Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Comments on Real
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Windowlicker said:haha! how did you come up with that? you made my morning so much brighter
Dimentia mostly. A little bit of schizophrenia as well.
In case anyone is curious, if you actually want to download that REAL garbage you have to supply a credit card number and they start charging it $9.99/month if you don't cancel within the 14 day trial. Who's going to go that sh-t?
Re: AAC's $15,000 patent license fee
On the other hand, how many free software projects have been sued over MP3 or GIF?
The open source community did invent free alternatives (e.g. Ogg/Vorbis and PNG), but getting the commercial world to support them is like pulling teeth.
It would, if you want to be perfectly legal.MacCoaster said:
On the other hand, how many free software projects have been sued over MP3 or GIF?
The open source community did invent free alternatives (e.g. Ogg/Vorbis and PNG), but getting the commercial world to support them is like pulling teeth.
Is Real's iPod "hacking" legal?
Is Real's iPod "hacking" legal?
Hopefully those who have never even read the DMCA and yet claims that it applies to this case will now shut up.
Is Real's iPod "hacking" legal?
Hopefully those who have never even read the DMCA and yet claims that it applies to this case will now shut up.
Apple should thank Real
Sorry, if this has already been said...
I think Apple or their customers should thank Real for what Apple should've done in the first place: Open up the iPod. It will only make it more attractive. Having the iTunes music store as only option is a stopper. Sure, most people will eventually end up there anyway, 'cause it's easily the best solution out there. Also, it would be nice to see more players with AAC capabilities. Staying in a closed system won't work. Apple should know that.
Sorry, if this has already been said...
I think Apple or their customers should thank Real for what Apple should've done in the first place: Open up the iPod. It will only make it more attractive. Having the iTunes music store as only option is a stopper. Sure, most people will eventually end up there anyway, 'cause it's easily the best solution out there. Also, it would be nice to see more players with AAC capabilities. Staying in a closed system won't work. Apple should know that.
dekator said:
In theory, yes, but in practical terms no: Real's CEO is a man of Microsoft, which he showed some months ago when he used the most provactive language he knows. He can't even spell to diplomacy.
Microsoft is the winner in the end, sorry to say. I hope Apple and Real can get together before it is to...
Real Networks don't seem to care about anything but having a monopoly over their music formats, and now they are messing with Apple. Their software is the worst program i have on my Mac - absolute garbage
The fact that the DMCA wasn't meant to block this doesn't change the fact that the law still prevents hacking a DRM. It doesn't matter what your intentions are.SandyL said:
The DMCA wasn't meant to prevent the development of free DVD player software either but it's still illegal.
BTW, have YOU read the DMCA, or are you just citing newspaper articles as if they are the final arbiter of law?
dekator said:
More Attractive? They can't keep the mini's in stock, they have over 50% market share even though the ipod has one of the highest price points. And quite frankly the only problem with closed systems is when there isn't enough options. With the ipod you have purchased music from iTMS or ripped MP3's from cd's or heaven forbid pirated MP3's. Thats all the options atleast 85% of customers would need. Sure it would be swell to play a .rm or an .OGG or some other obscure filetype but the simple fact is that in the current market there is too many choices. Harkening back to the days of AT&T's monopoly things worked dandy, but now there are ton's of teleco's in the US that wouldn't hold a candle to the reliability of AT&T's former glory. As far as I'm concerned the do one thing, do it yourself and do it better than anyone else idea has worked for the iPod!
If Apple loses this case (and I hope they don't) then they kind of brought it on themselves by getting caught up in the "open" hype.
If they had just made their own song file format and copyrighted it they would be fine.
If they had just made their own song file format and copyrighted it they would be fine.
It outlaws a lot of things that are only tangentially related to circumvention. The relevant paragraph here is the one on reverse engineering, not circumvention:SandyL said:
Please note the key phrase "sole purpose". Meaning there are no other legal reasons.
Reverse engineering a DRM system is ONLY permitted in order ot make sure that it is compatible with an operating system or other software packages. Reverse engineering a DRM for other reasons (including to make a new work-alike DRM system to apply to new documents ) is therefore not permitted.
In other words, I can reverse-engineer FairPlay in order to make sure that iTunes is compatible with an operating system I'm developing (would obviously have to be a Windows- or Mac-compatible one). I can reverse engineer it to figure out why my app crashes when iTunes is running. I can not reverse engineer it to make my own FairPlay player (even if the player respects the DRM terms) and I can not reverse engineer it to apply FairPlay to my own original compositions.
The program in this case would be iTunes or the software running on the iPod. There aren't any technological measures that control access to iTunes or the iPod software. RealNetworks can't have circumvented technological measures that don't exist. In other words, this does not apply.
Not to mention that Real most likely has not done any reverse engineering, in which case this is completely moot.
jouster said:
Holy schnikeys! Can there be a FAQ on the front page that tells people not to post bogus stories like this? This myth has been debunked a million times: Apple did not "steal" anything from Xerox PARC. Apple paid Xerox to give the Macintosh group a tour through some of their stuff...Xerox showed Apple the GUI stuff because Xerox didn't want it and they thought Apple might.
Now when Windows ripped of Macintosh, it was a completely different story! The lead programmer of Microsoft's Mac unit (Which Apple had enthusiastically supported in order to develop the original MS Office) wrote nearly all the GUI code for Windows 3.1, and based it on his priveleged access in the past to the Macintosh's internals. (He had to have inside access to write Office...Apple did have an agreement with MS not to use the Mac ideas for their owns software for 12 months or so... I've never understood why not longer, Apple was certainly paranoid about MS but not enough apparently. Whatever the case, Apple insiders felt kicked in the gut when they saw Windows.)
Don't know the technicalities of the case and don't really care. What i do know is that my past experience of real isn't impressive, i'd rather not have them: 1) steal some of iTunes' customers and 2) bugger up my new iPod with dodgy AAC music files.
Basically (when it arrives) I have an iPod and realise when i bought it that i would have to use iTunes. I still bought it cos i trust apple and know the selction on iTunes is adequate and well priced.
Basically (when it arrives) I have an iPod and realise when i bought it that i would have to use iTunes. I still bought it cos i trust apple and know the selction on iTunes is adequate and well priced.
Despite the legal implications, this whole squabble will probably boil down to a vain pass at getting in on the apple iPod and iTunes phenomenon. In the end, the failure of the Real music service will make this whole deal completely inconsequential. The consumers will ultimately decide who's right or wrong.