Apple Comments on Real

[.a]

apple's behaviour is the one i always hated by microsoft ... apple seems to be too arrogant and moonopole-style-like ... i just do not like this behaviour ... i allway prefered the small, intelligent company ...
well, as a true mac- and music-fan i will order a ipod anyway sooner or later
.a

 

[jouster]

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

Thank you.

Edit: Thank you as well, funky!

 

[The Man]

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?

1st, I don't like DRM. 2nd, Real is wrong in their conduct (Everybody would cry faul if MS did this.) 3rd, I agree that this is simply payback by Real because Apple turned them down. 4th, Real can't stand the fact that Apple is getting so much publicity for its store and that QuickTime is gaining market share for internet video content and now Real wants to make Apple look bad.

 

[funkywhat2]

I missed that announcment. Can you link to it?

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/...m?playlistId=18183434&selectedItemId=18183427

http://www.beaufortgazette.com/24hour/technology/story/1326209p-8492083c.html

EDIT: Whoops, someone already posted this.

 

[Viv]

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.

I think point three is the one we have to pay attention to here guys and gals.

Itms has the tracks we want from the labels on the basis that the labels feel safe they cant be hacked and put out for free.

Jobs sold them the idea of a safe download business, now if Real come along and screw with it who is to say that some dodgy company in a country that ignores DRM rules wont come along and do the same.

Look at all the shiiit that Hollywood have with DVD region encoding and the chinese players.

Viv

 

[Mr Poop E Pantz]

Where's the gain, given that iTMS does not make a penny of profit?

So why would Real want to sell songs and not make a penny of profit. If there is nothing to gain why would they bother going through all of this?

 

[Abstract]

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.

Okay, are any of you guys lawyers, or are you all just talking out of your asses? Talking about the situation is one thing, but this pseudo-law is nauseating.

 

[bitfactory]

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



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.

it takes a 'significant' user base at Real's store to have to a 'significant uptake' in iPod sales. Apple is maximizing their investment - they are protecting their own online store.

maybe you can stand in front of the shareholders and explain why you want to share the online music store sales with Real.

 

[MacCoaster]

Ok, I'm going to reply to a few people who wrote in response to my concerns:

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.

and...

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...

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.

I never said that it had a monopoly on music, music downloads or music player side. I'm saying that Apple has a monopoly over the DRM technology that works on the iPod. Apple can pick and choose who can have access to the iPod and protect their content. Apparently Apple has made it obvious that they only want iPod users to use iTunes Music Store.

No, monopolies aren't necessarily of markets, but oftentimes it is. I'm just referring to the iPod. Perhaps there is a better word than "monopoly," but I can't think of one.

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.

That by far is the most intelligent argument I've heard against my concerns. I never realized that Real wanted to license the DRM to others. I don't think the DMCA is even necessary here actually. To be able to use FairPlay in one's product one must have a license from Apple to do so. Since Real's Harmony is allowing companies to bypass requesting licensing from Apple, thus depriving Apple. This is a legal problem and it seems that Real is in trouble with this.

 

[shamino]

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...

Anybody who wants to comment on this should first read this interview.

Raskin's first-hand account explicitly states that:

• The Macintosh project was under way before that visit to PARC
• The Lisa project didn't start out as a GUI-based system
• The Mac's GUI is not very much like Xerox's GUI.

WRT this last point, anybody who has ever actually used a Xerox system (like the Star) knows that the Mac's GUI differs radically from Xerox's. I've personally used their later "ViewPoint" OS and know this for a fact. Yeah, they both have bitmapped displays and windows, but that's about where the similarity ends.

Also of note, Jobs paid for that visit, by selling Xerox a private block of stock at a discounted price.

Another interesting article about Xerox PARC (which mentions Apple quite a bit) may be found here

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.

Maybe. But I think others would have come up with the concept pretty soon anyway. There were graphical apps on the Apple II (like Music Construction Set) for quite some time.

IMO, development of a generalized GUI for a mass-market system was imminent at the time. If Apple wasn't first, it would've been someone else. The look and feel would be different, but the general concept would've still made it to market.

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 there are two big differences. There was no DMCA at the time Compaq clean-room copied IBM's BIOS ROM. And the BIOS ROM didn't involve any form of encryption (which, admittedly is only relevant in the presence of the DMCA.)

 

[jouster]

So why would Real want to sell songs and not make a penny of profit.

I did not mention Real's potential to make a profit.

If there is nothing to gain why would they bother going through all of this?

Who cares? They ARE going through it.

 

[jouster]

maybe you can stand in front of the shareholders and explain why you want to share the online music store sales with Real.

Because the potential profit to be made by increased hardware sales is far greater than that which would be lost by decreased song sales.

 

[shamino]

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.

So what? The iPod is not the market - it's just one product.

This is like saying that Ford is a monopoly because they're the only company making Mustangs.

 

[MikeLaRiviere]

Legality

I just want to straighten out the legality here. Real claims that it has produced iPod compatibility through "publicly available information." If this is true, Apple should not be able to sue Real under the DMCA. However, the DMCA does stipulate that reverse-engineering such a technology is illegal. Therefore, if Apple can prove (or if Real cannot disprove - we all know whom the burden of proof is really on) that Real reverse-engineered iPod compatibility, Apple has a solid case.

Unfortunately, writers are now calling Apple the "Microsoft of music"... and we all know how much the government hates Microsoft. Though I doubt it will happen soon, let's hope the government doesn't engage in any trust-busting against Apple. Further, others have pointed out two important points: 1) that Apple makes its money from iPod sales, not music store downloads, so Real compatibility will drive additional iPod sales, and 2) that users have no incentive to use Real's music store over the de facto best, iTunes Music Store.

What is really at stake here is not whether Apple will lose sales or market share; rather, it is the company's need to set a precedent of protecting its technologies, as it has not in the past (Apple unsuccessfully sued Microsoft for copying its OS GUI in the late Eighties). If the company hopes to become the Microsoft of anything, it must protect its property. (Yes, ninety percent of people on these forums hate Microsoft, but the success of its business model is undeniable.)

Mike LaRiviere

 

[jouster]

Apple can pick and choose who can have access to the iPod and protect their content.

Not so. Apple can pick and choose who can have access to the iPod using Apple's proprietary technology.

Anyone can come up with their own technology that interfaces in any way with the iPod. Apple's problem here, as I have consistently argued, will be to prove that an infringement has taken place, and this has been extremely difficult throughout the entire history of personal computing.

Edited for typos.

 

[shamino]

Itms has the tracks we want from the labels on the basis that the labels feel safe they cant be hacked and put out for free.

Jobs sold them the idea of a safe download business, now if Real come along and screw with it who is to say that some dodgy company in a country that ignores DRM rules wont come along and do the same.

This isn't relevant.

Real isn't offering to sell a service for removing DRM. They are selling a service to add iPod-compatible DRM.

Real's actions in no way change the likelihood of people pirating ITMS songs.

 

[azdude]

I never said that it had a monopoly on music, music downloads or music player side. I'm saying that Apple has a monopoly over the DRM technology that works on the iPod. Apple can pick and choose who can have access to the iPod and protect their content. Apparently Apple has made it obvious that they only want iPod users to use iTunes Music Store.

No, monopolies aren't necessarily of markets, but oftentimes it is. I'm just referring to the iPod. Perhaps there is a better word than "monopoly," but I can't think of one.

Then, what's your point? Apple has no monopoly over any market. Online Music, Digital Media Players, Computers (hah!).

If you don't like the fact that the iPod/iTMS is a "Closed System" (the term you're looking for), the only thing that anyone can do about that is not buy it. There are no legal repercussions for selling a closed system. None. Monopolies are illegal, not closed systems.

 

[azdude]

This isn't relevant.

Real isn't offering to sell a service for removing DRM. They are selling a service to add iPod-compatible DRM.

Real's actions in no way change the likelihood of people pirating ITMS songs.

The original comment that started this part of the debate was a concern that Real's Harmony would somehow not be as safe as "real" fairplay.

You're correct that Real's "fairplay encoder" (?) shouldn't make iTMS any less safe, as it doesn't *decode.*

 

[shamino]

The original comment that started this part of the debate was a concern that Real's Harmony would somehow not be as safe as "real" fairplay.

Maybe, but so what? This won't (as viv suggested) cause music labels to avoid selling through the ITMS.

If Harmony-encoded songs are easy to break, it may cause labels to avoid giving licenses to Real, but that (if anything) helps Apple.

 

[azdude]

Maybe, but so what? This won't (as viv suggested) cause music labels to avoid selling through the ITMS.

If Harmony-encoded songs are easy to break, it may cause labels to avoid giving licenses to Real, but that (if anything) helps Apple.

Which is exactly what my second sentence said. Sheesh.

 

[nationElectric]

Oh, honestly...

Reverse-engineering is not theft, it's perfectly legal, and it's perfectly ethical. You figure out the behavior that a piece of code produces through careful observation, and then write your own code that produces the same behavior. You don't "steal" anything, you just mimic it.

If you've ever used your Mac on a Windows network (through a tool like DAVE or Apple's built-in network support) you've enjoyed the fruits of reverse-engineering. In fact, Apple licensed its windows support from the Samba project, JUST like Real is planning to let people license Harmony. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever seriously accused Apple or Samba of theft. Another popular example of reverse engineering is the third-party IM clients like Fire and (for Windows) Trillian. Again, nobody ever accuses them of theft, because it's understood that they didn't steal anything.

In response, Microsoft and Yahoo whine about "hackers" and periodically change their protocols to break compatibility with third-party tools like Samba and Fire, just like Apple is threatening to do... Microsoft and Yahoo are generally looked down upon for this behavior, and then the Samba or Fire teams spend a bit of time updating their products, and everyone's back on the same page again. The whole process is absolutely ridiculous, it's a big waste of time for everyone, it doesn't protect anything for anyone, and all it serves to do is to slightly inconvenience (and show a general hostility towards) a minority of users who'd enjoy an alternative but weren't given one through the "official" channels.

This is exactly the problem with these kinds of proprietary schemes, and this is just one of the many, many problems with DRM that seems so abstract and pedantic and "unrealistic" until... well, until something like this happens, and it becomes reality.

Get over it. Reverse engineering is perfectly acceptable, and despite Apple's flustered rhetoric they understand that perfectly well.

("Oh, my stars and garters! They're just a bunch of... hackers!" *swoon*)

 

[Viv]

The original comment that started this part of the debate was a concern that Real's Harmony would somehow not be as safe as "real" fairplay.

You're correct that Real's "fairplay encoder" (?) shouldn't make iTMS any less safe, as it doesn't *decode.*

The point is to the labels it looks as if Apple is losing control of their technology and software, and Apple has the labels entire stock out on the web.

If any Tom, Dick, or Harry can come along and do what Real has done then the labels have to ask themselves what else can be done? is our stock investment safe were these sudo legal hackers can get to it.

Is this the thin end of a wedge?

Viv

 

[jouster]

Reverse-engineering is not theft, it's perfectly legal, and it's perfectly ethical. You figure out the behavior that a piece of code produces through careful observation, and then write your own code that produces the same behavior. You don't "steal" anything, you just mimic it.

...[SNIP]...

Get over it. Reverse engineering is perfectly acceptable, and despite Apple's flustered rhetoric they understand that perfectly well.

("Oh, my stars and garters! They're just a bunch of... hackers!" *swoon*)

Glad someone else sees it this way. There will be responses saying, "...but...but...Real DID steal the code! They are evil!!!"

Well, good luck trying to prove it, Apple.

Incidentally, Reuters is now reporting it:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=5815496&section=news

 

[mrsebastian]

real can go [bleep] themselves trying to strong arm apple. break out the ravenous lawyers apple, but do take notice and do this yourself! it's obvious everyone wants the best audio player out there and they wanna play any format on it. create your own "harmony" and license the [bleep] out of it. better yet, make it so the only way to upload other media formats to ipods, is done through itunes. while your at it, make sure as part of the license agreement, there has to be a constantly available link to the apple store/ipod on their site. that may take a nibble out of itms sales, but i doubt it. once people see the ease of the ipod, itunes, and itms they'll never look back... [bleep] let's get this monopoly rolling!

 

[pascalpp]

FUD

Never thought I'd see the day that Apple would using FUD as a means of thwarting competition. Comparing RealNetworks tactics to the actions of a "hacker" is nothing but FUD.

The Whatis definition of FUD