Apple Disabling RealNetworks Harmony Technology

[MacRumors]

A CNET news.com story (http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5490604.html) claims that iPods will no longer be able to play tunes purchased from the RealRhapsody online music store operated by RealNetworks, which relies on technology named Harmony (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/07/20040725235143.shtml) to allow their digital-rights-managed music to play on iPods. There was no doubt that Apple wanted to disable or defeat this technology, given Apple's statement (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/07/20040729100534.shtml) in July that RealNetworks was using the "tactics and ethics of a hacker".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.

The move could render tunes purchased by many iPod owners unplayable on their music players. For the last four months, RealNetworks has marketed its music store as the only Apple rival compatible with the iPod, following the company's discovery of a way to let its customers play their downloaded tunes on Apple's MP3 player.It is not clear which iPod software updates contain or will contain this change, which has not been mentioned in any of Apple's software update notes. The last iPod software update (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/11/20041118171754.shtml) was November 18, but did not apply to all iPod models, so some iPods, particularly the iPod mini and iPod photo, may already be unable to play RealRhapsody-purchased music.

[Doctor Q]

Apple has said nothing about this, but RealNetworks has already reacted:
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."

[MattG]

<kelso>BUURRRRRNNNNNN!</kelso>

[jimjiminyjim]

For a smaller company, I'd probably side with Apple... but the way Apple has become such a market leader, I'm feeling a little unsure as to who I'd stand with, if I was asked to.

[Noiseboy]

Stick it to Real I say. They've just been asking for it to happen.
You have feel a little sorry for people who are perhaps not as tech savvy as us lot who have spent money on tracks they won't be able to play without really knowing what they were doing. Or am I being too soft hearted?

[jxyama]

real is just using iPod's popularity to its advantage, while giving nothing back to apple. it's pretty clear who needs the other more in this case...

real can do whatever it wants. so can apple. and real has no real grounds to complain...

is there any compelling reason iPod users would purchase songs from real instead of iTMS?

addendum: in 3 weeks of half priced promotion, real sold 3 million tracks. iTMS does that in less than two weeks, while charging 99 cents... :rolleyes:

[Gear_media]

Good. Real deserves this.

I'm sorry for those that have purchased the Real files but at the same time the amount of news about Apples reaction in the first place should have been enough of a warning.

[Doctor Q]

There was a previous discussion about whether Apple could make this change, given the way Apple combines standards with a proprietary implementation. Since Apple wouldn't license Fairplay to Real, Real used reverse engineering to mimic it. So an interesting question is how, technically, the iPod software determines that a given tune is from Real?

[Lord Blackadder]

Like it or not, this is the way it always goes - it happened with Virtual Game Station.

I really don't think there are that many people out there who just love their iPod but don't use iTMS because of Real's service. To those that do, my condolences, but I consider it an acceptable loss in the face of the fact that Apple wants to win the music download market war - and they have yet to face M$.

[SiliconAddict]

Damn. :( I was hoping my iPod Photo would be susceptible to Real's Crap. I wanted to go update my iPod and feel good about the fact that I'm not aiding an ***hole company leech off of Apple. http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_twisted.gif
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/new_2gunsfiring_v1.gif

[swissmann]

You knew it was going to happen. No surprise here.

[Loge]

So if the iPod photo has never been able to play Real's tracks, and it's only just come to light; well it says something about how many tracks they sold.

[Puchembo]

Before I made the very good switch into Mac'land I had already given up on Real Networks brand of corporate spyware. I am glad that Apple is attempting to shield its users from a company such as REAL. My iPod mini (green) proudly sports the brand.

[wookitus]

Why do people give this a positive rating on the macrumors front page? Who benefits from this besides Apple? I can't see how consumers do.

[nagromme]

It's up to Apple to say how, when, and even IF other companies get to share in their success with iPod and/or iTunes. And when the time is right for that (I think it will happen one day--NOT now), then Apple will do it themselves. They'll do it with OFFICIAL support and they'll get paid.

Real's right in general that "choice is good for consumers," but by using Apple's iPod BEFORE Apple is ready, and not paying Apple, they are NOT providing a good long term product. Real is helping themselves, not customers.

It will be amusing to see the statements that come from Real, though :D They love to go on about choice and "freedom," while their own products offer no such thing :D

[Stella]

Time to come to a common DRM standard, an open standard controlled by a committee and not a single company so we can download from whatever online music store we want and play our music on favourite digital player.

Let market forces decide on the best music store / mp3 player instead of companies protecting themselves. An open market.

Its going to happen eventually.. but not soon enough.

[ahamilt2]

Sure, Apple can do whatever it wants, and so can Real as long as they don't violate any patents. However, if Apple is so confident in the quality of its offerings, why bother with blocking Real from the iPod? Having to compete with Microsoft forced Apple to focus on making it's products that much better in order to stay alive. Competition drives innovtion, but it seems as though Apple is shying away from that philosophy. The only real end result of letting a competetor on the iPod would be a better product from Apple.

[Nermal]

is there any compelling reason iPod users would purchase songs from real instead of iTMS?

Yes. If Real comes to NZ before Apple does, guess who I'll buy from.

[jxyama]

Time to come to a common DRM standard, an open standard controlled by a committee and not a single company so we can download from whatever online music store we want and play our music on favourite digital player.

Let market forces decide on the best music store / mp3 player instead of companies protecting themselves. An open market.

Its going to happen eventually.. but not soon enough.

it's more or less an open market at this point. iPod is the #1 music player. and that's an open market. iTMS is an added feature. and online music stores haven't gotten to the point (perhaps never will) where it's the deciding factor in the choice of the music player.

do you care if you will pay 10 cents less per song in download, when you are trying to decide between a couple of mp3 players costing $200-300? i don't think so.

as long as iPod is the #1 player in the open market of mp3 players, any attempt to justify piggybacking on iPod's popularity (such as real's) is not for the consumers, but for said piggybacking company alone. :rolleyes:

[jxyama]

Sure, Apple can do whatever it wants, and so can Real as long as they don't violate any patents. However, if Apple is so confident in the quality of its offerings, why bother with blocking Real from the iPod? Having to compete with Microsoft forced Apple to focus on making it's products that much better in order to stay alive. Competition drives innovtion, but it seems as though Apple is shying away from that philosophy. The only real end result of letting a competetor on the iPod would be a better product from Apple.

because if they let it go, they risk real damaging apple/iPod's reputation. also, if iPod doesn't work with a real-purchased song, guess who they will be calling? both real and apple support. why should apple support tech be bothered with telling its iPod users that the real formats aren't supported?

[jxyama]

Yes. If Real comes to NZ before Apple does, guess who I'll buy from.

right, IF they come to NZ first. they haven't. that's a potential reason. not a compelling one at this moment...

but very true. there have been some places where non-iTMS made it first, no?

[Loge]

Time to come to a common DRM standard, an open standard controlled by a committee and not a single company so we can download from whatever online music store we want and play our music on favourite digital player.

Let market forces decide on the best music store / mp3 player instead of companies protecting themselves. An open market.

Its going to happen eventually.. but not soon enough.

Alternatively, the content providers could drop their insistence on DRM and offer music right away that would play on the iPod, or any other player. A few already do, to their credit.

[nagromme]

if Apple is so confident in the quality of its offerings, why bother with blocking Real from the iPod?

1. Because iPod and iTunes are integrated system--and a much better, easier-to-use, and reliable music experience as a result. Letting another company's bugs in the door, and removing iTunes from the process, dilutes that quality and harms Apple's brand. (It's not just about the store--Harmony users can't use iTunes as their jukebox/library manager even! And then iPod-specific features that are connected to iTunes are lost as well. It's a mess, and one that some users and reviewers WOULD incorrectly blame Apple for. Better that Apple share the blame for not allowing the "choice" to have that mess.)

2. Because Apple wants to be able to CHARGE companies to use the iPod. They are offering no such option yet, but it's their right to collect that money when and IF they feel the time is strategic to do so.

3. To show to other companies in other negotiations that they won't be bullied, like Real has tried to do.

[Stella]

When it comes to an iPod + online music stores ( which is what I was trying to say ) its not such an open market because you can't buy online music (without conversion from WMA) just from anywhere, it HAS to be iTunes if you want to listen to that music on iPod.

Even worse if you have a Mac because microsoft couldn't be arsed to port the latest WMA DRM.

For me, online music stores is important, but isn't important for everyone, as you say. I have an iPod, live in canada and use a Mac so I couldn't buy music online until the arrival of iTMS.

I want the freedom to use any online music store and play the material on my iPod. Unfortunately this is not possible.

it's more or less an open market at this point. iPod is the #1 music player. and that's an open market. iTMS is an added feature. and online music stores haven't gotten to the point (perhaps never will) where it's the deciding factor in the choice of the music player.

do you care if you will pay 10 cents less per song in download, when you are trying to decide between a couple of mp3 players costing $200-300? i don't think so.

as long as iPod is the #1 player in the open market of mp3 players, any attempt to justify piggybacking on iPod's popularity (such as real's) is not for the consumers, but for said piggybacking company alone. :rolleyes:

[JGowan]

For a smaller company, I'd probably side with Apple... but the way Apple has become such a market leader, I'm feeling a little unsure as to who I'd stand with, if I was asked to.Jimjiminyjim, whose side do you stand on in this issue between song compatibility with REAL music and Apple music players?

[psycho bob]

How many people have gone and used the Real store and perhaps more to the point how many people have bought an iPod just because they can use it. I don't think anyone really cares (pardon the pun) I'd rather pay more for a better service from a company I like and want to support then give money to a group of people who have never done anything to benefit me and only motives seem to be self driven.
It does annoy me how they disguise their obvious greed behind a veil of wanting to offer the consumer choice and support.

[nagromme]

BTW, although the clamor of Real users is strangely silent ;) I'll mention your solution anyway: burn to CD, rip back into iTunes. ANY store's music is playable by iTunes--legally and without hacks--by that method. It takes a little time, but gives you a DRM-free CD backup that will play in any stereo or car, so that's no bad thing. If quality worries you, use Apple Lossless. If capacity is your thing, then it doesn't matter. You can even rip your CD into different formats to see what you prefer. Choice! :)

DRM and exclusivity ARE bad for consumers. But they're a market reality, thanks to the pirates and the RIAA.

[ASP272]

Awesome! Apple needs to keep control of their format. I just wonder if some whining baby is going to come up someday and say, "They're just like Microsoft, monopolizing the market with their proprietary software and not sharing." Boo hoo. Quit producing crappy software and offer something that competes with Apple. If you can't, quit the music store/MP3 player business you losers! I've always disliked the quality of Real anyway. Go Apple! :D

[MarcelV]

Competition drives innovtion...

And how will this make Apple better? If it was competition, you're right. So, if Real came up with an integrated solution like iPod/iTunes it will make Apple build a better iPod. But allowing Real to play songs on this iPod, will not make Apple better....

Just my .02

[AmigoMac]

I don't see this good or bad at all, it wasn't a surprise...was it?

[Jovian9]

I'll mention your solution anyway: burn to CD, rip back into iTunes. ANY store's music is playable by iTunes--legally and without hacks--by that method. It takes a little time, but gives you a DRM-free CD backup that will play in any stereo or car, so that's no bad thing.

Exactly.






I cannot wait until REAL is no more. Please go away!

[NavyIntel007]

Allowing Real to actively compete in the media market for the iPod would start a price war that neither company can afford. The larget vocal complaints that apple is monopolizing the digital media market is just proof that they've won the war. Lawsuits will be on the way. Even if they lose, they'll be allowed to license the fairplay DRM to other MP3 player makers, thus making money off of every device sold.

genius.

[AidenShaw]

For a smaller company, I'd probably side with Apple... but the way Apple has become such a market leader, I'm feeling a little unsure as to who I'd stand with, if I was asked to.

Hmmm..... Huge market share, playing tricks to block other companies, keeping formats proprietary, ....

Remember that Microsoft did very little that would have been illegal for a smaller company to do. It was only when they became successful and got a huge market share that "aggessive competition" became "illegal monopoly tactics".

[JGowan]

I think this serves REAL right! From my recollection, they contacted Apple via an email (!) and basically said "Let us license or else!" There was no wooing Apple. There was no corporate sit-downs. There simply was a bullying email!

The flipside is Apple is not impossible to negotiate with. I think their latest deals with Pepsi, U2 and Hewlett-Packard speaks volumes about how companies much bigger than REAL can work along side with Apple and all benefit. There simply is no real up-side for Apple to license (except the initial fee).

Also, as far as what benefits the user, Apple has the best online experience, bar none. Also, their lineup of music players is second to none and getting better everyday (especially considering the rumor of a flash-based 'pod coming out early next year). Apple has created this. They found the talent from the SoundJam authors and have moved forward in a huge way. They deserve all that comes to them. And Real does not deserve to just bully in and try to push Apple around without some real discouragement.

[bullrat]

Yes, shame on Real for having offered iPod users more choices. Boy, what an evil think to do! And what is this I hear! Real had the nerve NOT to fall down at Apple's feet and beg. Of all the nerve!! I am aghast. Aghast, I say. To arms! To arms! There must be no other company on the face of the earth but Apple. Competition to Apple is evil.... Eeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!

sheesh, some of you folks should get your wish -- if nothing else -- just so you could see how screwed up the world would be under your "vision."

[Doctor Q]

I think this serves REAL right! From my recollection, they contacted Apple via an email (!) and basically said "Let us license or else!" There was no wooing Apple. There was no corporate sit-downs. There simply was a bullying email!

The flipside is Apple is not impossible to negotiate with. I think their latest deals with Pepsi, U2 and Hewlett-Packard speaks volumes about how companies much bigger than REAL can work along side with Apple and all benefit. There simply is no real up-side for Apple to license (except the initial fee).A distant memory: Apple and RealNetworks Announce Internet Streaming Collaboration (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/june/12realnetworks.html)

[capvideo]

There was a previous discussion about whether Apple could make this change, given the way Apple combines standards with a proprietary implementation. Since Apple wouldn't license Fairplay to Real, Real used reverse engineering to mimic it. So an interesting question is how, technically, the iPod software determines that a given tune is from Real?

My guess is that if the iPod is doing anything to determine that a tune is from Real, Apple is in trouble. They can't do that; it's the sort of thing that gets anti-trust eyeballs; if, on the other hand, this was just a natural result of Apple adding new features or cleaning up their code or something like that, then Real just has to suck it up and re-reverse engineer it. Real can't expect Apple to stop improving their software on the chance that it will break Real's reverse engineering.

Jerry

[Gear_media]

As has been mentioned on /. regarding this story, Apple may not have even done this intentionally. Real may have exploited a bug in the firmware that Apple did not realize even had anything to do with Reals hack. ... like Jerry just said

Apple is under no obligation to support the technologies of any third party.

[plinkoman]

i really hope that now that this has happened, someone who used real with their iPod and now finds their purchased music un-playable; will sue real for false advertising saying that it was iPod compatable when it isn't. that would be awesome.

and to anyone who thinks this was microsoft-like monopolism, thats just plain wrong. if they were like microsoft, they would buy out creative and dell and all the other companies that make competing players, and they would buy out napster and buymusic and all the other music stores. that is being monopolistic. saying that if you want to use our product, you have to use our software with it is no problem when you still have the choice to use someone elses product and software.

[pgwalsh]

Time to come to a common DRM standard, an open standard controlled by a committee and not a single company so we can download from whatever online music store we want and play our music on favourite digital player.

Let market forces decide on the best music store / mp3 player instead of companies protecting themselves. An open market.

Its going to happen eventually.. but not soon enough.I agree. That said, Apple should also open up iTunes to other stores. Maybe the should even charge other companies a nominal fee per download, say 1 cent.

However, I don't see Apple doing this until all is said and done in the music download market. Too many small players right now, so Apple doesn't really need to open up.

[jxyama]

I agree. That said, Apple should also open up iTunes to other stores. Maybe the should even charge other companies a nominal fee per download, say 1 cent.

However, I don't see Apple doing this until all is said and done in the music download market. Too many small players right now, so Apple doesn't really need to open up.

i don't think apple ever will open up Fairplay to others. apple is notoriously picky about the complete control it exerts over its products. cloned OS went nowhere and for apple, they're gonna go solo as far as they can, trusting their superior product and tight integration/control over it...

[hulugu]

Yes, shame on Real for having offered iPod users more choices. Boy, what an evil think to do! And what is this I hear! Real had the nerve NOT to fall down at Apple's feet and beg. Of all the nerve!! I am aghast. Aghast, I say. To arms! To arms! There must be no other company on the face of the earth but Apple. Competition to Apple is evil.... Eeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!

sheesh, some of you folks should get your wish -- if nothing else -- just so you could see how screwed up the world would be under your "vision."

What you mean a well-designed intiuitive music player that works with a well-designed music store? Yeah this sucks.
As for Real, they didn't negotiate they demanded, bullied, threatened, and then cried when Apple didn't bend. Someone else pointed out that U2, HP, and others have been able to negotiate with Apple with nary a hassle and that has to do with negotiation style of which Real has none.
Furthermore, the choice between WMA DRM and Apple's Fairplay is not a choice between freedom and despotism; WMA DRM is owned by Microsoft!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I want a cross-platform standard controlled by a consortium of companies that contains a minimal DRM-scheme (if we must) that works like Mp3. Not WMA's 'works for sure' but a fair, reliable DRM scheme with the best of every system, or Fairplay but with a bigger catalogue.
But, Real, MS and even Apple don't want that to happen which is unfortunate.
Lastly, I want real competition not Real's whinning and coat-tail riding.

[bredlo]

There's a LOT of content out there on the internet in Real format. I hope Real doesn't cut off it's own nose to spite Apple by discontinuing it's OS X support for their player.

As a web user, I'd hate to be the nameless, facelsss guy who gets stuck in the middle of these guys' pissing contest. It wouldn't surprise me if that's what happens, though.

[DPazdanISU]

stupid Real :rolleyes: when are you going to learn that we have the best in the world and trying to get a piece of the action is not going to happen :D btw when is cherry os comin out im getting people to switch over starting with that

[joeboy_45101]

It's up to Apple to say how, when, and even IF other companies get to share in their success with iPod and/or iTunes. And when the time is right for that (I think it will happen one day--NOT now), then Apple will do it themselves. They'll do it with OFFICIAL support and they'll get paid.

Real's right in general that "choice is good for consumers," but by using Apple's iPod BEFORE Apple is ready, and not paying Apple, they are NOT providing a good long term product. Real is helping themselves, not customers.

It will be amusing to see the statements that come from Real, though :D They love to go on about choice and "freedom," while their own products offer no such thing :D

It amazes me that so many people on here can act as if somehow all iPods are the property of Apple Computer. My iPod is MINE, not Apple's. I as a owner can do whatever I damn well please with my property, and I shouldn't have to worry about upsetting Big Brother Apple while I do it. I could crush it with a hammer, embed it with diamonds, give it to a friend. So, it's really none of Apple's business what consumers do with their iPods after the purchase. My question is what will Apple do about the many P2P networks since they are a huge source of alternate music tracks. Is there anybody out there that has never even once put a (stolen, shared, pirated, whatever you want to call it) mp3 on there iPod?

[destroyboredom]

While this is true keep in mind Netscape/Mozilla never went and reversed engineered Internet Explorer/Microsoft.

Hmmm..... Huge market share, playing tricks to block other companies, keeping formats proprietary, ....

Remember that Microsoft did very little that would have been illegal for a smaller company to do. It was only when they became successful and got a huge market share that "aggessive competition" became "illegal monopoly tactics".

[ClimbingTheLog]

I can't belive Apple doesn't have a patent on FairPlay. Real would be violating these patents.

I'm no fan of overly broad software patents, and Apple shouldn't have a patent on Digital Music DRM, per se, but Fairplay is a specific method and is likely patented. Real should feel free to engage in whatever DRM is chooses to invent, but they can't force a hardware manufacturer to adopt it, nor can the they simply appropriate Apple's patented methods without a license. If they'd like to compete with Apple why don't they bring out their own, superior, player?

Apple's being nice by just breaking their software - they could be dragging them through court. Real used to be a great technology company, when they pioneered streaming media. Then the dot-bomb suits came on board, they bet everything on the MLB partnership and ran the company into the ground. After Apple open-sourced Darwin Streaming Server they tried to jump on that bandwagon with their Helix stuff, but they didn't include their codecs.

With WMP dominating streaming audio today, Real is trying not to go out of business. Rather than do anything interesting, they've been me-too'ing for a few years, and their music store is just the latest example. If they want to mimic Apple they should realize they need to invent their way out of their prediciment.

[benpatient]

Jez.

You guys complain all day about Microsoft..in fact it's hard to click on a thread in this entire forum without seeing something that bad-mouths microsoft for acting exactly like Apple is starting to act.

Glad to see the devotion didn't come without some blindness, too.

This thread sounds, for the most part, like M$ fanboys, except the M$ has been replaced with Apple.

for shame

[benpatient]

i don't think apple ever will open up Fairplay to others. apple is notoriously picky about the complete control it exerts over its products. cloned OS went nowhere and for apple, they're gonna go solo as far as they can, trusting their superior product and tight integration/control over it...

sounds like 1930s Germany, to me!

[The Red Wolf]

...This thread sounds, for the most part, like M$ fanboys, except the M$ has been replaced with Apple...

Please watch your blanket statements. The actions of some do not represent the actions of all. Many Apple users are vigorous about how they feel about the Mac. It is not blindness which creates devotion to a product. Apple is run by humans who make mistakes 1997 was a scary year for Apple Users. Devotion comes not from mistakes but from successes. I assure you my devotion to Apple is based on 20+ years of enjoyment of their successes as well as support during their trials. I don't like everything Apple does. The Photo iPod rather sickens me. I do wonder what happens when Apple leads a market in the shadow of a becoming a monopoly. Much of the DRM is based on how not to get sued by the recording industry. Also, if a company makes a product and a rival company's soul business is a similar product it is competition.

There is nothing wrong with a company defending itself when an idea is infringed upon. It would be like making a car with a new type of wheel which makes tires obsolete. Then in the dark of night a tire company goes out and replaces the updated product with the legacy tires. In the morning as the revolutionary wheel company, wouldn't you ship your new cars with wheel locks to prevent swapping? Sure the locks cost the end users a bit more, but it's better than waking up without the wheels that came on your car and may or may not be compatible with your onboard tire pressure system.

[Bear]

Real did a hack. Apple cleaned up code and the hack no longer works. It's Real's fault for using a hack.

And as for Real itself...I don't have Real Player on my system, and I find I don't really miss it.

[Inspector Lee]

Is Real still selling $0.79 songs and $5 albums? If so, they must be hemorrhaging coin. This is going to go back and forth with updates until somebody starts looking like an idiot.

[proprietary]

but Fairplay is a specific method and is likely patented.
Actually, no. FairPlay is just MD5 and AES.

Apple's being nice by just breaking their software - they could be dragging them through court.
And I could be dragging you through court for being clueless. Fortunately for you, being clueless isn't illegal, and fortunately for RealNetworks, reverse engineering isn't illegal (fortunately for Apple as well, since they depend on Samba for Windows networking support in Mac OS X, and Samba was created through reverse engineering).

After Apple open-sourced Darwin Streaming Server they tried to jump on that bandwagon with their Helix stuff, but they didn't include their codecs.
Darwin Streaming Server doesn't include any codecs either.

[bgotori]

Hey All

I just hope that someone starts selling songs for 50-75 cents!!! YEA... AND I DON'T CARE WHO!!!


Have Great Holiday's!!!

Brad

[nationElectric]

Get this: when you buy a piece of hardware, IT'S YOURS. It ceases to be Apple's. It ceases to be Steve's. You should be able to do absolutely whatever you want with it, and that includes loading data onto it from third parties. Do you freak out like this when someone downloads a windows media file onto their Mac or, lord forbid, installs YellowDog linux on it? WAIT! They're not getting the Quicktime experience! WAIT! They're not licking Aqua! WE MUST SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES!

The existence of Real's offering didn't force you to do anything. It didn't force you to buy from them, and it certainly didn't force you to abandon iTMS. Sure, Real is in it for the money, but they ain't trying to control you. Apple is also in it for the money, but guess what? They ARE trying to control you, and you're lapping it up. Not surprising, given that you're already paying money (lots of money, from the sound of it) for DRM'ed products. At least Real was trying to expand your options, by however little.

When are you going to wake up and stop letting people yank you around with their proprietary standards?

[nationElectric]

It would be like making a car with a new type of wheel which makes tires obsolete. Then in the dark of night a tire company goes out and replaces the updated product with the legacy tires. In the morning as the revolutionary wheel company, wouldn't you ship your new cars with wheel locks to prevent swapping? Sure the locks cost the end users a bit more, but it's better than waking up without the wheels that came on your car and may or may not be compatible with your onboard tire pressure system.

Actually, it would be like a rival company just making tires that fit your car, and your company putting locks on the wheels because you don't want your customers to be able to buy them. Sure, the locks cost the end users a bit more, but it's better than having to compete in a free and open market.

[nationElectric]

And how will this make Apple better? If it was competition, you're right. So, if Real came up with an integrated solution like iPod/iTunes it will make Apple build a better iPod. But allowing Real to play songs on this iPod, will not make Apple better....

Might not make the iPod better, but it would certainly encourage them to improve iTMS. If a competing store offered Fairplay-compatible songs for less money, or offered them earlier, or offered a larger catalog of them, or offered fewer usage restrictions, it would certainly be incentive for Apple to improve their music service.

[djsteele]

Time to come to a common DRM standard, an open standard controlled by a committee and not a single company so we can download from whatever online music store we want and play our music on favourite digital player.

Let market forces decide on the best music store / mp3 player instead of companies protecting themselves. An open market.

Its going to happen eventually.. but not soon enough.

Good luck with that... As with everything else, you have to follow the money trail. And for companies, especially the music industry, there's no money in an open standard (despite the benefits to customers). If an open standard exists, then companies, software and music alike, cannot leverage proprietary solutions to drive profits.

The bottom line is that an open standard doesn't impact, well... the bottom line.

In truth, there is an open standard already... MPEG4, which Apple is using for it's AAC encoded files. However, Apple has added an additional layer to protect the redistribution of the encoded files. Of course, this is to drive (and protect) profits for Apple and it's partners in the music industry.

We can certainly dream and beg for such an open standard, but it's not likely to happen. Consider high-definition DVDs... there's about 3 major formats all controlled by various interested parties, not the least of which are movie studios or electronics manufacturers. An open standard has been requested for several years by consumers, but companies traditionally will choose profitability over the benefit of consumers. (Unless the benefit of employees creates the potential for higher profits. In the entertainment industry, the potential for profit is based on gimmicks, thus a proprietary solution is more likely to succeed.)

[jared_kipe]

Who purchased music from Real that already owns an ipod?

[rteichman]

i don't think apple ever will open up Fairplay to others. apple is notoriously picky about the complete control it exerts over its products. cloned OS went nowhere and for apple, they're gonna go solo as far as they can, trusting their superior product and tight integration/control over it...

Yep, and that is how Steve lost the PC battle in the early 80's. Its also how Sony lost the VCR battle, and so on and so on.... Ten years from now I am willing to bet the iPod/iTunes will still be the best product on the market, but instead of 90+% market share, it will be in the single digits.

[AidenShaw]

While this is true keep in mind Netscape/Mozilla never went and reversed engineered Internet Explorer/Microsoft.

What are you implying? Did Safari reverse-engineer tabs from Opera?

Some background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_web_browser

Both IE and Navigator are based on Mosaic technologies....

[Doctor Q]

So, it's really none of Apple's business what consumers do with their iPods after the purchase. My question is what will Apple do about the many P2P networks since they are a huge source of alternate music tracks. Is there anybody out there that has never even once put a (stolen, shared, pirated, whatever you want to call it) mp3 on there iPod?You don't have to install iPod software updates either. If you voluntarily choose to install one, Apple has a chance to replace the firmware that controls how the iPod performs, and therefore what you get out of it, for better or worse. So you still have choice, but you could certainly argue that changes like this should be disclosed, not hidden in an update that you install for other reasons.

And yes, my iPod mini is full of tunes and I've purchased every one.

[iGary]

*devils advocate hat*

So what if Apple decides that all third-party software (i.e. iPod Rip) are violating the Fairplay agreement, and decides to disable all third-party hacks?

Happy with Apple's move on this, but think about it.

[CTerry]

I would love to see Apple license out Fairplay to other people, Real was right about 'freedom of music choice' but the way Real went about implementing this was all wrong, I know its corny and stupid, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[lungaretta]

There's a huge difference between:

if (clientName.isEqualTo("Real"){
tellThemToBuggerOff();
}


To:

if (!clientName.isEqualTo("Apple"){
tellThemToBuggerOff();
}

I'll go back to sleep now....

(Those who get it: Excuse the quasi-language)

[~Shard~]

Take that RealNetworks, ya bunch of hacking bastards.... :cool:

[nagromme]

My iPod is MINE, not Apple's. I as a owner can do whatever I damn well please with my property, and I shouldn't have to worry about upsetting Big Brother Apple while I do it. I could crush it with a hammer, embed it with diamonds, give it to a friend. So, it's really none of Apple's business what consumers do with their iPods after the purchase.

Not unless you accept a software/firmware update from Apple :)

I agree, Apple only has the right to make such a change without warning to NEW iPods sold, not ones already out there.

However, I suspect in the fine print you agreed to upon installing updates, you'll find something that legally IS sufficient warning. And you'd have found additional warnings in Real's own legalese.

The big problem at the heart of it all is DRM. You don't have the right to break the law and pirate music, and DRM enforces that. But a lot of potential hassles can result--and Real has just created one of them. It is a shame that legal downloads would never have taken off without DRM. Thank the pirates and the RIAA.

[macfan1977]

You don't have to install iPod software updates either. If you voluntarily choose to install one, Apple has a chance to replace the firmware that controls how the iPod performs, and therefore what you get out of it, for better or worse. So you still have choice, but you could certainly argue that changes like this should be disclosed, not hidden in an update that you install for other reasons.

And yes, my iPod mini is full of tunes and I've purchased every one.

Extend this a little further.... You don't need to buy an iPod. Nor songs online from the iTMS. If you don't like the recommended use model, support the competition's end-to-end solution (device + jukebox + DRM). Until the FCC/Government starts regulating DRM, all other solutions except Apple's is ala cart.

You suggest that Apple intentionally issued a firmware update to prevent play of music downloaded from Real's music store. Although Apple might have got a little satisfaction in this side effect, their intent was to update real bugs and provide feature enhancements. Maybe Apple's marketing department has done the homework and realized that it's not worth the time and risk to spite the handfull of iPod subscribers to the Real music store.

Do you expect that Apple is supposed to perform compatibility and compliance testing with every 3rd party addition and/or hacked version of DRM that gets put on the device? The reputable vendors, like Belkin et. al., probably got the API or hardware interface specification from Apple when they went into license agreements with Apple. "Guessing" at the API for DRM is a house of cards. I bet Apple tests licensed vendors equipment... Maybe there are perks with being licensed :)

Finally, I wanted to suggest that the analogy with the cars and tires can be improved. Where do you all live that tire theft is a big problem :) Maybe a better analogy is that you buy a nice BMW which the manufacturer recommends high octane gasoline (BMW==Apple iPod, gasoline==FairPlay). You can drop the cash for a new car, but when you decide you like the cost of diesel fuel better than gasoline (diesel==Real), you put in diesel and the car won't go anymore! You also void your warranty and the support folks don't give you the answers you want...

[beg_ne]

Why do people give this a positive rating on the macrumors front page? Who benefits from this besides Apple? I can't see how consumers do.

Who benefits from "harmony" other than Real?

And seriously does this affect you at all? Have you ever bought any songs from Real? If you're a Mac only user then your answer has to be no since Real has snubbed Mac users.

[point665]

I didnt get a chance to read all the posts... But Real sucks... To get their player nowdays you have to enter a damn credit card number (at least a few months ago)... who wants to do that? Apple offers quicktime and itunes for free, and microsoft offers wmp. And the real trial version is just that, a trial version... It pisses me off to see media sources that only have Real format audio/video...

Just my few cents.

[Steven1621]

I wonder if Real could provide the numbers of how many people are using an iPod with their music service...not many I would guess.

[MarcelV]

Might not make the iPod better, but it would certainly encourage them to improve iTMS. If a competing store offered Fairplay-compatible songs for less money, or offered them earlier, or offered a larger catalog of them, or offered fewer usage restrictions, it would certainly be incentive for Apple to improve their music service.

You are assuming Apple has control over this. Unfortunate, but true, none of the DRM restrictions are Apple's. They are enforced by the recording industry.

Pricing is dictated by the margins the labels want for the distribution rights and are already close to a 0 profit. So, unless you're, like real, want to subsidize every sell, it can't go much cheaper.

For catalogs, same thing. Labels control them. And I can pretty much ensure you, Apple want to put every title in their inventory they can get an hand on.

So, tell me, what is there to gain?

[outerspaceapple]

There was a previous discussion about whether Apple could make this change, given the way Apple combines standards with a proprietary implementation. Since Apple wouldn't license Fairplay to Real, Real used reverse engineering to mimic it. So an interesting question is how, technically, the iPod software determines that a given tune is from Real?

it could possible range from anything as complicated as an entirely new algorythm, to simply having all the timstamps end at the same digit...

Personally, I think this was a good move by Apple. Real wasn't paying them any royalties, they hacked the algorythm (sp?)! its one thing for a lone hacker in his mom's attic to hack it and give it to his friends (HYMN anyone?), but its entirely different for a corporate entity to hack it, and RESELL IT AS THEIR OWN.

This is first-rate blasphemy. Why won't Real just curl up and die, nobody likes them anyway.



~~Eddy~~

[dejo]

Yep, and that is how Steve lost the PC battle in the early 80's

Daring Fireball made a very strong argument (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay) back in August that if Apple had licensed the Macintosh back in the '80s, they'd probably gone out of business.

[billystlyes]

Who would buy anything from that POS company anyway. Why don't they go back to doing what they do best make spyware!

[FelixDerKater]

Excellent. Apple needs to protect the iPod from such groups who would like to tap into its success.

[adamberti]

I'm as big an Apple fan as anybody on this board, but how is this any different than TextEdit and Microsoft Word?

Let me use some comments made in this thread:
TextEdit allows Apple to 'ride' the success of Microsoft and their office suite. Microsoft makes no money from Apple doing this. Many Mac users do not purchase Word because TextEdit can handle the basic documents that they create and recieve. I need word compatibility to survive in my world and be successful, but I don't need Microsoft Word. So I've benefit from Microsoft's innovation and domination of the office market (I'm compatible with everyone), but Microsoft receives nothing.

Harmony does a similar thing. It gives people choice. Do you think Microsoft said "Here, this is how to read a Word File, I don't want to make money selling Microsoft Word" (if this is true I will eat my words)

I find a lot (not all) of flawed or un-backed-up arguments here that simply seem to be based on the fact it's Apple. These I do not agree with.

[Gear_media]

So what if Apple decides that all third-party software (i.e. iPod Rip) are violating the Fairplay agreement, and decides to disable all third-party hacks?.

In the case of iPod Rip and similar programs: anyone with half a brain would just turn on the ability to show hidden files, and just browse the "iPod_Control>Music" directories on their iPod alphabetically to find what they need to rip off their iPod. It's a <i>bit</i> technical and not as GUIlicious a solution as the apps, but it definitely isn't rocket science.

[Yvan256]

Let market forces decide on the best music store / mp3 player instead of companies protecting themselves. An open market.

Yes, that solution always work for the best option... or does it?

VHS vs Beta.
Microsoft vs Apple.
MP3 vs WMA vs OGG vs VQF vs AAC
Blue-ray DVD vs HD-DVD
etc...

The market forces always seems to choose what's "good enough" and not "what's best".

Anyway, I just can't wait to read the news... "Real networks is no more". I'd rather use Microsoft's Media Player 7 than use anything from Real... And I really HATE Media Player 7.

[ahamilt2]

Most of these posts are bashing REAL, but I would rather bash iTMS. Like I said earlier, by driving away competitions Apple is driving away innovation. As the market leader, they have no real incentive to improve the store. Every now and then they come out with a dumb little gizmo like allowances, but there's no real innovation. I have switched to eMusic.com, and I can get the music I want for a quarter of the price with no DRM, and although the selection is much smaller it fits my taste well. As for iTMS, I can see having the more popular artists go for $.99, but for indie artists, why not let them set their own DRM standards and price? The whole point of being indie is to have complete control over the music, but when the price is a set constant it hurts both sides. Apple's prices are still too high, too constant, and the selection is still too small. If REAL wants to also set it's prices lower or have a larger selection of music, it will force Apple to make a move in that direction also, and as an industry leader that will innovate the whole market. This just goes back to my point that competition improves the market, even if it does complicate things for Apple. If Apple is confident that it's product is better, then is shouldn't have any worries at all with having REAl play on the iPod, but if they feal that REAL is a threat, maybe Apple should see that as a sign that things need to change.

[Gear_media]

I find a lot (not all) of flawed or un-backed-up arguments here that simply seem to be based on the fact it's Apple. These I do not agree with.

The bottom line is that Apple is under no obligation to support third party hacks.

Your analogy is flawed in the fact that M$ could release word 2005 for windows tomorrow and through no fault of Apple's OR M$'s, text edit may not be able to read the updated format word files properly.

As a graphic designer I see this same file format war fought back and forth between Macromedia Freehand and Adobe Illustrator. With every release of Freehand, better Illustrator file support is added, each player is always about one program version behind the other.

The same goes for Apple vs Real. Apple never promised the iPod to work with competing music stores just as M$ never promised text edit support and just as Adobe never promised that it's Illustrator files would work in Freehand.

[Yvan256]

Yes, shame on Real for having offered iPod users more choices. Boy, what an evil think to do! And what is this I hear! Real had the nerve NOT to fall down at Apple's feet and beg. Of all the nerve!! I am aghast. Aghast, I say. To arms! To arms! There must be no other company on the face of the earth but Apple. Competition to Apple is evil.... Eeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!

sheesh, some of you folks should get your wish -- if nothing else -- just so you could see how screwed up the world would be under your "vision."

Go read a bit about Real's "solution" to give you freedom and choice... Then come back. Real's solution is a crappy hack that completely destroys the iTunes + iPod package. It renders the iPod as useless as all the other MP3 players out there by removing iTunes (and hence iTMS) from the equation.

Apple are smart by not letting Real hack its way into the whole thing. And if you think Apple (and most of the people here) are close-minded, well, how do you explain the HP rebranding of iPods, or the indies on iTMS, or even the Motorola cellphone that'll be added into the whole thing?

Real has no excuse for such a behavior. But then again, what do you expect from a dying company that has a long history of writing crappy software that hijacks the computers they're installed onto?

[JFreak]

Is there anybody out there that has never even once put a (stolen, shared, pirated, whatever you want to call it) mp3 on there iPod?

yes. me for example.

[Yvan256]

There's a LOT of content out there on the internet in Real format. I hope Real doesn't cut off it's own nose to spite Apple by discontinuing it's OS X support for their player.

As a web user, I'd hate to be the nameless, facelsss guy who gets stuck in the middle of these guys' pissing contest. It wouldn't surprise me if that's what happens, though.

Well, that's a possibility, yes. But let me ask you: what kind of websites do you visit that still use Real's format? I'd say that 99% of the websites I visit either have Windows Media *or* Windows Media and Quicktime...

Real is just taking way too long to close shop, if you ask me.

[Yvan256]

It amazes me that so many people on here can act as if somehow all iPods are the property of Apple Computer. My iPod is MINE, not Apple's. I as a owner can do whatever I damn well please with my property, and I shouldn't have to worry about upsetting Big Brother Apple while I do it.

The exact same argument goes for Apple vs Real:

The iPod technology is Apple's, not Real's. If Apple wants to change the firmware, they shouldn't have to worry about upsetting Real's crap while they do it.

Yes, you're free to use Real's service with your iPod. But if you do, don't go complaining to Apple that you can't use iTunes, can't update your iPod firmware, etc.

[adamberti]

The bottom line is that Apple is under no obligation to support third party hacks.

I agree with you completely and your whole post.

I wont be calling Microsoft for support when I can't open a Word document in TextEdit, but I do admit that it is likely to happen with your average user and a mix of Harmony and the iPod.

It's the comments that Real is lucky that Apple isnt suing them that are getting to me...That Real is a blood sucking company leeching off of Apple, and so on. If Real wants to try and open up the market, go for it. If Apple updates software and Real loses compatibility, then fix it. I don't believe they've complained, they said they would continue to make it compatible.

Many posts are just attacking Real simply for the fact they're benefiting from Apple, or that they are a competitor. I don't agree with that.

[Yvan256]

Jez.

You guys complain all day about Microsoft..in fact it's hard to click on a thread in this entire forum without seeing something that bad-mouths microsoft for acting exactly like Apple is starting to act.

Glad to see the devotion didn't come without some blindness, too.

This thread sounds, for the most part, like M$ fanboys, except the M$ has been replaced with Apple.

for shame

I'd rather read Apple fanboys cheer for good products than to read blinded Microsoft fanboys cheer up for shoddy business practices and crappy products.

Stop looking at *what's* happening, and start looking at *why* it's happening.

[Yvan256]

Actually, no. FairPlay is just MD5 and AES.


And I could be dragging you through court for being clueless. Fortunately for you, being clueless isn't illegal, and fortunately for RealNetworks, reverse engineering isn't illegal (fortunately for Apple as well, since they depend on Samba for Windows networking support in Mac OS X, and Samba was created through reverse engineering).


Darwin Streaming Server doesn't include any codecs either.

Didn't the USA pass laws a few years ago stating that reverse-engineering of protection measures was illegal?

[maya]

Hmmm..... Huge market share, playing tricks to block other companies, keeping formats proprietary, ....

Remember that Microsoft did very little that would have been illegal for a smaller company to do. It was only when they became successful and got a huge market share that "aggessive competition" became "illegal monopoly tactics".

So Apple is using M$ formula for market domination, why does this come as a surprise. :rolleyes:

Sony does it with they Magic Stick in they digital products any company is allowed to make and define they own product the only reason is that licensing is key here and Apple does not feel REAL as being worthy and with good cause they are going to compete in the same online market that is like giving someone with a gun a bullet to point the gun at your and say sure pull the trigger now. Apple is fine where it is in this regard people can always buy CD's and rip them or buy online from another store and burn it you still have that option they never said buying mp3 tracks won't play on an iPod that do not have any protection on it. There are so many loop holes its is quite funny though I will leave the individual the figure it out on they own. :)

[Victoriatus]

Is there anybody out there that has never even once put a (stolen, shared, pirated, whatever you want to call it) mp3 on there iPod?

Why would you even ask? Of course there is. Me, for example, and I've got a fully loaded 20GB iPod.

[Windowlicker]

addendum: in 3 weeks of half priced promotion, real sold 3 million tracks. iTMS does that in less than two weeks, while charging 99 cents... :rolleyes:

has there been any numbers of Real's sales after that 3million tracks?? because it's been really quiet.. I'm waiting for the day they announce they step out of the online music competition.

anyway, I don't really care if I can't use the real's service.. but I totally understand the opinion of those iPod owners who have bought music from Real (in case there is any).

[stephenli]

Like it or not, this is the way it always goes - it happened with Virtual Game Station.

e....well. i remembered Sony bought the Vitural Game Station and it have never released again......i want to play MGS on Mac again....

[crackpip]

Like I said earlier, by driving away competitions Apple is driving away innovation. As the market leader, they have no real incentive to improve the store. Every now and then they come out with a dumb little gizmo like allowances, but there's no real innovation. I have switched to eMusic.com, and I can get the music I want for a quarter of the price with no DRM, and although the selection is much smaller it fits my taste well.


Apple is innovating, they decided on an all-in-one music shopping/listening package. They developed it. They marketed it. They continue to improve it, and are now reaping some of the rewards. By the way, since eMusic is distributing mp3's, which cannot be drm'd, can't you play them on your iPod? The iPod/iTMS is not a closed system, its just not completely open.

As some people have already stated, the legal download market is in its infancy. By forcing Apple to open up its FairPlay system, you are actually taking away the incentive to innovate. Why would a company want to take the risk of spending the time and money to develop a new product/service, if the government is going to force them to give up their advantage when the market is still developing?

When it comes to the couple of posts regarding Apple as a monopoly, for Apple to be a monopoly, it needs to be shown that there is no alternative choice for consumers. I don't see how anyone can say there is a lack of choice. There are numerous other small mp3 players some with even more features. Those other players support the host of other legal download sites including Real's. Apple is not a monopoly.


Apple's prices are still too high, too constant, and the selection is still too small.

These common complaints are more appropriately directed to the record labels.


This just goes back to my point that competition improves the market, even if it does complicate things for Apple. If Apple is confident that it's product is better, then is shouldn't have any worries at all with having REAl play on the iPod, but if they feel that REAL is a threat, maybe Apple should see that as a sign that things need to change.

Here is a counter point:
Competition does not always improve the market. In order for innovation to be encouraged, companies must feel that the investment of time and money is justified. By forcing companies to open up their developments to other companies or abandon business models before they have been able to reap the benefits of their hard work, will actually discourage innovation. Market commoditization would be the likely outcome, and innovation will slow to a crawl because any small innovation will be immediately copied by the competitors and any advantage neutralized.

For example, what innovations are occurring the VCR market? VCR's have a single standard format, what innovations have occurred in the last 10 years or even 15 years? The only things I can think of is that they got cheaper, all accessing of functions were moved to the remotes, and VCR makers realized that they need to couple with newer technologies, e.g. DVD's, to remain relevant. I would hardly consider those to be innovative.

The real incentive for Apple to continue to innovate when it comes to the iPod/iTMS package is that they risk becoming irrelevant as the market develops. My opinion is that no matter what Apple does, the probability of them remaining the dominant music store is less than 50%, which is just a reflection of the consumer electronics industry. So those of you who think Apple is making a mistake by keeping a somewhat closed system, will at some point probably be able to say "I told you so", even if the relevance of most of the arguments I've seen have been questionable at best.

crackpip

[dejo]

The market forces always seems to choose what's "good enough" and not "what's best".

Always? How do you explain the success of the iPod then? Does the market consider it just "good enough"?

[stephenli]

If Real wants to try and open up the market, go for it. If Apple updates software and Real loses compatibility, then fix it. I don't believe they've complained, they said they would continue to make it compatible.
Many posts are just attacking Real simply for the fact they're benefiting from Apple, or that they are a competitor. I don't agree with that.

I suppose this is what Apple's kindest action toward Real, instead of getting them a lawsuit....of course, it would be sad if Real make Realplayer discontinues on Mac.

well. they are a competitor, but they still getting benefit fm Apple. or else what is the point to buy song from them.

[Windowlicker]

Exactly.

I cannot wait until REAL is no more. Please go away!

I just had a thought.. Real actually is good for one thing: South Park
Those SP episodes look pretty good with those 36mb rm files. I don't know if some other codec could do better though.. H.264? ;)

The software is pretty damn crappy though.. even Real Player 10.

[Savage Henry]

...I read the headline, read the thread .... MHO good news for everyone !!

Apple benefits, for obvious reasons, and the consumer benefits in an equally big way. In order to make a worthwhile impact in the market, Real are going to have to better the service that Apple currently provides. This previous attempt the ride the coat tails was narrow minded, knee-jerk short termism ... fools. With Apple shutting the door Real are going to have to innovate and sell the world something amazing and different ... and that can only be good news for the consumer.

At the moment the consumer will continue to ignore Real dismal efforts, and rightly so!

[Scottgfx]

Always? How do you explain the success of the iPod then? Does the market consider it just "good enough"?

As has been said before, the digital music player is still in it's infancy. There was probably a time where there were more Betamax players than VHS. Sony made a few really big mistakes with Betamax but there is no force like JVC and VHS yet on the horizon for Apple. If anything, Apple is the late-comer that took the market away from the early players. I would like to think that Apple won them over with a better product. It's still early though. You won't be able to write this book for another 5 years or so.

[dragula53]

<.02>
Real also offers higher bit rate AAC than apple. Aren't they 192 kb/s?

That is my biggest grief with the itunes store. They should provide CD quality if I am going to pay CD prices.

Competition is good. Apple is trying to monopolize a market, and the potential for failure is huge. The payoffs are huge, if successful. But the consequences to the consumer are dire. Just look at our friends at redmond.

As long as Apple controls the market, we won't see nice things like CD quality downloads or compatibility with WMA or Ogg Vorbis, which would also be nice.

Apple is the king of user interface, but they also rule the land of closed systems.

</.02>

[garybUK]

Real's official response: Buffering.................. Buffering..............

[desdomg]

Apple has spent a lot of its own money and energy developing and building up the iTMS - iPod ecosystem that is so successfull today. It has every right to enjoy the fruits of that labour and sell/licence a piece of the action to whoever it wants, or if it so chooses nobody.

Real has hacked into that eco system and now finds itself locked out - they have only themselves to blame. They asked Apple in the first instance whether they could join the party and Apple said "no". What did they expect?

The iTMS/iPod combo has done revolutionised the digital music scene. Its efforts cannot be underestimated. Before Apple the entire music industry confronted a nightmare scenario of all its content being evenutally delivered illegally but freely via P2P software.

Apple has shown that they market can evolve into a legal one and not damage the artists or the record companies. Real seems to be attempting to turn the clock back to a hacking situation.

They are a disgrace on the whole industry.

As to formats, the whole "debate" in my opinion is a non starter. We do have an open market at present - the record companies/artists can make their songs available to any music store/drm they wish. Unlike the Windows OS monopoly, songs can be made available for any platform very easily. Easier than windows programs for the mac, or sony playstation games for the xbox. Bridgestone and Co. make tires for all makes of car, it would be stupid to say that they should make one standard size so consumers can use tires from one car on another. You choose your player and buy the songs from the corresponding store. The market is wide wide open with new players appearing daily. The consumer will soon be overwhelmed with player choice, and store choice.

If real are so confident that WMA is the right DRM for the future of the market why are they so obsesed with Fairplay compatibility?

[nationElectric]

You are assuming Apple has control over this. ... So, tell me, what is there to gain?


Any song, on any other service, that iTMS doesn't have in its catalog, is unable to deliver to my locale, or is unable to deliver at the lowest price.

You can wring your hands and tell me all about Apple's woes, but it just doesn't change the facts: competition would either further motivate Apple to improve their offerings, or other services would do it for them. Other services manage to have different songs available. Other services manage to have cheaper prices. Why shouldn't I be able to buy from them when I want to?

There are a number of record shops in my town. Due to logistical constraints, they cannot all offer me the same selection or the same prices. I have a favorite, sure, but should I slavishly chain myself to it and hope that someday they'll be able to get their hands on the album I want, or should I be able to shop wherever I damn well please?

This is one of the (many) problems with the emerging music download business -- everyone has a scheme, everyone has a proprietary format, everyone is trying to lock you in. Sometimes they even have a heart-wrenching sob story to accompany it. Apple is no different -- it has merely mastered the role of the poor Bohemian street waif; so beautiful, so tragic! That such a lovely young thing should fall victim to competitiTUBERCULOUS? Don't you worry, good sir, I have my hopes to sustain me. My hopes... and love. Oh no, did I just drop my lily-white hankerchief at your feet? What, sir, that tiny scarlet stain upon it? No, kind sir, I'll be fine, I am just of... delicate constitution. These are trying times for such a pale young thing as myself. I feel absolutely faint! Yes, so very, very tragic indeed, sir. It just makes you want to... swoooooon!

That'll be $.99, please. Visa? That's great. Thank you, thank you, we're nothing without you. Sign here, please. You know, we're also available for weddings and bar mitvahs. *cough!* *cough!*

Seriously, at least Real's offering, however flawed it might be, revolves around increasing your options rather than limiting them. I like the idea that there is a music service who will sell me what I want REGARDLESS of the player I own. I like the idea that such technology might become prevalent and that MANY services would spring up who don't first require a $300 purchase before they deign to do business with me. Call me crazy. Giving consumers real choice (which means the choice of when and how to deal with YOU) is the first step in the right direction.

[BWhaler]

Normally, I would be against Apple in this situation since I hate DRM in all shapes and forms.

But in this case, I say screw Real. They had it coming, and I hope people sue them for false advertising and fraud.

Real tried to own the DRM standard and be the next MS. They put spyware and adware on my machines. They faked a grass roots campaign. The list goes on and on with this company. And it disgusts me they are now about, "choice." Open up your DRM and file formats then.

And it is no surprise since it is run by a former Microsoftie, with all the ethics of Redmond. He didn't get his monopoly, so he's trying to leech off of Apple.

Nice try, but no thanks. Apple should keep sticking it to Real. Screw Real.

[ioinc]

Before I made the very good switch into Mac'land I had already given up on Real Networks brand of corporate spyware. I am glad that Apple is attempting to shield its users from a company such as REAL. My iPod mini (green) proudly sports the brand.


I don't know that you need apple to shield you from this... just don't go there.

Apple is not shielding anything... they are removing an option for their customers.

[proprietary]

A slashdot poster on hypocrisy:
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. ...

[proprietary]

Didn't the USA pass laws a few years ago stating that reverse-engineering of protection measures was illegal?
No (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2281.ENR:).

`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

`(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

`(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

[salmon]

I personally think this is a disgusting move by Apple. When Microsoft does the same thing (try to lock people into certain file formats), every one is rightfully outraged, but Apple receives glowing praise. Just because it's Apple doesn't make it right, they're still trying to limit consumer freedom and lock people into THEIR stuff.

I refuse to buy any music until it's in a file format I can:

move and do whatever the hell I want with.
port it to any computing environment I want without hassle, including Linux.
cheaper, I think songs are quite overpriced.
little to no money goes to the "industry", it goes directly to the artist(s) and the store.


Until consumers FORCE tech companies to give up on this proprietary bullcrap, they'll keep doing it. What happens in the future when someone bought $2000 worth of iTunes songs and they decide they want to run Linux instead, or simply better jukebox software? Perhaps because IBM buys Apple and runs them into the ground? (hey, it's possible) Yeah, I know there's funky PITA ways around it (burn to CD then rip it back), but that's a hack.

Apple can compete (and destroy the competition) on the design of their products, they don't have to play these kinds of games and limit consumers.

Real might suck as a company - I don't know, I don't use their software - but that's really beside the point here.

[wnurse]

1. Because iPod and iTunes are integrated system--and a much better, easier-to-use, and reliable music experience as a result. Letting another company's bugs in the door, and removing iTunes from the process, dilutes that quality and harms Apple's brand. (It's not just about the store--Harmony users can't use iTunes as their jukebox/library manager even! And then iPod-specific features that are connected to iTunes are lost as well. It's a mess, and one that some users and reviewers WOULD incorrectly blame Apple for. Better that Apple share the blame for not allowing the "choice" to have that mess.)

2. Because Apple wants to be able to CHARGE companies to use the iPod. They are offering no such option yet, but it's their right to collect that money when and IF they feel the time is strategic to do so.

3. To show to other companies in other negotiations that they won't be bullied, like Real has tried to do.


Point 1 is the exact same reason microsoft uses to integrate their browser into the operating system. Point 1 is valid for any monopoly or any company in a monopoly position for a product. It's really not a justification to maintain monopoly (so says the federal government, the europeans and a host of other govt's that have sued microsoft).

point 2 is not valid. Does microsoft charge other companies to use windows? Does your dvd maker charge hollywood studios to use their players?. Does your tv set maker charge cbs to use their sets. Point 2 is not valid at all.

point 3. Real bullying apple?. When?. How?.

[Arcady]

Does microsoft charge other companies to use windows?
Why yes, they do.Do you think they give Windows away for free?

Does your dvd maker charge hollywood studios to use their players?
MPEG-LA charges DVD manufacturers for the rights to use the MPEG-2 and CSS system on DVD discs, the answer is also yes.

[wnurse]

I've been reading many post about Real dying. Soon, the Real death predictions will equal the apple death predictions. Yes, i realize that people here don't use real but i have a relevation to many of you. There are lots (and i mean lots) of people that still use real software. There are many websites that still use real format. This is coming from a mac user since 1998. I should know, i use real sometimes. Lets not become those that have been sounding the death of apple for years. They bagan to look foolish and soon we will too. Look around you. How many people post to this forum?. You are not the sum total of the universe. Real is alive and will be for a long time. Even if no one in the U.S uses them, there are over 2 billion people total in asia and india. There are billions more elsewhere. The U.S only has 300 million people and of that, only like 10 post in this forum. The 9 out of 10 people here who don't use real does not indicate real is a dying company.

Just a perspective.
Disclaimer: I've never bought music from real or apple. Actually, i've never bought music online so i have no idea on the relative quality of their offerings.
On the other hand, maybe this makes me a little bit more objective.

[sinisterdesign]

Yes. If Real comes to NZ before Apple does, guess who I'll buy from.

and if Real comes to NZ before Apple, guess what music player you won't be playing the music on? :eek:

i mean, bummer that iTMS isn't available for you yet, but this can NOT be a surprise to anyone that foolishly bit into Real's "marketing" scheme. you know when you buy an iPod that it only works w/ iTMS, so i have no sympathy for anyone who's stuck w/ a bunch of Real's garbage that won't play on their iPod all of a sudden.

there are a ton of dig music players on the market. if someone wants "compatability", don't buy an iPod. it's a closed system. it just happens to be a very good closed system. apple doesn't need your purchase anyhow, they can't keep the shelves stocked. </rant>

[rickag]

...
Seriously, at least Real's offering, however flawed it might be, revolves around increasing your options rather than limiting them....

And I QUOTE
We're sorry
This service is currently not available for Mac

Now please explain to me again how "Real's offering, however flawed it might be, revolves around increasing my[your] options" one tiny bit.
:p

[silverone]

Hello All,

Long time IT professional and newly converted Mac Geek here.
Take a few deep breaths a realize that Apple sits in the best position of anyone here.
Everything they offer is purely optional, nothing is built into a standard OS, browser or media player, iTunes, iPod, Quicktime is all freewill on your part. If you use it, comment on it or want it changed or improved, that means that you've bought into the idea behind it. No one forced you to but a some off ITMS or get the new U2 iPod but you made the choice.
At the end of the day, it's Apple who is riding a wave all on an Impulse Buy - the real goal is to get you to but a new Mac laptop or G5. The iPod is just a taste and an great position to be in. Real, MSN, Napster all offer services and no tangible product. They all have more to loose in terms of just what is there left to sell in Real, Napster, etc, loose total market share? So in the end you have to give Apple all the props for making a real great "pack of gum" to chew on till we all purchase a new iMac. I'm living proof, MS Certified for over 15 years and upon the purchase of an iPod 1G years ago, I've moved on the Apple Certification and Developer status - Oh, and I've also bought three more iPods, a PowerMac G5 and and 17"PB - that's one hell of a Impulse Buy! - silverone - see the bigger picture; no fear of viruses in an attractive package

[sinisterdesign]

I personally think this is a disgusting move by Apple.
...
I refuse to buy any music until it's in a file format I can:

move and do whatever the hell I want with.
port it to any computing environment I want without hassle, including Linux.
cheaper, I think songs are quite overpriced.
little to no money goes to the "industry", it goes directly to the artist(s) and the store.


Real might suck as a company - I don't know, I don't use their software - but that's really beside the point here.

you think Apple just CAME UP with these "rules" out of thin air??!? you think THEY dictated what usage rights consumers have for music. Apple doesn't create this music, the music industry does and the music industry required DRM before they would allow companies like Apple to sell their songs online. i think Apple did a pretty damn good job of negotiating the usage rights.

- they're overpriced? and CDs aren't? go to Barnes & Noble and shell out $18 for a CD and tell me iTMS doesn't seem like a bargain.

- "little money goes to the industry"? i don't know the exact figure, but i believe the industry gets about 70+% of each sale. they of course have to pay the artists, but apple is a reseller, they don't dictate how much an artist gets paid.

- you want to do anything you want w/ your music? tell that to the RIAA (http://www.riaa.com/). they love that kind of gung-ho attitude when it comes to music.

do i like proprietary formats? no. i hate Sony's ATRAC format, that's why i threw my Walkman DMP away and bought an iPod (that and it was compatible w/ my Mac). but until there's a wildly popular opensource DRM'ed format, the music industry isn't going to allow their music to be sold that way. there's no WAY the music industry would allow Apple to sell music in MP3 or Ogg Vorbis format.

do i think the music industry is going to change drastically in the next 5-10 years? absolutely. i think Apple is leading the way on this and so far i think they've done a pretty good job all things considered.

[salmon]

1. Because iPod and iTunes are integrated system--and a much better, easier-to-use, and reliable music experience as a result. Letting another company's bugs in the door, and removing iTunes from the process, dilutes that quality and harms Apple's brand. (It's not just about the store--Harmony users can't use iTunes as their jukebox/library manager even! And then iPod-specific features that are connected to iTunes are lost as well. It's a mess, and one that some users and reviewers WOULD incorrectly blame Apple for. Better that Apple share the blame for not allowing the "choice" to have that mess.)

2. Because Apple wants to be able to CHARGE companies to use the iPod. They are offering no such option yet, but it's their right to collect that money when and IF they feel the time is strategic to do so.

3. To show to other companies in other negotiations that they won't be bullied, like Real has tried to do.

So that's great for Apple... but how is that good for consumers?

[anonymous161]

How is this really any different than PS2 games only playing on a PS2 and XBox games only playing on an XBOX. I mean if I like the XBOX's controller and graphics set then why can't I play Metal Gear Solid 3 or Gran Turismo on it? Sony is just monopolizing the market.

[hayesk]

Get this: when you buy a piece of hardware, IT'S YOURS. It ceases to be Apple's. It ceases to be Steve's. You should be able to do absolutely whatever you want with it, and that includes loading data onto it from third parties. D

Yeah, so do with it as you please. Nobody cares.

You're acting as if Apple is the devil for fixing broken code in their firmware. The fix broke Real's exploitation. Tough. But as you said, it's your iPod - so don't update the firmware. Or hack your own firmware to get the iPod to play whatever you want.

There is a group that is making Linux for the iPod - join them and do what you like.


The existence of Real's offering didn't force you to do anything. It didn't force you to buy from them, and it certainly didn't force you to abandon iTMS. Sure, Real is in it for the money, but they ain't trying to control you. Apple is also in it for the money, but guess what? They ARE trying to control you, and you're lapping it up. Not surprising, given that you're already paying money (lots of money, from the sound of it) for DRM'ed products. At least Real was trying to expand your options, by however little.

Actually Real has screwed over Apple's customers for years with subpar software and now Mac users still can't buy from their store. Real is trying to leech off the iPod's popularity. They're trying to control their bottom line.

Apple is not trying to control you. Your tinfoil hat it on too tight. Apple is protecting their image of offering quality. If Real sells crap that doesn't sound good or work well on the iPod, customers are going to fault Apple for it, and that's bad for business.

When are you going to wake up and stop letting people yank you around with their proprietary standards?
The iPod plays MP3 - that is a standard. Real can give you normal MP3s if they like.

[salmon]

you think Apple just CAME UP with these "rules" out of thin air??!? you think THEY dictated what usage rights consumers have for music. Apple doesn't create this music, the music industry does and the music industry required DRM before they would allow companies like Apple to sell their songs online. i think Apple did a pretty damn good job of negotiating the usage rights.

- they're overpriced? and CDs aren't? go to Barnes & Noble and shell out $18 for a CD and tell me iTMS doesn't seem like a bargain.

- "little money goes to the industry"? i don't know the exact figure, but i believe the industry gets about 70+% of each sale. they of course have to pay the artists, but apple is a reseller, they don't dictate how much an artist gets paid.

- you want to do anything you want w/ your music? tell that to the RIAA (http://www.riaa.com/). they love that kind of gung-ho attitude when it comes to music.

do i like proprietary formats? no. i hate Sony's ATRAC format, that's why i threw my Walkman DMP away and bought an iPod (that and it was compatible w/ my Mac). but until there's a wildly popular opensource DRM'ed format, the music industry isn't going to allow their music to be sold that way. there's no WAY the music industry would allow Apple to sell music in MP3 or Ogg Vorbis format.

do i think the music industry is going to change drastically in the next 5-10 years? absolutely. i think Apple is leading the way on this and so far i think they've done a pretty good job all things considered.

Of course I know who's behind it - the music industry is trying deperately to cling to power and remain in the chain of things. Because if artists can use stores on the internet to distribute their music and get more of the revenue, what purpose does the "industry" serve? I guess to train people into believing they want to listen to garbage like Britney Spears.

Yes, CD's are terribly overpriced too - I've bought maybe a half-dozen in the last 10 years, and they've all been ones that I know I like every song on. And there are a couple of smaller artists I like that sell their songs on MP3 - so I buy them. And iTMS is an improvement, the songs are cheaper than most CDs in stores.

It always amazes me when consumers don't exercise the power they ultimately hold, and they buy into these systems. If everyone stopped buying music unless it was in an open format, it would be in a HEARTBEAT. Just like I stopped watching baseball when they screwed over the Expos, and how I'll stop watching hockey if they don't fix their problems.

At the very least, you should have the option of moving your DRMd music to any other DRM system you want - for example, if Sony did manage to come up with a vastly superior audio device, won't you be pissed off that you can't use it because you invested a lot of money into AAC files?

Screw that, I say - there's plenty of companies trying to get my limited amount of cash, and unless they deliver me the products I want, they aren't getting it.

[wPod]

so i am confused. at what point does apple screw themselves over? yes real is bad for reverse engineering their software to work with the iPod, but, if apple really doesnt allow anyone else close to the big apple in the sky, then wont they turn into the M$ of portable players?! "you can not see our software, we will not be compatible with anyone. .. ******* OFF you little people." wouldnt more people buy iPods if it was compatible with more players and MP3 stores anyway?!?! and thats where apple makes the real money, not off the 99cent sales. remind me again what happened when IBM allowed other companies to produce "IBM compatible PCs" while apple did not allow this?

[JGowan]

It amazes me that so many people on here can act as if somehow all iPods are the property of Apple Computer. My iPod is MINE, not Apple's. I as a owner can do whatever I damn well please with my property, and I shouldn't have to worry about upsetting Big Brother Apple while I do it. I could crush it with a hammer, embed it with diamonds, give it to a friend. So, it's really none of Apple's business what consumers do with their iPods after the purchase.You CAN put just about anything on it, even convert unprotected WMA files on it -- Apple is working to make it very versatile.

WAV; AIFF; MP3; Apple Lossless; AAC; Conversion of WMA files to AAC.

The only thing Apple doesn't allow is protected files from other companies to work. I think that is quite fair. When it becomes a viable and fair way to MAKE money, I'm sure Apple will finally allow others to have their DRM. While it would TAKE money from them, I'm certain Apple won't budge. How can you blame them?!

Blockbuster: They are being forced to discontinue LATE FEES... this is unheard of -- but their hands are being forced because of competition from Netflicks. When competition becomes a factor for Apple and they must license or lose, they will hopefully see the light. But I can't begrudge them for not doing it until it has to happen.

Sony: has their TRAC (sp?) format and no one's bitching at them and their players won't even play all of the other STANDARDS, including the mother of all files: the freaking MP3!

Bottomline - some people create standards and then license them out. Some don't. It's their product. They can sell or not.

If the REAL customers want to keep playing their music on their ipods, there is one REAL simple solution: don't upgrade your firmware. Don't piss and moan, just live with what you have. Later, when you have to have the new 80GB IPOD, then burn your REAL music and bring it over to the Apple in their Lossless format -- it will be some trouble, but you will have gotten your $5 album and been able to circumvent the system.

[superfunkomatic]

i think it's good that apple has responded to real's underhanded way of using their licensing / DRM solution. now, i think it's time for all these weenies and apple to decide on a common format for music - like ISO standards for film, communications symbols, etc. let's get a common format so we can all play nicely in the sandbox.

[rteichman]

As has been said before, the digital music player is still in it's infancy. There was probably a time where there were more Betamax players than VHS. Sony made a few really big mistakes with Betamax but there is no force like JVC and VHS yet on the horizon for Apple. If anything, Apple is the late-comer that took the market away from the early players. I would like to think that Apple won them over with a better product. It's still early though. You won't be able to write this book for another 5 years or so.

Not true! Sony Betamax had the same market share (heck maybe more) that Apple does now with iPod. From a quality and useability perpective betamax was far superior to VHS. Sony's ONLY mistake with Betamax was not licensing it out. JVC (a smaller company than Sony at the time) developed VHS only after being denied license rights by Sony. VHS, a much poorer product, but available everywhere became the standard, and betamax disapeared because unlike Sony JVC licensed the technology to whoever asked for it. Apple is ignoring the lessons that Sony (and even Apple) learned a long time ago.

[hayesk]

I personally think this is a disgusting move by Apple. When Microsoft does the same thing (try to lock people into certain file formats),

This is an argument about the same file format. Not locking people into a format. You don't have to buy songs from iTMS or Real to use the iPod. Nobody's locked into anything.

every one is rightfully outraged, but Apple receives glowing praise. Just because it's Apple doesn't make it right, they're still trying to limit consumer freedom and lock people into THEIR stuff.

Bull. Apple supports MP3 an open format. Real is free to offer MP3. Apple would have to invest money to build an infrastructure to sublicence FairPlay to Real - why would they do that only to lose money to Real. Where's the upside for Apple?

- snipped demands that are enforced by the record industry, not Apple -

simply better jukebox software? Perhaps because IBM buys Apple and runs them into the ground? (hey, it's possible) Yeah, I know there's funky PITA ways around it (burn to CD then rip it back), but that's a hack.

That's a hack?!? And Real's Harmony is also a hack. Why should Apple bend over backwards to support a hack that exposes a flaw in their DRM code?

Real might suck as a company - I don't know, I don't use their software - but that's really beside the point here.
Yes, Real sucks as a company. They jump up and down about wanting to give consumers a choice, but yet they don't even offer music to Mac users. Some choice.

P.S. It's good to see another Nova Scotian on these boards.

[hayesk]

Not true! Sony Betamax had the same market share (heck maybe more) that Apple does now with iPod. From a quality and useability perpective betamax was far superior to VHS. Sony's ONLY mistake with Betamax was not licensing it out. JVC (a smaller company than Sony at the time) developed VHS only after being denied license rights by Sony. VHS, a much poorer product, but available everywhere became the standard, and betamax disapeared because unlike Sony JVC licensed the technology to whoever asked for it. Apple is ignoring the lessons that Sony (and even Apple) learned a long time ago.

A couple of nitpicks - VHS was only poorer when trying to copy over and over again. Original copies of VHS and Beta were very similar. Another iissue was Beta tapes were smaller - they weren't as long at VHS tapes were - bad for longer movies.

[hayesk]

i think it's good that apple has responded to real's underhanded way of using their licensing / DRM solution. now, i think it's time for all these weenies and apple to decide on a common format for music - like ISO standards for film, communications symbols, etc. let's get a common format so we can all play nicely in the sandbox.

The problem is no upside for Apple to do this. Until Apple sees an advantage (which may come way of the record companies demanding it) we won't see it happen.

[proprietary]

And Real's Harmony is also a hack. Why should Apple bend over backwards to support a hack that exposes a flaw in their DRM code?
OpenOffice can save documents that Microsoft Word will accept and open. Does that expose a flaw in Microsoft's code? No, it doesn't. MacOS X can communicate with Windows networks. Does that expose a flaw in Microsoft's code? No, it doesn't.

I suggest you read up on how FairPlay works (http://developers.videolan.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/trunk/modules/demux/mp4/drms.c?rev=8958&view=markup).

[ioinc]

Excellent. Apple needs to protect the iPod from such groups who would like to tap into its success.

Because proprietary systems have worked so well for apple in the past? :rolleyes:

[Gear_media]

Because proprietary systems have worked so well for apple in the past? :rolleyes:

Sony's Playstation and M$'s Xbox are prime examples of proprietary systems working. John Gruber of Daring Fireball explained quite well how iPod v.s. the Macs proprietary systems are completely different beasts in a very comprehensive and well researched blog entry (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/2004_wont_be_like_1984) a few months ago.

[salmon]

This is an argument about the same file format. Not locking people into a format. You don't have to buy songs from iTMS or Real to use the iPod. Nobody's locked into anything.

Bull. Apple supports MP3 an open format. Real is free to offer MP3. Apple would have to invest money to build an infrastructure to sublicence FairPlay to Real - why would they do that only to lose money to Real. Where's the upside for Apple?

That's a good point - I guess I can be accused of getting the two seperate issues mixed up, the DRM and Real's specific tactics. However, there are a couple of points people are bringing up that don't quite make sense when taken together:


Apple insists they aren't making very much money on the iTMS and that it's really acting as a seller for iPods. If that were true, then they would just be trying to get as many music retailers supporting their format as possible, like MS is doing.
If Real sucks that badly (and I believe they do), why would people buy from them anyway? Apple is competing on the quality of their offerings (IMO pretty much the only tech company that tries to) and for that I am deeply impressed - so why this inconsistency?


It's a troubling situation for consumers I see unfolding - Apple controls the music distribution and the devices that support it. So when someone has a lot invested in a music collection, Apple's in charge, not the consumer. MS Office (yuck) provides a nice historical example.

And they wouldn't necessarily lose money - it depends on the licensing terms.

Yes, Real sucks as a company. They jump up and down about wanting to give consumers a choice, but yet they don't even offer music to Mac users. Some choice.

No company is interested in giving consumers choice, but a lot of them mouth off about it a lot. They all want to be Microsoft, and whine when they're not.

P.S. It's good to see another Nova Scotian on these boards.

Ditto, fellow Bluenoser! I saw someone else as well not too long ago. We're few and far between. :)

[Gear_media]

Apple insists they aren't making very much money on the iTMS and that it's really acting as a seller for iPods. If that were true, then they would just be trying to get as many music retailers supporting their format as possible, like MS is doing.


Not so. Bringing all sorts of third parties into the equation dilutes the user experience of the iPod/iTunes/iTMS solution . One of the best selling points of the iPod is its seamless integration with the iTMS. Throw some shoddy third rate company like Real into the mix and apple no longer controls how well the product works.

[Yvan256]

Always? How do you explain the success of the iPod then? Does the market consider it just "good enough"?

Well, ok, let me rephrase that, then:

The market forces usually seems to choose what's "good enough" and not "what's best".

There, feel better? ;-)

[chevyorange]

so i am confused. at what point does apple screw themselves over? yes real is bad for reverse engineering their software to work with the iPod, but, if apple really doesnt allow anyone else close to the big apple in the sky, then wont they turn into the M$ of portable players?! "you can not see our software, we will not be compatible with anyone. .. ******* OFF you little people." wouldnt more people buy iPods if it was compatible with more players and MP3 stores anyway?!?! and thats where apple makes the real money, not off the 99cent sales. remind me again what happened when IBM allowed other companies to produce "IBM compatible PCs" while apple did not allow this?

IBM ended up selling their PC business and is no longer in that game, that is what happened.

[Yvan256]

I like the idea that such technology might become prevalent and that MANY services would spring up who don't first require a $300 purchase before they deign to do business with me. Call me crazy. Giving consumers real choice (which means the choice of when and how to deal with YOU) is the first step in the right direction.

And since when does iTunes/iTMS *requires* an iPod? Nobody's forcing you to buy a portable music player, at all.

[Yvan256]

No (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2281.ENR:).

Nice quote, but then why are the DeCSS programs illegal and even have the authors being thrown in jail?

[peharri]

There was no doubt that Apple wanted to disable or defeat this technology, given Apple's statement in July that RealNetworks was using the "tactics and ethics of a hacker".
I loved this quote. It shows how far Jobs has sold out. I can see Wozniak's reacting to Apple saying this with a quiet and depressed sigh.

I'm depressed Apple feels the need to cripple the iPod. I do not plan to download any more software updates for my 2G model. It's not that I plan to buy anything from Real any time soon, it's just it's *my* iPod, and I don't like the idea that Apple can dictate what I do with it.

Sorry Apple, but the transaction ended when you debited by credit card. I know that concept upsets you, and many of your apologists, but you're a strange company - you produce some wonderful innovative things, but your ethics, frankly, have gone up and down over the last twenty years, from suing everyone over "look and feel" to trying to prevent your customers from buying over the net music from stores other than the iTMS. You people need a slap. You serve us, the public, not vice versa, remember?

[Yvan256]

i mean, bummer that iTMS isn't available for you yet, but this can NOT be a surprise to anyone that foolishly bit into Real's "marketing" scheme. you know when you buy an iPod that it only works w/ iTMS, so i have no sympathy for anyone who's stuck w/ a bunch of Real's garbage that won't play on their iPod all of a sudden.

there are a ton of dig music players on the market. if someone wants "compatability", don't buy an iPod. it's a closed system. it just happens to be a very good closed system. apple doesn't need your purchase anyhow, they can't keep the shelves stocked. </rant>

In fact, what's stopping your from using iTunes and buying an iPod, *even* if there's no iTMS for your country? I've had my 3rd gen, 10GB iPod since around january 2004, and I've been added my bought CDs into iTunes since then. Of course, the topic is online music stores, but with so many people even complaining about DRM and the so-called quality of lossy CODECs and everything, I don't understand why someone would not buy an iPod simply based on the availability of iTMS in their country...

[peharri]

Nice quote, but then why are the DeCSS programs illegal and even have the authors being thrown in jail?
Sorry to inject some facts here, but the legality or otherwise of DeCSS remains controvertial and unclear. Nobody is in jail. Nobody has ever been sentenced to jail over DeCSS.

The nearest thing to a ruling against DeCSS was the infamous Judge Kaplan ruling against the magazine 2600, where the context of DeCSS was clearly an issue. At the time, it was claimed, in court and elsewhere, that it was the fact DeCSS was a Windows application (originally) that made it blatently obvious it was designed to circumvent controls. There are implementations of CSS decrypters that are Linux only and are clearly provided as a way to implement DVD players - those remain a potential legal test case, if and when the DVD-CCA decides to prosecute, and it's far from certain they'd win.

[Yvan256]

[...] At the very least, you should have the option of moving your DRMd music to any other DRM system you want - for example, if Sony did manage to come up with a vastly superior audio device, won't you be pissed off that you can't use it because you invested a lot of money into AAC files? [...]

Well, it's a technological situation. Replace the word "music" to "movie", and you'll see you're probably ALREADY locked into the loop...

For example, if companies did manage to come up with a vastly superior movie format (such as Blue-ray DVD or HD-DVD), won't you be pissed off that you can't use it (the higher quality) because you invested a lot of money into DVDs (which are lower quality)?

The only way to prevent such a thing is to buy actual music CDs (unless you happen to want those SuperCDs or Music DVDs). For movies, it's already way too late (and would probably require a few Terabytes per movie, anyway - we're still very far from having that available to the average customer).

[Gear_media]

You serve us, the public, not vice versa, remember?

Exactly. By making sure that you are getting the best user experience possible.

Real isn't offering choice. They are offering a "locked in" solution of their own that tries make people want a different mp3 player. You cant transfer your Real purchased songs with iTunes to the iPod, You have to use your Real software. When Apple (through no fault of their own) breaks the ability then people cry foul and want something else. Real is catering to Dell and Creative and Sony.

[Yvan256]

OpenOffice can save documents that Microsoft Word will accept and open. Does that expose a flaw in Microsoft's code? No, it doesn't. MacOS X can communicate with Windows networks. Does that expose a flaw in Microsoft's code? No, it doesn't.

I suggest you read up on how FairPlay works (http://developers.videolan.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/trunk/modules/demux/mp4/drms.c?rev=8958&view=markup).

But is Microsoft forced to check if any modification in their software/format will break OpenOffice support? No.

Same thing with Apple, they can do whatever they want with their closed system. If it happens to break a hack from someone, too bad. They're under no obligation to support hacks!

[proprietary]

Nice quote, but then why are the DeCSS programs illegal and even have the authors being thrown in jail?
Removing DRM (DeCSS) is the opposite of adding DRM (Harmony). One is illegal (without permission), the other is not.

And as peharri pointed out, nobody has ever been jailed over DeCSS.

[Yvan256]

Apple insists they aren't making very much money on the iTMS and that it's really acting as a seller for iPods. If that were true, then they would just be trying to get as many music retailers supporting their format as possible, like MS is doing.



Well, for competitors to be compatible with iPod, wouldn't they have to open up the iPod specs, and in turn the iTunes specs? That would give competitors the ability to ride on both the iPod and iTunes success, and even iTMS if we stretch things a bit.

What if you could buy that el-cheapo 50$, 128MB flash player and use it with iTunes (and even iTMS)? You sure wouldn't even consider the iPod (well, price-wise only, anyway).

[Yvan256]

Sorry to inject some facts here, but the legality or otherwise of DeCSS remains controvertial and unclear. Nobody is in jail. Nobody has ever been sentenced to jail over DeCSS.

The nearest thing to a ruling against DeCSS was the infamous Judge Kaplan ruling against the magazine 2600, where the context of DeCSS was clearly an issue. At the time, it was claimed, in court and elsewhere, that it was the fact DeCSS was a Windows application (originally) that made it blatently obvious it was designed to circumvent controls. There are implementations of CSS decrypters that are Linux only and are clearly provided as a way to implement DVD players - those remain a potential legal test case, if and when the DVD-CCA decides to prosecute, and it's far from certain they'd win.

Really? (http://itvibe.com/default.aspx?NewsID=1105)

[proprietary]

But is Microsoft forced to check if any modification in their software/format will break OpenOffice support? No.

Same thing with Apple, they can do whatever they want with their closed system. If it happens to break a hack from someone, too bad. They're under no obligation to support hacks!
Apple's update didn't just happen to break Harmony. They deliberately made changes to break Harmony.

They've changed the name and the format of the key file on the iPod. It used to be named iSCInfo2, now it's named iEKInfo, and the format is completely different.

Apple is under no obligation to verify that they don't break 3rd party code. However, deliberately making changes to break 3rd party code is completely different. If Microsoft makes changes in Longhorn to break MacOS X's Windows networking support, I'm sure people here will be singing a different tune.

[capvideo]

From a quality and useability perpective betamax was far superior to VHS.

Usability? Sony set the Betamax length to only an hour. This made it impossible to timeshift movies.

Later, after the Beta format had already lost, Sony chose to increase the length of betamax tapes, but by then it was too late.

That, I think, was the number one reason that VHS won. Beta was completely useless for what people actually did with their tapes: timeshift movies. Beta was an inferior format compared to VHS because of this.

Consumers do occasionally factor usability into their purchases. Witness VHS, and witness the iPod.

As far as quality goes, I think that "far superior" is stretching things quite a bit. On my television set from that time period I had a hard enough time telling the quality difference between VHS standard and VHS extended play. Beta wasn't better than VHS by as much as VHS standard is better than VHS extended.

But it doesn't matter, because no matter how much "better" Beta's playback quality was, if Beta couldn't timeshift a movie it was useless and inferior.

Jerry

[shooterlv]

I don't understand why people are getting mad at Apple for supporting their product. You purchased the iPod knowing that they didn't support RealMedia. Apple has never said that they support them. So why are you getting mad when they don't support them.

If someone wrote a hack that allowed you to run OS X on a pentium processor and six months later Intel updated their chipsets to not run this hack. I would not be mad at Intel. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

Apple is supporting their iPods so that they work exactly the way Apple has always said. There is nothing wrong with that. If anyone purchased an iPod because of Real's hack then I feel sorry for them. They should have researched and realized that Apple did not support it and it may not work forever. If real's music were corrupted or failed to play to the quality that iPod users expect, Apple's iPod would be judged not Real.

[radio893fm]

One again I am dissapointed by the Apple fans. Weren't you the ones that criticize MS because of some type of "unfair market" practices or some crap like that? So what is Apple doing here?

You guys have to wake up once and for all. Be consisten with your ideas please.

And...

real is just using iPod's popularity to its advantage, while giving nothing back to apple. it's pretty clear who needs the other more in this case...


Jajajaja. Is this a joke? The iPod is what it is because of the MP3 revolution... not iTunes... please! So Apple used the popularity of MP3 in its advantage and what was wrong with that?

[joeboy_45101]

Not unless you accept a software/firmware update from Apple :)

I agree, Apple only has the right to make such a change without warning to NEW iPods sold, not ones already out there.

However, I suspect in the fine print you agreed to upon installing updates, you'll find something that legally IS sufficient warning. And you'd have found additional warnings in Real's own legalese.

The big problem at the heart of it all is DRM. You don't have the right to break the law and pirate music, and DRM enforces that. But a lot of potential hassles can result--and Real has just created one of them. It is a shame that legal downloads would never have taken off without DRM. Thank the pirates and the RIAA.

I don't see how accepting updated software makes the iPod the property of Apple. I see this as a desperate act from Apple to maintain control, sort of like a washed-up rockstar who hasn't brought out anything new in years and is just trying to make money now by going after copyrights and releasing greatest-hits albums. I mean think about it, the only new things that they can bring to the iPod is a click-wheel and a color screen, WOW!

Oh, and they've been complete assholes about supporting older generation iPods. How hard is it really? I know that not all new software features are going to be available to the older iPods but they shouldn't just lie and say that the hardware is that much different. They make is sound, dealing with the hardware, that the 4G iPod and the Older iPods are as different as Mac and PC; night and day; cat and dog; apples and oranges. If they can make OS 10.3 run on my iMac G3 DV SE and make it run on a PowerMac G5, then they can give the older iPods an decent software update.

The problem is not DRM. I think Apple is burnt out right now, they are out of revolutionary ideas when it comes to the iPod. I feel the exact opposite about their computers though, so don't get upset and feel I am some Apple-bashing PC person. I love my Mac.

[proprietary]

Really? (http://itvibe.com/default.aspx?NewsID=1105)
Both Reuters (http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2003/12/22/rtr1189107.html) and AP (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/09/tech/main532369.shtml) reported that he was acquitted.

According to a newspaper in the guy's home country, he was acquitted (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article696330.ece). I somehow doubt that they're flat out wrong and that some wannabee news site called itvibe is correct.

[JGowan]

...I do not plan to download any more software updates for my 2G model... Sorry Apple, but the transaction ended when you debited by credit card. I know that concept upsets you, and many of your apologists, but you're a strange company...Boo-radley Hoo. See ya!

[peharri]

Exactly. By making sure that you are getting the best user experience possible.

No, breaking my ability to play my music is not giving me the best user experience possible.

Real isn't offering choice. They are offering a "locked in" solution of their own that tries make people want a different mp3 player. You cant transfer your Real purchased songs with iTunes to the iPod, You have to use your Real software.

And you have to use iTunes to put iTMS music on your iPod. For goodness sake! What you're posting implies nothing more than that Real could be described as being just as bad as Apple, not worse. And, when it comes down to it, no Real is not being "just as bad as Apple", because they're both offering iPod owners a choice of multiple music vendors, and offering people who buy music from them a choice of hardware vendor for the player.

I'm sure the apologists would also justify it if all of a sudden I could only play Sony DVDs on a Sony DVD player, and couldn't play them on anyone else's, or play Universal DVDs on a Sony. "Sony is just trying to give you the best possible user experience!" they'd argue. No, they're not. They're trying to lock me in to a particular set of buying options.

If I choose to use just the iTMS and Apple iPod and iTunes, then, clearly, I get the Apple "buying experience". So the "buying experience" is always open to me. To imply that that it should be difficult to get out of that "buying experience", because in some way, that would benefit me, is silly.

When Apple (through no fault of their own) breaks the ability then people cry foul and want something else. Real is catering to Dell and Creative and Sony.
Through no fault of their own? Are you serious? Are you the only person who really believes Apple didn't deliberately cripple the functionality? Not even MacRumors believes that, they emphatically quoted Apple's anti-Wozniak slam on their front page.

Real isn't catering to Dell and Creative and Sony. It's catering to as many music player buyers as possible. Real is independent. It needs to support as many players as possible, or else it dies because it has too few customers.

I remain amazed at the total and blind devotion so many Apple users have to Apple. Apple is not a God. It is not perfect. It does do bad things. It betrays its founding principles and has done on many an occasion. In this case, it is removing an option, removing a feature, that clearly people wanted to use, that didn't in any way cause any damage to users.

That's a *bad* thing. Not a good thing. It's unambigiously bad. Apple is screwing the customers here. Real isn't wonderful, but they're doing absolutely nothing wrong in this particular instance that Apple isn't doing anyway. I don't take Real's side or Apple's side, I take *my* side. Get your damned dirty paws off my iPod. Stop Real doing this, and you stop *everyone* doing this.

[adamberti]

Sorry Apple, but the transaction ended when you debited by credit card. I know that concept upsets you, and many of your apologists, but you're a strange company - you produce some wonderful innovative things, but your ethics, frankly, have gone up and down over the last twenty years, from suing everyone over "look and feel" to trying to prevent your customers from buying over the net music from stores other than the iTMS. You people need a slap. You serve us, the public, not vice versa, remember?

Like most business', Apple is responsbile to their shareholders, not their customers. If it was in their investors best interests to close up shop and stop losing money, that is what would happen. It wouldnt matter how much consumers whined and complained. Most often making their customers happy makes their investors happy, but occasionally not.

In this case, Apple's sees it in their best interest to keep the iPod as closed as possible. We will just have to wait and see the outcome.

However, I'm not supporting Apple in their decision, as I think that is great what Real is doing, trying to create competition and choice for consumers.

[dejo]

However, I'm not supporting Apple in their decision, as I think that is great what Real is doing, trying to create competition and choice for consumers.

As has been stated earlier, if Real is really trying to create choice than how come I can't use the Real Player Music Store on a Mac?

[Gear_media]

In this case, it is removing an option, removing a feature, that clearly people wanted to use, that didn't in any way cause any damage to users.

An option CLEARLY unsupported by the company you bought it from. It was never a "feature" as you suggest. It was a hack by a company that had nothing to do with your original decision to purchase an iPod. The iPod is still 100% compatible with ANY music you own. Burn a CD from Real's files and rip them into iTunes if you have a problem with iTMS. Inconvienient? Yes, but no one is forcing you at gunpoint to use Apples service.

Just because people "clearly" want to use a "feature" doesn't mean Apple is under any obligation to support it whatsoever. Especially if they implicitly state that they won't.

Apple is, and always has been, fond of proprietary systems. This isn't news. They've been like that from the start. It allows them to release quality controlled products that "just work." You knew this going in. You are obviously not happy about it, but unfortunately for you that's just the way Apple works. Want to do something about it? Get a Dell DJ and come back after attempting to sync it a few times. Then tell us how wonderful and easy the user experience is with that.

If Real was all for freedom of choice as they claim, their service would be compatible with Mac. That's hypocrisy. Apple allows you freedom to use whatever service you want. You have to work slightly harder to get your songs on your iPod but YOU are the one who chose to buy an iPod and use someone else's service in the first place.

[grobbins]

As has been stated earlier, if Real is really trying to create choice than how come I can't use the Real Player Music Store on a Mac?
Because it's pointless competing with the iTunes jukebox software on the Mac (MusicMatch and Panic have given up; no commercial developers offer competing jukebox software on the Mac now.) iTunes doesn't support protected files from any source other than iTunes Music Store, nor does iTunes support any alternative music stores.

[adamberti]

As has been stated earlier, if Real is really trying to create choice than how come I can't use the Real Player Music Store on a Mac?

As I understand it, they rely on Microsoft's WMA DRM. And that is not available on the Mac. All Real can do right now is create choice for Windows users, not Mac users.

[grobbins]

As I understand it, they rely on Microsoft's WMA DRM. And that is not available on the Mac. All Real can do right now is create choice for Windows users, not Mac users.
No, Real uses its own DRM for the RealPlayer Music Store on Windows, and Real's DRM is supported in RealPlayer 10 for Mac OS X.

[adamberti]

No, Real uses its own DRM for the RealPlayer Music Store on Windows, and Real's DRM is supported in RealPlayer 10 for Mac OS X.

I had no idea. :o

[dejo]

Because it's pointless competing with the iTunes jukebox software on the Mac (MusicMatch and Panic have given up; no commercial developers offer competing jukebox software on the Mac now.) iTunes doesn't support protected files from any source other than iTunes Music Store, nor does iTunes support any alternative music stores.

Why is it pointless to compete with iTunes?

If iTunes doesn't support protected files from other sources and doesn't support alternative stores, that sounds like a perfect opportunity to produce a competing product that does.

[ioinc]

Not so. Bringing all sorts of third parties into the equation dilutes the user experience of the iPod/iTunes/iTMS solution . One of the best selling points of the iPod is its seamless integration with the iTMS. Throw some shoddy third rate company like Real into the mix and apple no longer controls how well the product works.

I agree... In fact I think apple should see what they can do about stopping 3rd party vendors from writing apps for the mac os platform... some of those apps really suck. And as we all know when somebody writes a bad application we all blame the computer manufacturer. :rolleyes:

[Yvan256]

Both Reuters (http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2003/12/22/rtr1189107.html) and AP (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/09/tech/main532369.shtml) reported that he was acquitted.

According to a newspaper in the guy's home country, he was acquitted (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article696330.ece). I somehow doubt that they're flat out wrong and that some wannabee news site called itvibe is correct.

The guy DID end up doing jail time anyway, and was my point in the first place. I never said "someone is in jail for the rest of his life for DeCSS".

[proprietary]

The guy DID end up doing jail time anyway
No, he DID NOT.

DVD-Jon wins new legal victory (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article696330.ece)
Norway's most famous computer whiz got an early Christmas present on Monday. An appeals court in Oslo upheld Jon Lech Johansen's earlier acquittal on all counts of alleged copyright violations.

Acquitted first time = NO JAIL TIME
Acquitted on appeal = NO JAIL TIME
Prosecution did not appeal to Supreme Court (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2004-01-05-decss-case-closed_x.htm) = NO JAIL TIME

If you want to believe that every major news organisation in the world is wrong and that some wannabe IT news site is correct, go ahead. I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to convince someone that deluded.

PS: The itvibe article you linked was dated December 12, 2003 and claims that "An appeal is set to be lodged on 22nd December 2003". Then on December 23, 2003 the very same "journalist" (haha) at itvibe reports that he was acquitted (http://itvibe.com/default.aspx?NewsID=1128) (just as every major news organisation reported the day before). It's pretty obvious what happened. When the prosecution on December 12 asked for a 90-day suspended jail sentence, the "journalist" (haha) at itvibe thought that was actually the judgement. There was no appeal to be lodged on December 22nd - that was actually the date when the judgement would be handed down.

[superfunkomatic]

If Real was all for freedom of choice as they claim, their service would be compatible with Mac. That's hypocrisy. Apple allows you freedom to use whatever service you want. You have to work slightly harder to get your songs on your iPod but YOU are the one who chose to buy an iPod and use someone else's service in the first place.

amen to that. if you don't like it, find your damn alternatives. that like telling ford that you've replaced parts in your car from a hyundai, and strangely they are incompatible. we'll, they weren't intended to be compatible.

this debate really is pointless - if you like real, use it. if you like another use it. if they are incompatible, tough luck for now - do the extra work to rip the tunes again if it's that "important".

[psycho bob]

Usability? Sony set the Betamax length to only an hour. This made it impossible to timeshift movies...

But it doesn't matter, because no matter how much "better" Beta's playback quality was, if Beta couldn't timeshift a movie it was useless and inferior.

Jerry

Although off topic (sorry) I do find the Betamax comparison interesting. What IMHO killed Beta as a format wasn't anything to do with the fact its recording time was limited but more to do with licensing. Sony never licensed the technology so while VHS prices were tumbling and advertising was all around Beta was a one man band. We still have a Betamax recorder (under the bed!) it is built like a tank. The actual picture quality was far superior to VHS machines of the same time period.
Apple do need to be careful, they cannot afford to end up looking like the bad guy otherwise all the possitive moves and coverage they have had will be forgotten. Microsoft made good software and were very innovative but that is all forgotten now and they are just the big corporation out to rule the world at any cost in the eye of the public. I do not and cannot condone what Real have done and indeed are doing. Whether their breaking of Apple's DRM is legal or not the way they have reported this as an act for the good of all rather than just a cheap ploy to make money themselves on the back of another companies success is appalling.

[Scottgfx]

Not true! Sony Betamax had the same market share (heck maybe more) that Apple does now with iPod.

Hmmm, I seem to recall saying that Betamax probably did have a larger market share at one time. So my statement is not necessarily "not true".

From a quality and useability perpective betamax was far superior to VHS. Sony's ONLY mistake with Betamax was not licensing it out.

Yes, we are all aware of the facts, which is why Betamax is so often brought up in these discussions.

It's not all apples to apples though. Sony didn't license. Apple doesn't share Protected AAC. The difference here is that Apple is in a commanding position and there is not yet a technology that appears to be in a position to knock Apple out of that perch. WMA? Well perhaps someday, but there are different dynamics in play. The iPod is still the machine everyone wants, therefore AAC and Protected AAC will continue to be strong.

I think this may be the reason everyone is trying to build the "iPod Killer". Until a portable player dethrones the iPod, consumers have little reason to switch from Betamax to VHS... Or make that AAC to WMA.

Perhaps if Sony had the ability in the late `70's or early `80's to bring exclusive content to the Betamax. What if Star Wars was only available on Beta? Could Sony have built an empire around the format? Perhaps we're seeing where Apple has learned from past failures of not only themselves, but of Sony?

BTW. I have no less than 4 or 5 Betamax machines here at the house. :)

[nationElectric]

amen to that. if you don't like it, find your damn alternatives. that like telling ford that you've replaced parts in your car from a hyundai, and strangely they are incompatible. we'll, they weren't intended to be compatible.

Always with the terrible car analogies! What is with the kids today and the terrible car analogies?

It's like buying replacement parts from third party, like, say, Flowmaster. A part that was specifically intended to be compatible. Guess what? Most of the time they work just fine, and sometimes even better than OEM parts. Guess what else? Nobody in their right mind has a serious complaint with Ford when they buy a crappy exhaust system manufactured by somebody else.

Now, if Ford mechanics punched holes in your Flowmaster exhaust system every time you took it in for a checkup, that's be a different story...

Oh, the car analogies!

[nationElectric]

As has been stated earlier, if Real is really trying to create choice than how come I can't use the Real Player Music Store on a Mac?


Probably because it's quicker and cheaper to get a software package out the door for one platform instead of two. It's worth remembering that this issue specifically concerns iPod owners, and that there are quite a number of Windows users who own iPods. Steve Himself has blessed that reality, so you can't really blame Real for responding to it.

That said, Real has clearly stated that they want to license their technology to third parties, and there is every reason to believe that it's in their interest (or that of one of their licensees) to open it up at some point to Mac users.

[Scottgfx]

What IMHO killed Beta as a format wasn't anything to do with the fact its recording time was limited but more to do with licensing
It took the industry almost 20 years to get the VCR to the consumer. There were attempts back in the 1960's to make consumer recorders. Sony's first attempt was the 3/4" U-Matic from 1971. That format was instead adopted by TV stations for news gathering and was in wide use for 20 years. Betamax was the first practical consumer VTR in the US. That one hour recording time shows that the industry didn't yet know what the consumer would do with a VCR. They didn't know that people would want to rent or buy copies of movies. As the consumers tastes were tabulated, the machines evolved. Perhaps JVC was able to look at market data in 1976 about Betamax and see that their machine needed to record for double the time?

Apple wasn't the first in either portable players or online music stores. They were able to analyze the markets and see the opportunity. Their success lies in the fact that they innovated the 'look and feel', usability and made it hip all at the same time. Everyone else is now trying to figure out what Apple did right, and cannot see the big picture. It's not just one cool feature on a player, it's everything as it comes together.

It's interesting why the Betamax cassette shell is the size that it is. The chairman of Sony held up a paperback book and said that the cassette should be that size. :)

[nationElectric]

Yeah, so do with it as you please. Nobody cares...<snip!>


First of all, as the owner of a 3G iPod, you're right -- Apple certainly doesn't seem to care much about my hardware anymore. So kudos there. But getting on with it...

Do you know that Apple broke Harmony by accident, or are you just speculating? If it was entirely by chance, you know what? I'm cool with it. I don't expect Apple to go out of its way to accomodate Real. Real took a gamble and paid a price. That said, I find it pretty difficult to believe that there was no conscious intent on Apple's part. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that it was accidental, and there's plenty of reason to believe it was deliberate -- snarky PR flaks aside, changes to the format aside, they're pretty clearly orienting their business model around a closed system. Even putting all that aside, there seem to be a lot of people here who believe that it was intentional, and who support it in that case, and that's the whipping dog mentality that concerns me here.

So then, the story is about Apple disabling third-party DRM on iPods. Literally, that is the story that started this thread: "Apple Disabling RealNetworks Harmony Technology." You can wave your hands all you want about MP3s or the availability of Real's store to Mac users, but that's all entirely beside the point. Real is offering a product that allows iPod owners to put more music on their iPods, more kinds of music on their iPods, music from different services on their iPods. None of it with Apple's consent or control. And while this doesn't currently affect iPod owners who also happen to be Mac owners, it probably will eventually. Real has been pretty clear that it wants to license its technology.

Note that none of this effects iTMS in any way. None of this forces people to abandon iTunes. None of this effects the user experience people have come to expect from Apple. And you know, I have trouble imagining it would harm Apple's image all that much -- people generally understand that buying off-brand products carries a certain amount of risk with it. It's an entrenched concept. In the end analysis, it just gives people more options. So why does Apple take such offense to it?

Apple has built a DRM strategy for itself that in every way revolves around maintaining the tightest, most closed system possible. If other people can sell music for iPods, guess what? It cuts into iTMS's profits. More than that, iTMS is basically a loss-leader (or near enough to one) for the sale of new iPods, and so obviously Harmony cuts into that action. But even MORE than that, the existence of a (relatively) portable DRM format gives users the ability to LEAVE. Given the relatively short life of an iPod (18 months? two years? three, maybe?) an iPod owner is going to be making that decision sooner or later. On the other hand, if somebody buys hundreds or (lord forbid) thousands of DRM'ed songs that ONLY work on the iPod, they'd have to be out of their minds to leave. In that world there's little need to support users with older hardware, but plenty of incentive to keep cranking out newer, shinier models constantly -- which brings us back to my ancient 3G iPod that nobody cares about.

There's no tinfoil here, man, just marketing realities. This isn't even NEWS. Vendors have been playing games like this -- this EXACT game, actually -- to keep customers coming back by artificially restricting their ability to choose. It's called lock-in, it has nothing to do with "protecting an image of quality," and it has everything to do with trying to keep your customers on a really, really short leash.

So, yeah. Control. Lap it up, love it, because they want you to be in it for the long haul.

[adamberti]

...But even MORE than that, the existence of a (relatively) portable DRM format gives users the ability to LEAVE. Given the relatively short life of an iPod (18 months? two years? three, maybe?) an iPod owner is going to be making that decision sooner or later. On the other hand, if somebody buys hundreds or (lord forbid) thousands of DRM'ed songs that ONLY work on the iPod, they'd have to be out of their minds to leave. In that world there's little need to support users with older hardware, but plenty of incentive to keep cranking out newer, shinier models constantly -- which brings us back to my ancient 3G iPod that nobody cares about.

There's no tinfoil here, man, just marketing realities. This isn't even NEWS. Vendors have been playing games like this -- this EXACT game, actually -- to keep customers coming back by artificially restricting their ability to choose. It's called lock-in, it has nothing to do with "protecting an image of quality," and it has everything to do with trying to keep your customers on a really, really short leash.

So, yeah. Control. Lap it up, love it, because they want you to be in it for the long haul.

Well said. Just wanted to add in some more of the business side to it. It's called Porter's 5 Forces. One of them is your customers. You do the best you can stop them from gaining power over you. As many companies do, you lock them in. Airlines are the same way with their frequent flyer programs. If you leave, you lose all those built-up points, why leave? How about a bank. The effort involved in closing accounts and moving banks is not worth it (if you've got savings, chequing, mortgage, investments, credit). It's so bad in the cell phone market, they charge you incredibly high prices, or force you into a contract. Why do you think the Wireless carriers are trying to stop the push to allow the movement of phone numbers between carriers? Switching costs! My current carrier would have to mess up royally and screw me over before I would even consider switching.

Same goes for here. Apple is trying to take away the customers ability to leave. If you've got the hundred's of dollars in 'Fairplay' songs, are you going to switch to a competitor? Not likely. It's also a major reason PC people give for not switching, the are incredibly high costs to switch. Companies do everything they can to stop you from switching. And nothing makes Apple any different. If someone can switch into their system, they can certainly switch out. And Apple wants to catch everyone in their nets before consumers make a choice.

[nationElectric]

... Same goes for here. Apple is trying to take away the customers ability to leave. If you've got the hundred's of dollars in 'Fairplay' songs, are you going to switch to a competitor? Not likely. It's also a major reason PC people give for not switching, the are incredibly high costs to switch. Companies do everything they can to stop you from switching. And nothing makes Apple any different. If someone can switch into their system, they can certainly switch out. And Apple wants to catch everyone in their nets before consumers make a choice.

Right on! Brings to mind the whole Switcher ad campaign, and the relentless intensity with which they pursued it... Apple understands all too well how powerful a force this is.

On a loosely related note, I just read a great article from drunkenblog on this whole sordid issue. It goes waaay beyond what I said and is quite a bit more eloquent about it... Interesting stuff. I doubt it will go over with the whole dissent-from-Apple-must-be-dementia crowd, but here ya go:

http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/000313.html#more

And now it's 6am, and sleep beckons...

[salmon]

There's no tinfoil here, man, just marketing realities. This isn't even NEWS. Vendors have been playing games like this -- this EXACT game, actually -- to keep customers coming back by artificially restricting their ability to choose. It's called lock-in, it has nothing to do with "protecting an image of quality," and it has everything to do with trying to keep your customers on a really, really short leash.

So, yeah. Control. Lap it up, love it, because they want you to be in it for the long haul.

This is exactly correct, and what my comment in an earlier post was getting at. WHY do customers have any tolerance for this at all? I suspect it's ignorance and that people simply don't give it the consideration it deserves, because it's a no-brainer to anyone who has spent a minute or two thinking about it. It is an astoundingly bad idea to allow a company to lock you or your business in, yet 95% of the world continues to allow it to happen. Somehow, most people I talk to about it have even allowed themselves to be convinced by marketing types that it's a GOOD THING!! And DRM'd music is one thing, but how can anyone explain allowing a company to control THEIR OWN intellectual property?

I switched to Apple because of their fantastic products, but only because they had great support for industry standards. I make a very consious effort to ensure everything I have is in a cross-platform format, because if Apple pisses me off, I'll go back to Linux where the concept of open is epitomized. This iPod/iTMS controversy is a black mark against Apple as far as I'm concerned, but since I never bought (nor will buy) ANY DRM'd music, it's not a practical concern for me, just in principle.

And the idea of them doing it to "protect the iPod/iTMS experience" is absurd, as has already been quite articulately rebutted.

And Apple doesn't need to play these kinds of games anyway. Why are people buying iPods? Because they support AAC files? Or because they are a fantastically engineered product that is better than the competitors? People (including me) love iPhoto, but all of it's data is stored in XML, JPGs, GIFs, etc.

Apple is without peer in their ability to provide a great experience and deliver products people like to use. They should trust themselves enough to compete on those terms, it earns them much more respect and long-term customers than BS like closed formats. It'll backfire on them some day, unless they plan on opening up the file format at some point.

[salmon]

Boo-radley Hoo. See ya!

Ah, another one of those rather intelligent comments that is meant to be helpful I guess.

Most of us on these boards seem to be interested in debating ideas, with a focus on how Apple could be a better company for all, including the poster you replied to.

I don't think these types of comments are helpful, but it does make you (and others who make them) look like an ass, IMO.

[wnurse]

Why yes, they do.Do you think they give Windows away for free?


MPEG-LA charges DVD manufacturers for the rights to use the MPEG-2 and CSS system on DVD discs, the answer is also yes.


First, microsoft sells windows, they do not charge people to use windows. After buying windows, you are free to develop any software for the operating system without paying microsoft a fee. Apple sells ipods, why after selling ipods, should they then be allowed to charge people to use it?

MPLEG-LA may charge dvd manufacturers but the dvd manufactores then incude that cost in the dvd drives they sell. After selling the drives, they do not demand hollywood studios pay them a fee to create a dvd that play in the drives. I can see from your response you did not understand the points being made. Think of it this way.. if you made a personal dvd of your vacation trip, do you have to call whatever manafactorer and make a payment to them?.

Basically, why should real have to pay apple to make software compatible with ipods? Does griffin pay apple for each fm transmitter that they make for the ipods? This makes no sense.

[Yvan256]

No, he DID NOT.

Acquitted first time = NO JAIL TIME
Acquitted on appeal = NO JAIL TIME
Prosecution did not appeal to Supreme Court = NO JAIL TIME

So, he didn't do any jail time. But do you see that the DMCA is so powerful that they brought him to court for such a thing? He had to write software which, in the eyes of the industry, was illegal? Can't you see the media industry is passing laws that aren't equal justice?

Software patents are a bad thing too, I mean, Atari was able to get a patent on the concept of "sprites"!

Next time you know, somebody will patent the knife and fork, and we'll all have to eat using sporks (http://www.sonic.net/~ian/Spork/spork.faq.html)!

Ok, so I'm rambling off here. :D

[Yvan256]

Basically, why should real have to pay apple to make software compatible with ipods? Does griffin pay apple for each fm transmitter that they make for the ipods? This makes no sense.

Well, in hardware/software there's usually a "dev kit" you can purchase from the original company. It gives you the real specs, the right development tools, etc. It allows you to make a software/product that'll be sure to work 100% with the system.

Acclaim does pay Nintendo to develop games for the Gamecube. Tecmo does pay Microsoft to develop games for the Xbox. I'm sure Griffin paid Apple to get a "hardware interfacing development kit" from Apple. Motorola surely paid Apple for a "DRM playback kit" for their upcoming iTunes-enabled cellphone (or whatever they're gonna call it).

Real asked Apple for a DRM dev.kit, Apple said no, and Real hacked their way into the iPod anyway. They're simply paying the price for being stupid and acting like a child. Why should Apple be careful with their updates (intentionally or not) for hacks from other companies?

Real didn't pay Apple anything, why should Apple waste money on trying to keep Apple's hacks compatible with their updates?

[salmon]

First, microsoft sells windows, they do not charge people to use windows.

Actually, this is exactly what they do, according to the EULA. When you pay Microsoft money, you're purchasing the ability to use windows, not do with it what you want. For example, the license is only allowed to be transferred once.

You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer").

This is also an interesting bit related to use restrictions.

ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT.

Analysis
Here, by excluding implied covenant quiet enjoyment, the EULA is removing the user's rights to use the software as they see fit, and neutralising the right the user has to be left alone in the 'quiet enjoyment' of the use of this software. The covenant essentially states that a user has the right to use
the software without interference by the software publisher.
By excluding the the right to quiet possession, the EULA is removing the user's right to privacy and peaceable usage of this software. By analogy, someone who is renting a house does possess the implied right of quiet possession, whereby the landlord cannot intrude on the renter's privacy (for
example, by entering the house when the renter is not there, through the use of a master key.)


(Source: www.cybersource.com.au/cyber/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf)

[iPost]

Jez.

You guys complain all day about Microsoft..in fact it's hard to click on a thread in this entire forum without seeing something that bad-mouths microsoft for acting exactly like Apple is starting to act.

Glad to see the devotion didn't come without some blindness, too.

This thread sounds, for the most part, like M$ fanboys, except the M$ has been replaced with Apple.

for shame


I couldn't agree with you more. During the DOS days, Microsoft had the mantra of "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" to stifle its competition. Apple is doing the same thing.

What's next? How would all feel when Apple releases an iPod software update that no longer allows you to play MP3 files on your iPod and only allows music (AAC) purchased from their iTunes store to play?

[dejo]

How would all feel when Apple releases an iPod software update that no longer allows you to play MP3 files on your iPod and only allows music (AAC) purchased from their iTunes store to play?

If they did this, I would feel old. Very old. Cuz it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. There is just too much music encoded in MP3 out there for Apple to abandon this right now. Could you imagine the public backlash? Look at all the griping on this issue, mostly from people who aren't even directly affected (i.e. those that did buy tunes from the Real Player Music Store and can no longer play them on their iPod). I don't even want to picture what would happen if they made a move that so directly affected a HUGE portion of their customer base.

[iPost]

Not so. Bringing all sorts of third parties into the equation dilutes the user experience of the iPod/iTunes/iTMS solution . One of the best selling points of the iPod is its seamless integration with the iTMS. Throw some shoddy third rate company like Real into the mix and apple no longer controls how well the product works.


I don't buy that argument. Let the market decide here. If people have a bad iPod experience with using a certain service, no one would use it and the service would die.

Apple allows a number of iPod add-ons such as FM tuners, speaker systems, car stereo connections, etc. Apple calls it the "iPod Ecosystem." Obviously they don't have a problem with opening the iPod up in areas where they aren't interested in competing (just like Microsoft does).

You know, Toshiba and Sony compete with Apple in the computer space. If both Toshiba and Sony started making CD and DVD players that could detect if a CD or DVD was burned/created on a Mac and refused to let it play on their CD/DVD players, you'd all be up in arms!!! (and rightly so!)

This is the same thing that Apple is doing.

I cannot understand why anyone who doesn't own Apple stock (or isn't an Apple employee) is defending this. You're acting against your own self-interests.

[Savage Henry]

I cannot understand why anyone who doesn't own Apple stock (or isn't an Apple employee) is defending this. You're acting against your own self-interests.
Consumers are a stakeholder of any company, and therefore have viable interests. Apple's actions should encourage Real to start innovating properly and give consumers an alternative to Apple. It's not the consumers fault that Real can't come up with anything worthwhile.

[ltgator333]

I DO NOT feel sorry for Real at all. They had to know that this was entirely possible and would eventually happen anyway. The only people I do feel sorry for are the people who bought music from Real, but I really don't think they've totally lost that music, it's just gonna take a lot of blank CD's.

[Doctor Q]

Real may find yet another way around Apple's latest firmware. And Apple may then find a way to defeat that. Any consumer buying from Real will get whiplash from their playback capability going off/on/off/on/off. Which probably wouldn't bother Apple a bit.

[rteichman]

Same goes for here. Apple is trying to take away the customers ability to leave.....
Which is exactly why I rarely buy anything on iTMS, and if I do, then I IMMEDIATELY burn it to a CD, save the CD, and then rip the song. If its something where I really care about the quality lose, I just buy the CD

Not, that I plan on leaving Apple, but because I feel in a few years a "more open" alternative will trounce it (the way PC clones trounced the Mac), and I will likely have a different type of music player.

[Doctor Q]

Can we be absolutely sure that Apple isn't using a hard bargaining tactic to drive Real to the negotiating table for a lucrative new Fairplay licensing deal?

And now to answer myself:

Nawww, if Apple wasn't interested before, they would have no reason to be interested now. They want the whole pie, and they can probably have their way for now.

[Loge]

Which is exactly why I rarely buy anything on iTMS, and if I do, then I IMMEDIATELY burn it to a CD, save the CD, and then rip the song. If its something where I really care about the quality lose, I just buy the CD

Not, that I plan on leaving Apple, but because I feel in a few years a "more open" alternative will trounce it (the way PC clones trounced the Mac), and I will likely have a different type of music player.

What you describe gives you the ability to leave if you want. But what kind of "more open" alternative do you have in mind? Microsoft will licence protected WMA to just about anyone prepared to pay, but it's not exactly trouncing iTunes. Distributing DRM-free content might do it, but it doesn't look like the music industry is in that place just yet. If they did, then Apple would need to support it, but that time does not appear to be now.

[Scottgfx]

It's a troubling situation for consumers I see unfolding - Apple controls the music distribution and the devices that support it. So when someone has a lot invested in a music collection, Apple's in charge, not the consumer. MS Office (yuck) provides a nice historical example.


I call BS here. Almost all of the 5+ GB of music on my iPod are from my own CD collection. Apple is in fact, not in charge of my music collection. I also have purchased a few tracks from the iTunes music store. It's a wonderful thing indeed. I've only a few dollars invested and I feel safer putting it in Apple, rather than Real.

[Scottgfx]

I couldn't agree with you more. During the DOS days, Microsoft had the mantra of "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" to stifle its competition. Apple is doing the same thing.

What's next? How would all feel when Apple releases an iPod software update that no longer allows you to play MP3 files on your iPod and only allows music (AAC) purchased from their iTunes store to play?

A slight flaw here... Real has attempted to piggyback on the DRM system that Apple uses. No one told Real to do that. They could have easily have released MP3, AIFF or regular AAC files that would still work with the iPod to this day.. No one, not even Apple is keeping Real from making music files that work with the iPod.

The logic here is that Lotus was buile on API's that were known to everyone. Microsoft went out of their way to damage Lotus. Microsoft was also found to be an illegal monopoly by the US justice system. The Fairplay API's are not common knowledge and the iPod is not a monopoly, or even an illegal monopoly. Real has no leg to stand on.

[adamberti]

I call BS here. Almost all of the 5+ GB of music on my iPod are from my own CD collection. Apple is in fact, not in charge of my music collection. I also have purchased a few tracks from the iTunes music store. It's a wonderful thing indeed. I've only a few dollars invested and I feel safer putting it in Apple, rather than Real.

That may be true now, but the point being made is that our buying habits are changing. I don't own a single DRM'd song, yet. Soon a lot of people will have the majority of their collection from online stores. Then Apple IS in charge of their music collection. As some have calculated Apple is upto over 800,000 songs sold per day. People are being locked in as we speak.

[iPost]

A slight flaw here... Real has attempted to piggyback on the DRM system that Apple uses. No one told Real to do that. They could have easily have released MP3, AIFF or regular AAC files that would still work with the iPod to this day.. No one, not even Apple is keeping Real from making music files that work with the iPod.

The logic here is that Lotus was buile on API's that were known to everyone. Microsoft went out of their way to damage Lotus. Microsoft was also found to be an illegal monopoly by the US justice system. The Fairplay API's are not common knowledge and the iPod is not a monopoly, or even an illegal monopoly. Real has no leg to stand on.

Not true. Microsoft was not yet a monolopy when the incident with Lotus occurred. Also, while there were published API's in DOS, many things were left undocumented and it was a common practice to figure these things out... just as Real did with the iPod because the controlling company would not release the information. (Do a Google search on Undocumented DOS if you aren't familiar with that time in history.)

[pianojoe]

Also, while there were published API's in DOS, many things were left undocumented and it was a common practice to figure these things out... just as Real did with the iPod because the controlling company would not release the information.

I think the iTunes EULA doesn't allow you to reverse engineer Fairplay. Anyway, Apple got the major record labels to join the wagon when they promised that Fairplay was not hackable. And, of course, they need to live up to that.

I think it's as easy as that. Imagine Real would start selling OEM MP3-Players that were capable of playing Fairplay DRM. What then?

[Benj]

Not defending Apple because I think they should have the courage to stand behind their product - iTMS. They (and the fanboys) have bitched and whinged about Microsoft doing this sort of thing forever. Jobs can pretend he is Robin Hood all he likes - this is just plain hypocrisy and as bad as anything Microsoft have ever done (or perhaps worse),

BUT

Even though I'm not an IP lawyer I think you do have to do everything you can to protect your IP rights or you lose them. That might mean going to court or it might mean a tech solution.

[Savage Henry]

Jobs can pretend he is Robin Hood all he likes - this is just plain hypocrisy and as bad as anything Microsoft have ever done (or perhaps worse)

Jobs has never pretended to be Robin Hood, he goes for what he wants, when he wants and however he wants it. Modern dynamic CEO.

This is just a business decision to protect his business.

[zwilliams07]

Real has never put out anything that wasn't bloated spyware. All they do is force their garbage on us. And they expect Apple to roll over and let them leech off the iPod? I don't think so. I can't think of a single positive thing to say about Real excep-tttt--[buffering]

[proprietary]

I think the iTunes EULA doesn't allow you to reverse engineer Fairplay.
1. There is no need to install iTunes to reverse engineer FairPlay.
2. In many countries such clauses are not legally binding.
Anyway, Apple got the major record labels to join the wagon when they promised that Fairplay was not hackable.
Apple promised no such thing. In fact, Apple made it very clear to the record labels that there is no such thing as "not hackable".

[wnurse]

Well, in hardware/software there's usually a "dev kit" you can purchase from the original company. It gives you the real specs, the right development tools, etc. It allows you to make a software/product that'll be sure to work 100% with the system.

Acclaim does pay Nintendo to develop games for the Gamecube. Tecmo does pay Microsoft to develop games for the Xbox. I'm sure Griffin paid Apple to get a "hardware interfacing development kit" from Apple. Motorola surely paid Apple for a "DRM playback kit" for their upcoming iTunes-enabled cellphone (or whatever they're gonna call it).

Real asked Apple for a DRM dev.kit, Apple said no, and Real hacked their way into the iPod anyway. They're simply paying the price for being stupid and acting like a child. Why should Apple be careful with their updates (intentionally or not) for hacks from other companies?

Real didn't pay Apple anything, why should Apple waste money on trying to keep Apple's hacks compatible with their updates?

Real didn't use apple development kit so they shouldn't have to pay apple anything. If one can develop products for a platform without the development kit then power to you.

One thing i agree with you is that apple shouldn't waste money trying to keep apple hacks compatible with their updates. I totally agree with that and point out then that real has the right to go ahead and do another hack. It's the same situation Dr Dos had with microsoft. MS would constantly release operating system updates making DR Dos not work and DR Dos would fix it to work. In fact, if apple had the right to demand real not hack their player, they would have taken real to court a long time ago. This is apple we are talking about. They just announced a suit against annonymous leakers. They are extremely secretive, if they can sue people they don't know, what's stopping them from sueing someone they know? Real has every right to hack the player and apple has every right to break the hack. The game is afoot!!!

[wnurse]

Actually, this is exactly what they do, according to the EULA. When you pay Microsoft money, you're purchasing the ability to use windows, not do with it what you want. For example, the license is only allowed to be transferred once.


Restrictions on end use does not equal paying for use. Almost all software products sold have end user licenses. What does that have to do with the central argument?

[iPost]

Not defending Apple because I think they should have the courage to stand behind their product - iTMS. They (and the fanboys) have bitched and whinged about Microsoft doing this sort of thing forever. Jobs can pretend he is Robin Hood all he likes - this is just plain hypocrisy and as bad as anything Microsoft have ever done (or perhaps worse).

I agree.

I love Apple products and have been buying and using them for over 20 years, but this thing really hits a nerve with me.

The digital music revolution (which was started years ago by the MP3 wave) is all about correcting the intolerable situation with the record labels. Record labels were screwing customers with highly inflated CD prices as well as screwing the musicians with bad contracts where the labels ended up keeping most of the revenue off of sales (see "Courtney Love Does The Math," http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html has a copy)

With the digital music revolution, musicians are now able to bypass the Big Evil System and promote and distribute their music directly to their fans -- and receive a fairer share of the profits.

However, there still is the issue of music protection. How does the small musician distribute her music in a protected format that would prevent someone from posting it on a P2P site? Well, there are a number of music services that have been springing up -- some that cater to the independent musician.

But if Apple has their way, none of this content will play on your iPod. Apple wants to control EVERYTHING! In Apple's vision, if you want to sell music, you'd have to sell it through the Apple iTunes Music Store and play by Apple's rules. Apple will call the shots, determine if you are allowed to sell your music there at all, and tell you what they will pay you for it.

In effect, the digital music revolution would change NOTHING! The Big Evil Record Labels will just be replaced by another Big Evil Corporation -- Apple!!! This really goes against everything Apple has stood for in my mind and I don't want to see it happen.

The iPod is a great product and it's nice to see Apple reaping the financial benefits for designing it -- but I really don't like where it's taking the company -- deciding what music people can listen to and where they must buy it. The temptation of the Dark Side is looking like it might be too great and I fear that we're losing Steve Jobs to it.

It's getting much easier these days to picture Steve Jobs as Dr. Evil, sitting in his underground lair wearing a dark black turtleneck, stroking a hairless cat, and pressing those buttons on the panel of death...

[hulugu]

But if Apple has their way, none of this content will play on your iPod. Apple wants to control EVERYTHING! In Apple's vision, if you want to sell music, you'd have to sell it through the Apple iTunes Music Store and play by Apple's rules. Apple will call the shots, determine if you are allowed to sell your music there at all, and tell you what they will pay you for it.


No. No. No. Apple allows almost everything but WMA and WMA DRM. Should they add FLAC? Yes.
Should they add OGG? Okay, I couldn't care less about Ogg, but what the hell.
Should they allow Real to ride their coat-tails and use bully tactics to get onto a platform they once scored? No, further hell no! Real has been producing spyware and shoddy products for years, and now they spin their little hackjob as 'choice' as if they gave a rat's ass about the consumer.
Apple needs to defend their quarter not just for the iPod, not just for the iTMS, but further for the presence of Quicktime and the Macintosh platform itself. Can you only imagine how much the Macintosh platform would be marginalized if WMA with or without DRM becomes another de facto standard?
You have to look beyond just this little particular skirmish and think about how the Macintosh platform survives in the new digital music revolution.
You want choice? If you want real choice you don't want Real.

Apple isn't going to be the one-true-label because it will always be in competition with other music stores, but I think it can set a standard that works well for both labels—or what becomes of them—and consumers. No one else has given the consumer as much as Apple has.

[hulugu]

Can we be absolutely sure that Apple isn't using a hard bargaining tactic to drive Real to the negotiating table for a lucrative new Fairplay licensing deal?

And now to answer myself:

Nawww, if Apple wasn't interested before, they would have no reason to be interested now. They want the whole pie, and they can probably have their way for now.

I think Jobs is waiting for a sea-change before making or finalizing a deal. Right now they have all the control and haven't had to make deals or alliances, well except for HP and Moto, and...oh wait:

Apple does make deals. Just not with Real.
I think that Apple will be ready and willing to make deals, but why leave money on the table right now, and why not put yourself in such a position where you can demand the labels change how DRM works and get more money out of the deal; Apple's in this for the long haul.

[iPost]

No. No. No. Apple allows almost everything but WMA and WMA DRM. Should they add FLAC? Yes.
Should they add OGG? Okay, I couldn't care less about Ogg, but what the hell.
Should they allow Real to ride their coat-tails and use bully tactics to get onto a platform they once scored? No, further hell no!
...
Apple isn't going to be the one-true-label because it will always be in competition with other music stores, but I think it can set a standard that works well for both labels—or what becomes of them—and consumers. No one else has given the consumer as much as Apple has.

I don't like Real either, but my concerns go beyond them...

With regard to PROTECTED content, the Apple iPod does NOT play almost everything. The only protected content the iPod plays is Apple's Fairplay.

If the iPod is to be the standard music playback device of the future (which would provide Apple with LOTS of cash), then it needs to be able to play music that can be purchased from a variety of sources.

I'm not a fan of WMA either and I'm not saying that Apple should be forced to support that. But, when a company figures out a way to get protected content to play on the iPod, they shouldn't be intentionally stomped out like what Apple did.

It's very unfortunate that the company involved here is Real because they don't really have much good will with consumers, so nobody is really sticking up for them. But what if the company was some independent music organization like Aimee Mann's United Musicians (http://www.unitedmusicians.com). Shouldn't they be allowed to sell protected music from their site that would play on an iPod -- and not have to get into contract negotiations with Apple to do so?

[adamberti]

Real can't be all that bad. Come on, NORAD uses their software to help the children of the world track Santa Claus. They must be on the 'nice' list. :D

http://www.noradsanta.org

[hulugu]

I don't like Real either, but my concerns go beyond them...

With regard to PROTECTED content, the Apple iPod does NOT play almost everything. The only protected content the iPod plays is Apple's Fairplay.

If the iPod is to be the standard music playback device of the future (which would provide Apple with LOTS of cash), then it needs to be able to play music that can be purchased from a variety of sources.

I'm not a fan of WMA either and I'm not saying that Apple should be forced to support that. But, when a company figures out a way to get protected content to play on the iPod, they shouldn't be intentionally stomped out like what Apple did.

It's very unfortunate that the company involved here is Real because they don't really have much good will with consumers, so nobody is really sticking up for them. But what if the company was some independent music organization like Aimee Mann's United Musicians (http://www.unitedmusicians.com). Shouldn't they be allowed to sell protected music from their site that would play on an iPod -- and not have to get into contract negotiations with Apple to do so?

You should read my earlier posts, because I want a single standard that is created by companies like Apple, by the labels, by musicians, and by consumers that works for everyone—or as much as possible. Apple has done far more than Real has for consumers and the future of digital music and Real's facade irritates me to no end.
Now, a group like United Musicians can deal directly with Apple as a label so the situation is different, but I agree this situation is untenable for the short term.
Apple has done a great job thus far and I believe only Apple has the inertia and the ability to shift music away from the labels and into artists' hands. Real won't do this even if they could.