Apple Comments on Real

[QuiteSure]

This is all such small potatoes. If you buy an iPod you'll install the prepackaged software which will be iTunes, and take it from there. How would you even FIND Real? There doesn't seem to be a logical connection between the iPod user experience and Real's music service.

 

[windowsblowsass]

How true, as Xerox discovered when Apple copied the GUI from them.

apple did not copy the gui they were developing there own and then bought the patents from xerox

 

[jsw]

"pretty small market"

Looking through some of the links at the site posted at the start of this thread, I found this one, which I think is amusing. Here's a quote:

Jupiter Research analyst David Card said: "For all the general excitement about the iPod, it's still a pretty small market. It's totally a New York and Silicon Valley thing."

 

[Gee4orce]

Apple's responsibilities

Um, last time I checked Apple has a legal responsibility to maximise it's shareholder's investment. That means there has to be a sound business reason to licence it's technology to a 3rd party (technology that, after all, cost shareholder $$$ to develop).

Now, what would Apple have gained by licensing FairPlay to Real (or anyone else) ? At the very most it would have gained market domination of media format (AAC) and DRM technology, some licence fee revenue (possibly, but the margins are already so tight that Apple's barely profits from it's own online music store), and increased iPod sales (and iPods are selling faster than they can be made, as it is).

At the end of the day, there's no particular reason for Apple to open up the iPod to anyone else at the moment. Just because they are having a great party doesn't mean they leave the front door open for anyone to gatecrash.

No Real have got fed up being left out in the cold (anyone actually bought a track off their store ?), and have decided to forcibly break and enter the iPod party. Oh, and the iPod isn't 'closed' - it plays MP3 just fine thanks. Just that you need to use Apple's DRM - and Apple aint giving you it.

Apple's best move right about now could be to licence FairPlay to a competitor for Real, but one that somehow isn't directly competing with iTMS. Oh, and make sure Quicktimes wipes RealPlayer off the face of the planet.

 

[mustang_dvs]

I think the issue that has Apple so concerned here, is not so much that Real decided it was going to reverse engineer a manner of placing non-FairPlay DRM files onto the iPod, but that it had announced its intentions of licensing the reverse-engineered software technology (read: Apple's intellectual property) to other vendors.

I'm sure the fact that they had the gall to try and undermine Apple's DRM had Steve hot under the collar, but licensing the technology to do so was taking the issue two or three miles over the line. It would be like me buying a Ford Mustang, taking apart the engine, copying its design and then selling my own reverse-engineered copies at a fraction of the cost, to undermine Ford.

 

[mhouse]

Holy Moley, this stuff again?

How true, as Xerox discovered when Apple copied the GUI from them.

Man alive, is this bogus stuff still going around?

Apple did not "copy" anything from Xerox. Just a wee little bit of history... Xerox *invited* Apple to come look at what the PARC team was working on and Xerox had long since made it very clear that they had absolutely no interest in marketing either a GUI-based computer or a mouse.

Furthermore, Apple never took a PARC machine back to Cupertino and reverse-engineered it. They were simply allowed (again, allowed) to have look at what PARC had come up with and then went back to Cupertino and created their own, original version of GUI.

If Apple hadn't come out with the Mac, the industry might have been stuck with command-line interfaces for another five years at least.

What Real has done with the iPod is much more like what Compaq did with the IBM PC. I agree with others that Apple is unlikely to win any legal battle with Real over this issue. But Apple will win the war with Real if it chooses to. Apple, unlike IBM had years ago, has the option of altering the software and making Real's stuff instantly useless. An option which did not exist for IBM in the days before widespread use of the internet.

Apple can (and probably will) introduce iPod software that has "new features" and totally screw Harmony as many times as they need to until Real backs off or dies.

 

[scottwat]

Big Picture

I'm not so worried about other people having access to using their songs on the ipod. All you really need is a 10 cent blank cd-r and alittle time and patience. Apple's solution is so much more elegant, it would be crazy to go to another store if you own an ipod or a mac or just get the notion to buy songs and try out itunes. The big problem I see is the fact that Real is trying to steal essentially a product, maybe you would consider it a service, in the future licensing of the FairPlay DRM. I think Apple is still working on making sure there are no bugs or problems before it attempts to license the DRM, this could be an even bigger set back in the licensing. It is crazy for Real to attempt this. It boils down to theft of a unique product.

 

[jouster]

apple did not copy the gui they were developing there [sic] own and then bought the patents from xerox

...Apple did not "copy" anything from Xerox. Just a wee little bit of history... Xerox *invited* Apple to come look at what the PARC team was working on...

Just a wee bit more history: Xerox felt confident enough about their case to sue. They lost.

But given that this is about the iPod, I'll retract the GUI stuff. It isn't relevant here.


My point is that Apple will have a difficult burden of proof. It is not illegal to manufacture something that works with something else; what Apple will have to do is prove that the product involves the theft of proprietary information. Such proof is notoriously difficult to obtain, as SCO is finding out.

Naturally, Apple can and probably will block Real's scheme by technical means. But don't they then run the risk of alienating a whole slew of iPod buyers who have a lot invested in Real tunes? Where's the gain, given that iTMS does not make a penny of profit?

 

[The Man]

What is Real?

If you own an iPod, why do you want to buy from Real? There's one thing, though, that Real has and Apple doesn't: a subscription service. Some people may want this option, as it let them try out different music before actually buying the songs. Steve has said again and again that people want to own their music. Granted, but some want to get familiar with music first and then buy the music (and iTunes is a far better place to do this than listening to radio or watch MTV). Also, Real uses a higher bitrate AAC. So Apple should add these two things to its store (an optional subscription service and use a higher bitrate AAC) and only then can Apple really pose the question: Why would anyone go Real?

P.S. Apple wants Real out of the picture. Apple's QuickTime has become a bigger player in online video content. And Apple's iTunes/iPod success makes Real look like a little player. Real is getting really scared I would think.

 

[azdude]

Does Apple even need the DCMA here?

This isn't a DRM issue, it's the unauthorized hacking/reverse engineering/theft of a proprietary, closed technology that Apple may choose to license if they wanted it open.

 

[pdxdeano]

Meanwhile back at the hall of justice....

There are a few things that I have heard people saying that I would like to challenge by adding my two cents to:

1: Apple has a monopoly: No it doesn't!!! It's not even close to having a monopoly in either the music download or music player side. There are dozens of players and dozens of places to download music. This argument has absolutely no validity.

2. It provides people choice: Come on...does Real "Real"ly offer anything that people want and/or iTMS doesn't have?

3. It will spurr iPod sales: Maybe 2 or 3 but the bigger concern is if labels start to get spooked as Real begins licensing out it's Harmony software and pull their tracks from iTMS.

4. How good is Harmony: The only way Steve was able to get support from the industry was by creating a hack resistant codec. If Harmony is easily hackable, which it probably will be, then see #4.

Well that's about it for now.

 

[macphoria]

Totally expected.

This was totally expected. Jobs made it clear to Glaser, after receiving that arrogant email, Apple was not interested in working with Real Network. Didn't Real Network expect this? That they were only wasting time and resources?

 

[azdude]

Naturally, Apple can and probably will block Real's scheme by technical means. But don't they then run the risk of alienating a whole slew of iPod buyers who have a lot invested in Real tunes? Where's the gain, given that iTMS does not make a penny of profit?

Firstly, iTMS does return a small profit now... that's been announced.

Secondly, this is about protecting proprietary technology from unauthorized reverse engineering. Any company would do that regardless of the market or product. Fairplay especially -- I'd imagine Apple is poised to license this technology themselves as another source of revenue. (Real licensing a hacked technology is beyond belief!!!)

 

[ZildjianKX]

There are a few things that I have heard people saying that I would like to challenge by adding my two cents to:

1: Apple has a monopoly: No it doesn't!!! It's not even close to having a monopoly in either the music download or music player side. There are dozens of players and dozens of places to download music. This argument has absolutely no validity.

2. It provides people choice: Come on...does Real "Real"ly offer anything that people want and/or iTMS doesn't have?

3. It will spurr iPod sales: Maybe 2 or 3 but the bigger concern is if labels start to get spooked as Real begins licensing out it's Harmony software and pull their tracks from iTMS.

4. How good is Harmony: The only way Steve was able to get support from the industry was by creating a hack resistant codec. If Harmony is easily hackable, which it probably will be, then see #4.

Well that's about it for now.

1. Apple has full control over the iPod... which is what is important to the argument here. I don't care how many music stores there are, I can't use anything on my iPod but ITMS.

2. Competition is good... How would a similar argument sound "Macs don't have anything that Windows doesn't offer, so who needs macs? You can check your E-mail fine on Windows." More choices is always better.

3. Do you really think tracks would be pulled from ITMS?

4. Apple's DRM was pretty easily hacked, and still is.

 

[shamino]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Apple the only company using Apple's DRM? There is a problem with this, Apple has a monopoly on DRM for iPod; thus effectively locking you to use iTunes Music Store.

You can alslo load unprotected music files in several open standard formats (AAC, MP3 and others.)

If Real (or anybody else) wants to sell music for the iPod, they can sell in an unrestricted format and nobody will even try to stop them.

And don't say this isn't realistic. There are many sites that legally distribute unprotected songs. (And I'm not even talking about legal gray areas like those Russian sites that recently made the news.)

The lawsuit has nothing to do with the iPod and has everything to do with reverse-engineering a DRM format - which is expressly forbidden by the DMCA. True, the law was probably intended to prevent people from removing protection, not to prevent them from adding it, but it's too late to rewrite it now. Why should the DMCA only be used to beat up on kids playing legally-purchased DVDs on Linux PCs?

 

[themadchemist]

This is a mistake. It's not iTMS that makes money, it's the iPod. Anything that promotes the iPod should be encouraged.

I think Appple might regret this in the future.

 

[jouster]

Firstly, iTMS does return a small profit now... that's been announced.

I missed that announcment. Can you link to it?

Secondly, this is about protecting proprietary technology from unauthorized reverse engineering. Any company would do that regardless of the market or product. Fairplay especially -- I'd imagine Apple is poised to license this technology themselves as another source of revenue. (Real licensing a hacked technology is beyond belief!!!)

Most certainly you are right. But the problem is not establishing that proprietary technology has a right to legal protection; that is beyond dispute. It is in proving that such technology or information was stolen for use in the compatible product that the difficulties lie.

Don't get me wrong - I think it's a cheeky and risky move by Real. But I do wonder if it is possible to see it as an opporunity for Apple; equally, I would hate to see them squander resources fighting a difficult legal battle.

 

[Abstract]

I'd think it'd be legally equivalent to not being able to buy PS2 games that weren't licensed by Sony, etc. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on music, just control of access to an Apple product, the iPod.

That's what I think as well.

Yeah.. death to Real!

How dare they threaten to release software for the Mac, that would let us (and PC users) have a greater choice of music services for our iPods.

WE WANT LESS CHOICE, NOT MORE!

Next week: Death to Adobe, Quark, Microsoft, Id, Blizzard...

</sarcasm>

You want this, but just because we want this, doesn't mean it's being done right. Even if the courts don't agree, it's still not right. The law doesn't dictate right and wrong --- your conscience probably does a better job than the courts.

And it isn't like Apple never reverse-engineered anything either.

....How true, as Xerox discovered when Apple copied the GUI from them.

Wow, I don't know a huge amount about computer history, but if it's true then I agree with you on both counts. But just because Apple did so in the past, doesn't make Real's actions more justified. I don't agree with Apple copying Konfabulator either, and its not right, but again, that's completely unrelated to Real's actions. Real is wrong in this case.

 

[azdude]

1. Apple has full control over the iPod... which is what is important to the argument here. I don't care how many music stores there are, I can't use anything on my iPod but ITMS.

"Monopoly" refers to a market, not a product! Sheesh! Suggesting that a company can hold a monopoly on their own product is ridiculous. Imagine Nokia being accused of having a monopoly on the use of and software for the 8290. Hah!

2. Competition is good... How would a similar argument sound "Macs don't have anything that Windows doesn't offer, so who needs macs? You can check your E-mail fine on Windows." More choices is always better.

Yes, but stealing proprietary technology is not. This is not a fight that has anything to do with the consumer... this has to do with intellectual property and corporate investment.

3. Do you really think tracks would be pulled from ITMS?

YES! If the labels don't believe that their intellectual property is safe on a system that has become compromised by hacked technology, they will terminate their agreement... plain and simple. Why do you think DRM exists? Why do you think Apple has taken so many steps to protect it? How is this different?

4. Apple's DRM was pretty easily hacked, and still is.

That doesn't negate their right and DUTY to protect it.

 

[jouster]

Yes, but stealing proprietary technology is not. This is not a fight that has anything to do with the consumer... this has to do with intellectual property and corporate investment.

But therein lies the problem: proving this is difficult. Real does not have to make its solution all that different from Apple's to 'prove' that it is not a copy. Compatibility on its own won't cut it.

 

[azdude]

But therein lies the problem: proving this is difficult. Real does not have to make its solution all that different form Apple's to 'prove' that it is not a copy. Compatibility on its own won't cut it.

Fair enough... Let's hope they can-- this is wrong.

 

[bitfactory]

If I remember correctly, Real's boss kindly asked Steve Jobs about access to the iPod and even went public went he did not even get an answer. But Apple just ignored him.

much like Real and everyone else ignored Apple for so many years. well, the shoe is on the other foot now - f' em... Real is trying to run a bad-PR game against Apple... they know Apple wasn't going to let them do this, and i doubt that "Harmony" even exists. they are trying to make Apple look bad to gain users over to their crap store.

all this to sell 99cent songs? who woulda' thunk it?

 

[animefan_1]

Yeah.. death to Real!

How dare they threaten to release software for the Mac, that would let us (and PC users) have a greater choice of music services for our iPods.

WE WANT LESS CHOICE, NOT MORE!

Next week: Death to Adobe, Quark, Microsoft, Id, Blizzard...

</sarcasm>

Nope. Harmony is only fow Windows users. Mac users still only have the iTMS (like that;s bad thing )

 

[azdude]

iTMS generates a small profit

I missed that announcment. Can you link to it?

https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/07/20040714172326.shtml

 

[jouster]

all this to sell 99cent songs? who woulda' thunk it?

Heh, well, a hundred million 99c songs is a chunk of change!

much like Real and everyone else ignored Apple for so many years. well, the shoe is on the other foot now - f' em...

It doesn't work like this, however emotional it makes people feel. If it turns out that this might encourage a significant uptake of iPods, then Apple will have a hard time explaining to its shareholders why it is not maximizing their investment. Apple is pretty good at locking people into a proprietary hardware solution, but sometimes seems to be cutting off its nose to spite its face.