superdrives & MacOS 9 were way better at recovery than any of the PCs. Even with PC formatted disks. They certainly weren't useful for anything else...
Actually, I guess it's my fault for not framing the question more restrictively. But I didn't ask whether he'd like to cross-license with Apple. We all know the answer to that question. I'm not talking about whether he'd like to see that kind of interoperability. I'm asking what he'd do if Apple reverse-engineered Real's product like Real did to Apple. Because I want him to say, "Nothing. That's ok." If he can say that, he'd win a point or two with me. But he can't say it.
Did you report it?
The really bad ones are already out in the wild, and they do not damage your data.
They wait 'till you go to an HTTPS site and then they log your keystrokes. It's about cash money for the villains, and not doing anything to get caught.
Supposedly they map the emulated APIs to host system APIs. They imply that you can run Wintel apps on OS X without Windows or an Intel processor.
In other words, they are either big fat liars, or they have silently employed more software engineers than Apple & Microsoft's OS teams combined. And they're stealing WINE.
(See subject.)
(Duh.)
With IBM's new donation, you could build a peice of consumer hardware that plugs into a wall socket & a phone line and runs your voice applications over the phone.
You could build 10,000 boxes and sell them around the world without any licensing fees.
That is somewhat different from a solution developed with Microsoft Speech Server 2004.
I'm sure that doing the whole thing in ActiveX would be cake.
This can just be the web page embedded client for non-windows machines.
Most MS-Windows desktops, all you have to do is "turn it on".
That's all I was trying to say.
But he supported the war. Blows my mind.
IPv6 IS the protocol of choice on the Internet 2 but it does, grudgingly, provide for IPv4. It doesn't EXCLUDE IPv4. But it does PREFER IPv6. And there are some things on Internet 2 which you can NOT do if you are limited to IPv4.
Right. But I'd guess (totally out of my ass) that the majority of Internet 2 nodes are Windows desktops in university dorms. No matter what I2 prefers, I betcha most of the end-to-end traffic is kazaa & gnut over IPv4.
I don't remember my computer in my dorm getting an IPv6 address assigned to it. But maybe I wasn't paying attention.
Do they run the backbones as IPv6-only? Does all that IPv4 get tunneled over IPv6? If so, that's rad.
Yes, I realize you're responding to the linked articles, and your point stands.
Oh. Glad to be wrong. That's cool.