It's very keen how you figured out that Apple secretly has a plan to stamp out consumer freedoms all over the globe. Steve Jobs is rarely caught on camera crushing puppies with his bare hands, and to the average joe his justification for running a music store with a near-zero profit simply because it will make consumers buy more iPods usually makes sense, but you've really caught on to the unimaginable depths of nazi-supporting, devil-worshiping corruption that has become nothing less than unstoppable in the hateful underbelly of Apple. Any sane person should realize that there is no reason conceivable by God or man for the iPod not to be compatible with Ogg Vorbis. Everyone uses it these days, and ultimately it wouldn't cost Apple a single cent (because everyone knows development and support are essentially free in a huge technology company with millions of customers) so the only possible reason for Apple to deny consumers their God-given right to play Ogg Vorbis files on their iPods is that Apple secretly wants to oppress music-enthusiasts all over the world with their murderous music store.
I for one am suitably impressed that a hallow metal shell from (nearly) beyond earth orbit fell through the atmosphere and hit the ground with no parachute or means of breaking at al, yet all this cool stuff survived.
Dude, you got a Dell! What did you expect? Serious screens from serious companies who don't hate their customers don't have that problem. If you have the cash, I suggest getting an Apple Cinema Display -- best of the best.
Yes. The difference is that Apple didn't invoke the DMCA against Real.
Off topic, the best solution here is for Apple to burn down Rob Glaser's home, and his business. Burn it down and everyone inside. His family, his friends, his coworkers, and everything he knew and loved. To take from Rob what STEVE selflessly handed to him is the only way to deal with Glaser's breed.
Yes, yes, it's now been said a thousand times by angly slashdotters that the big labels want DRM. But whose problem is that? Apple worked for years to get the big labels to cave in and veer from their subscription fetish. Apple did all this so they could sell stuff people like for their iPods, and do it in their usual classy Apple way -- they did not do it so that they could crush freedom all over the world with their iron fist of Apple oppression, as some people here seem to think. Apple fought with the labels for years because it's just a cool accessory that Apple could pull off phenomenally well (and they did), and when they finally got permission they cranked out some technical details (iTMS, Fairplay) and put the whole thing together as an attraction to buy iPods. They did not put it together to forever change the way people buy music, they did it to sell iPods. Let me repeat, in bold, Apple created iTMS to sell iPods. In that respect, can't people see why Apple doesn't care to license some weird little aspect of their iPod to some pathetic little company for no good reason? They would have sold music unprotected if the labels would have let them. Apple forcibly changed big labels' policies; if Real doesn't like the new system Apple put all this effort into creating, then Rob Glaser can stand in front of label execs and argue why DRM is a bad idea.
No more story, it's very simple. Apple picks who they work with carefully; a mistake could cost Apple hugely. Everyone and their mother knows Real Networks sucks and consumers hate them.
Oh, the GPL is a completely different matter. It's the good kind of license; people shouldn't illegally break that license because it promotes good values, unlike those other, evil licenses. Though isn't distributing Linux a way of using it? I'm sure Webster would agree, so you would only have to accept the license if you want to use it in a certain way. Apple didn't used to restrict that particular feature of iTunes until a bunch of websites popped up helping users abuse it. Then the RIAA yelled at Apple, and Apple had to modify it slightly to prevent people from turning iTunes in to a P2P service. Apple simply says now that if you want to use that feature of their free application, then you have to agree not to try to turn it in to a P2P service. Apple's license restrictions are fair, and Apple has the right place restrictions on how their free software is used in a particular way, just like Linus gets to dictate when and how someone may use Linux in a particular way. But of course, nobody's holding a knife under your throat, threatening to crush your baby daughter's little head if you don't click 'Accept'. If you feel it's unreasonable to be restricted from distributing Linux without releasing your modifications, then you're allowed not to use it, and you're allowed not to use iTunes.
If you feel, as I do, that being denied of the right to write a bad review is absurd, then there's an even better solution to flagrantly breaking the license -- just don't use it!
Shrink-wrapped "by breaking this seal" license agreements are the bullshit tactic of the decade
That's absolutely right! It's your duty as a human being to protect your god-given right to do whatever you want with a product that you spent your own personal time and effort downloading for free. Apple thinks they can tell people what they can and can not do with their free software and that's just outrageous. Developers have no right to tell users how a free product can and can't be used. Why, just look at Linux, a shining example of true freedom! It comes with no license restricting its usage at all! Why, anyone at all can do whatever the hell they want with it -- they can even include it in their own software and sell it without releasing their source! Oh wait... Hmm, you Linux-based robots better watch out...
Well phrased! You covered aptly just how much that pro-Hitler, puppy-murdering Apple monopoly hates freedom.
They just hate it so much; the thought of freedom makes them puke. Their evil, hateful, apocalyptically-greedy position in the once angelically-pure music industry only serves to annihilate the helpless masses' freedoms. In fact, it makes me cry to just think of a world where people can't ignore license agreements whenever they feel like it
Thank you for clarifying this issue so precisely:-D
#2) Please tell me how ANY business model can compete with FREE distribution.
Apple's claim to fame is their incredible attention to the details of their user interfaces; this is how they fight P2P services. Steve said so himself when announcing the music store. Apple noticed that the most enjoyable way for users to get music for their iPods was from P2P-style services, so Apple set out to create one themselves -- just Apple's a legitimate business, so they have to do it in a legitimate way (i.e. sell it).
A lot of people seem to think that the future of buying music is iTunes-like services, but I doubt it. People like to have things. That's why DVD boxes are so huge and full of junk. Apple created the iTunes music store as a promotion for their player, not to change the face of music buying forever. It's strange to hear people talking about how Apple's keeping their dinky little format to themselves is infringing on freedoms. whatever...
Your DVD-RW drive is supposed to play audio CDs. It said so on the box when you bought it. Apple has never supported and never will support Real's junk, so if their cheap hack breaks, Real's to blame.
Though unfortunately iPod users won't see it that way, and they'll complain to Apple and like the iPod less. In the end, Apple will end up paying for Real's store while reaping none of the benefits.
They did. They licensed it to Motorola and to HP. Apple's #1 in this industry because their products work so well, and if Apple suspects a company might lessen a customer's enjoyment with a crappy store, then Apple has the right not to license their software to them. Especially a parasitic joke-of-a-company like Real Networks. The iTunes Music Store was made for the iPod, and the format it uses was only designed to work with iTMS. If Real wants to sell music so badly, then they have a couple of options:
1: They can put the hard work and money in to creating their own iTunes/iPod-like solution. (hard) 2: They can sell their music in an unencrypted format and fight with the record labels for the right to do so. (hard) 3: They can go against Apple's decision and try to worm their way in to the iPod with sleazy back-handed tactics. (easy)
Real could do any of those, but Real doesn't have the talent or money for #1, and they don't have the credibility or intelligent reasoning skills for #2, but real has proven in the past that they're the best in the business at #3.
WOULD YOU MODERATORS STOP MODDING THESE EXPLAINATIONS DOWN?! This is exactly the reason Apple doesn't want Real messing with their iTunes/iPod experience! I'm sure most of you don't know Apple too well, but since day one the single quality they strive for in their products is ease of use, and Real with their spyware-bloated software atrocities would immediately render that feature of the iPod useless.
Real is trying to pass Apple off as some sort of Microsoft-like hate group, insisting that they're stifling consumer liberties, which is laughable because Apple's main competitor is Kazaa and other P2P networks, not Real or Sony or Napster. Apple can't compete on price here, so they compete on quality. As soon as some parasite-like sponge-company (Real) insists they're iPod-compatible, people are going to start calling Apple and complaining that their music won't work, or the music store didn't download a song correctly -- and why should Apple have to support another miserable online music source like Real? At least with Kazaa there's the excuse that a customer shouldn't have been stealing music in the first place, but Real is supposed to be "legitimate".
The problem is than Real is too lazy and incompetent to create their own genius portable music player, and so in one last attempt to stay afloat, they're latching on to Apple's hard work and claiming they have a god-given right to a piece of Apple's hard-earned success.
The only good solution here is for Apple to burn down Real headquarters and everyone inside.
Real is only doing the $.49 for a short while. They've publicly said that shareholders can expect a 0.05$ loss per share for it. They absolutely can't keep selling songs at 0.49$ for any long period of time.
The DRM in iTunes is contained wholly in the encryption around the raw AAC stream. DeDRMS decrypts it and gives it to you exactly as it was before, but unprotected. That's breaking the DRM. The decompressed pcm is by no means as useful as the original file; you can't compress it again with a lossy algorithm without it sounding like crap. By recording the data sent to the dac, at worst you're breaking the license -- but what's it matter, Apple lets you burn any song an unlimited number of times. You can even use public QuickTime API functions to decompress encrypted songs.
This cellphone convergence thing is absurd. My TV and my books serve a similar purpose, they're both next to my chair, but by god that doesn't mean they should become one for convenience sake. I don't want my watch and my cell phone converged either. Face it, there simply is no way to squeeze a useable interface for working with a phone, an address book, a camera, an instant messenger, and an iPod in to the form factor or convenience of any one of the above mentioned items -- even if you can fit a hard drive in to it somehow.
Holy shit! My heart nearly stopped when I read the headline! STEVE is the glue that holds the world together; if He were to (somehow?) die, everything man ever created, everything that has ever been important to the entirety of the human race would be instantly, violently destroyed! STEVE is much more than a feeble that He is. STEVE is literally everything, and thus everything is STEVE. If STEVE were to be undone, so would all of creation. Which ever doctor banished that satanic tumor deserves an annual day of celebration.
>>while I can't think of many products that follow those of Apple's distinctive nature.
Just about any modern-day GUI is derived from Apple's original desktop-based organizational layout. Any PDA's form or function is derived from Apple's Newton.
And don't forget all those crappy iMac rip-offs from back in the day!
Jesus fucking Christ! Knee-jerk doesn't begin to describe the typical slashdot reaction here. People shouting over each other to praise Real for gloriously conquering the enormous, Big Brother-like Apple.
How many of you have ever used the iTunes Music Store? How many have ever bought a song off of it? Not that many of you? How can so many people be upset that a service they've never used only supports a music player they don't own?
If Real is so heroic in it's awe-inspiring attempt to topple the evil, hateful Apple empire, how come they themselves aren't selling music sans-DRM? How come they aren't building award-winning best-of-breed portable players? How come their software blasts its users with an impenetrable volley of seedy advertisements?
If the sanctity of DRM can't be protected, then the RIAA will ensure that online music will fail. Slashdotters complain that they don't want to buy DRM-encumbered music, and cheer when blow after blow is dealt to the future of online music by saint-like "purveyors of freedom".
I myself had decrypted m4p songs months before DVD-Jon released his first hokey headerless-aac dumping code (and my songs actually played), BUT I HAD THE DECENCY NOT TO RELEASE IT.
The RIAA will never just dissappear like some people want unless there arises a solution powerful enough to take it on -- which is never (never) going to happen if the RIAA gets scared with DRM-slippage and pulls out early.
>>Apple accusing Real of using hacker tactics and going ape over the whole thing. No, you're going ape over the whole thing. Real is threatening to destroy Apple's market and topple their business, and all Apple did was fire a nasty letter back. No matter how many times the acronym DMCA is repeated in this forum, Apple has not taken any legal action against Real.
Lastly, if you want to play music on your iPod, you don't have to pass it through any number of reverse-engineered, unstable, unsupported en/decryption schemes, you can simply BUY THE FUCKING CD.
Slashdot Mirror
It's very keen how you figured out that Apple secretly has a plan to stamp out consumer freedoms all over the globe.
Steve Jobs is rarely caught on camera crushing puppies with his bare hands, and to the average joe his justification for running a music store with a near-zero profit simply because it will make consumers buy more iPods usually makes sense, but you've really caught on to the unimaginable depths of nazi-supporting, devil-worshiping corruption that has become nothing less than unstoppable in the hateful underbelly of Apple.
Any sane person should realize that there is no reason conceivable by God or man for the iPod not to be compatible with Ogg Vorbis. Everyone uses it these days, and ultimately it wouldn't cost Apple a single cent (because everyone knows development and support are essentially free in a huge technology company with millions of customers) so the only possible reason for Apple to deny consumers their God-given right to play Ogg Vorbis files on their iPods is that Apple secretly wants to oppress music-enthusiasts all over the world with their murderous music store.
I like NASA.
If only we could get the government to give them sufficient funding...
The Newton was by and large Sculley's favorite project.
I for one am suitably impressed that a hallow metal shell from (nearly) beyond earth orbit fell through the atmosphere and hit the ground with no parachute or means of breaking at al, yet all this cool stuff survived.
Dude, you got a Dell! What did you expect? Serious screens from serious companies who don't hate their customers don't have that problem. If you have the cash, I suggest getting an Apple Cinema Display -- best of the best.
Bill's only putting up 20$ million where the new "Gates" building is going to cost 100$million. Is that all it takes to get your name on a building?
Yes. The difference is that Apple didn't invoke the DMCA against Real.
Off topic, the best solution here is for Apple to burn down Rob Glaser's home, and his business. Burn it down and everyone inside. His family, his friends, his coworkers, and everything he knew and loved. To take from Rob what STEVE selflessly handed to him is the only way to deal with Glaser's breed.
Yes, yes, it's now been said a thousand times by angly slashdotters that the big labels want DRM. But whose problem is that? Apple worked for years to get the big labels to cave in and veer from their subscription fetish. Apple did all this so they could sell stuff people like for their iPods, and do it in their usual classy Apple way -- they did not do it so that they could crush freedom all over the world with their iron fist of Apple oppression, as some people here seem to think.
Apple fought with the labels for years because it's just a cool accessory that Apple could pull off phenomenally well (and they did), and when they finally got permission they cranked out some technical details (iTMS, Fairplay) and put the whole thing together as an attraction to buy iPods. They did not put it together to forever change the way people buy music, they did it to sell iPods.
Let me repeat, in bold, Apple created iTMS to sell iPods.
In that respect, can't people see why Apple doesn't care to license some weird little aspect of their iPod to some pathetic little company for no good reason? They would have sold music unprotected if the labels would have let them. Apple forcibly changed big labels' policies; if Real doesn't like the new system Apple put all this effort into creating, then Rob Glaser can stand in front of label execs and argue why DRM is a bad idea.
No more story, it's very simple. Apple picks who they work with carefully; a mistake could cost Apple hugely. Everyone and their mother knows Real Networks sucks and consumers hate them.
Oh, the GPL is a completely different matter. It's the good kind of license; people shouldn't illegally break that license because it promotes good values, unlike those other, evil licenses.
Though isn't distributing Linux a way of using it? I'm sure Webster would agree, so you would only have to accept the license if you want to use it in a certain way.
Apple didn't used to restrict that particular feature of iTunes until a bunch of websites popped up helping users abuse it. Then the RIAA yelled at Apple, and Apple had to modify it slightly to prevent people from turning iTunes in to a P2P service. Apple simply says now that if you want to use that feature of their free application, then you have to agree not to try to turn it in to a P2P service.
Apple's license restrictions are fair, and Apple has the right place restrictions on how their free software is used in a particular way, just like Linus gets to dictate when and how someone may use Linux in a particular way.
But of course, nobody's holding a knife under your throat, threatening to crush your baby daughter's little head if you don't click 'Accept'. If you feel it's unreasonable to be restricted from distributing Linux without releasing your modifications, then you're allowed not to use it, and you're allowed not to use iTunes.
If you feel, as I do, that being denied of the right to write a bad review is absurd, then there's an even better solution to flagrantly breaking the license -- just don't use it!
That's absolutely right! It's your duty as a human being to protect your god-given right to do whatever you want with a product that you spent your own personal time and effort downloading for free. Apple thinks they can tell people what they can and can not do with their free software and that's just outrageous.
Developers have no right to tell users how a free product can and can't be used. Why, just look at Linux, a shining example of true freedom! It comes with no license restricting its usage at all! Why, anyone at all can do whatever the hell they want with it -- they can even include it in their own software and sell it without releasing their source!
Oh wait...
Hmm, you Linux-based robots better watch out...
Well phrased! You covered aptly just how much that pro-Hitler, puppy-murdering Apple monopoly hates freedom.
:-D
They just hate it so much; the thought of freedom makes them puke. Their evil, hateful, apocalyptically-greedy position in the once angelically-pure music industry only serves to annihilate the helpless masses' freedoms. In fact, it makes me cry to just think of a world where people can't ignore license agreements whenever they feel like it
Thank you for clarifying this issue so precisely
Apple's claim to fame is their incredible attention to the details of their user interfaces; this is how they fight P2P services. Steve said so himself when announcing the music store.
Apple noticed that the most enjoyable way for users to get music for their iPods was from P2P-style services, so Apple set out to create one themselves -- just Apple's a legitimate business, so they have to do it in a legitimate way (i.e. sell it).
A lot of people seem to think that the future of buying music is iTunes-like services, but I doubt it. People like to have things. That's why DVD boxes are so huge and full of junk. Apple created the iTunes music store as a promotion for their player, not to change the face of music buying forever. It's strange to hear people talking about how Apple's keeping their dinky little format to themselves is infringing on freedoms.
whatever...
Ah come on now, that's kind of unfair, isn't it?
Your DVD-RW drive is supposed to play audio CDs. It said so on the box when you bought it. Apple has never supported and never will support Real's junk, so if their cheap hack breaks, Real's to blame.
Though unfortunately iPod users won't see it that way, and they'll complain to Apple and like the iPod less. In the end, Apple will end up paying for Real's store while reaping none of the benefits.
They did. They licensed it to Motorola and to HP.
Apple's #1 in this industry because their products work so well, and if Apple suspects a company might lessen a customer's enjoyment with a crappy store, then Apple has the right not to license their software to them.
Especially a parasitic joke-of-a-company like Real Networks.
The iTunes Music Store was made for the iPod, and the format it uses was only designed to work with iTMS. If Real wants to sell music so badly, then they have a couple of options:
1: They can put the hard work and money in to creating their own iTunes/iPod-like solution. (hard)
2: They can sell their music in an unencrypted format and fight with the record labels for the right to do so. (hard)
3: They can go against Apple's decision and try to worm their way in to the iPod with sleazy back-handed tactics. (easy)
Real could do any of those, but Real doesn't have the talent or money for #1, and they don't have the credibility or intelligent reasoning skills for #2, but real has proven in the past that they're the best in the business at #3.
WOULD YOU MODERATORS STOP MODDING THESE EXPLAINATIONS DOWN?!
This is exactly the reason Apple doesn't want Real messing with their iTunes/iPod experience!
I'm sure most of you don't know Apple too well, but since day one the single quality they strive for in their products is ease of use, and Real with their spyware-bloated software atrocities would immediately render that feature of the iPod useless.
Real is trying to pass Apple off as some sort of Microsoft-like hate group, insisting that they're stifling consumer liberties, which is laughable because Apple's main competitor is Kazaa and other P2P networks, not Real or Sony or Napster. Apple can't compete on price here, so they compete on quality. As soon as some parasite-like sponge-company (Real) insists they're iPod-compatible, people are going to start calling Apple and complaining that their music won't work, or the music store didn't download a song correctly -- and why should Apple have to support another miserable online music source like Real? At least with Kazaa there's the excuse that a customer shouldn't have been stealing music in the first place, but Real is supposed to be "legitimate".
The problem is than Real is too lazy and incompetent to create their own genius portable music player, and so in one last attempt to stay afloat, they're latching on to Apple's hard work and claiming they have a god-given right to a piece of Apple's hard-earned success.
The only good solution here is for Apple to burn down Real headquarters and everyone inside.
Real is only doing the $.49 for a short while. They've publicly said that shareholders can expect a 0.05$ loss per share for it.
They absolutely can't keep selling songs at 0.49$ for any long period of time.
That would be the grey, multilingual panic screen of kernelhood.
The DRM in iTunes is contained wholly in the encryption around the raw AAC stream. DeDRMS decrypts it and gives it to you exactly as it was before, but unprotected. That's breaking the DRM. The decompressed pcm is by no means as useful as the original file; you can't compress it again with a lossy algorithm without it sounding like crap. By recording the data sent to the dac, at worst you're breaking the license -- but what's it matter, Apple lets you burn any song an unlimited number of times.
You can even use public QuickTime API functions to decompress encrypted songs.
This cellphone convergence thing is absurd. My TV and my books serve a similar purpose, they're both next to my chair, but by god that doesn't mean they should become one for convenience sake. I don't want my watch and my cell phone converged either.
Face it, there simply is no way to squeeze a useable interface for working with a phone, an address book, a camera, an instant messenger, and an iPod in to the form factor or convenience of any one of the above mentioned items -- even if you can fit a hard drive in to it somehow.
Holy shit! My heart nearly stopped when I read the headline! STEVE is the glue that holds the world together; if He were to (somehow?) die, everything man ever created, everything that has ever been important to the entirety of the human race would be instantly, violently destroyed!
STEVE is much more than a feeble that He is. STEVE is literally everything, and thus everything is STEVE. If STEVE were to be undone, so would all of creation.
Which ever doctor banished that satanic tumor deserves an annual day of celebration.
>>while I can't think of many products that follow those of Apple's distinctive nature.
Just about any modern-day GUI is derived from Apple's original desktop-based organizational layout. Any PDA's form or function is derived from Apple's Newton.
And don't forget all those crappy iMac rip-offs from back in the day!
Jesus fucking Christ! Knee-jerk doesn't begin to describe the typical slashdot reaction here. People shouting over each other to praise Real for gloriously conquering the enormous, Big Brother-like Apple.
How many of you have ever used the iTunes Music Store? How many have ever bought a song off of it? Not that many of you? How can so many people be upset that a service they've never used only supports a music player they don't own?
If Real is so heroic in it's awe-inspiring attempt to topple the evil, hateful Apple empire, how come they themselves aren't selling music sans-DRM? How come they aren't building award-winning best-of-breed portable players? How come their software blasts its users with an impenetrable volley of seedy advertisements?
If the sanctity of DRM can't be protected, then the RIAA will ensure that online music will fail. Slashdotters complain that they don't want to buy DRM-encumbered music, and cheer when blow after blow is dealt to the future of online music by saint-like "purveyors of freedom".
I myself had decrypted m4p songs months before DVD-Jon released his first hokey headerless-aac dumping code (and my songs actually played), BUT I HAD THE DECENCY NOT TO RELEASE IT.
The RIAA will never just dissappear like some people want unless there arises a solution powerful enough to take it on -- which is never (never) going to happen if the RIAA gets scared with DRM-slippage and pulls out early.
>>Apple accusing Real of using hacker tactics and going ape over the whole thing.
No, you're going ape over the whole thing. Real is threatening to destroy Apple's market and topple their business, and all Apple did was fire a nasty letter back. No matter how many times the acronym DMCA is repeated in this forum, Apple has not taken any legal action against Real.
Lastly, if you want to play music on your iPod, you don't have to pass it through any number of reverse-engineered, unstable, unsupported en/decryption schemes, you can simply BUY THE FUCKING CD.