Apple Comments on Real

[GFLPraxis]

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

As I recall, Apple *looked* at it, thought, "Great idea, we should use that!" and wrote their own GUI using the mouse.

On the other hand, in this case RealPlayer didn't just look at FairPlay and write their own DRM, they REVERSE ENGINEERED it and copied it.

What Apple did is about the equivilant of going to a gallery, looking at the Mona Lisa, and sketching it on their own sheet of paper.

What RealPlayer did is equivilant to stealing the Mona Lisa, sticking it on a copy machine, and copying it like nuts.

 

[JohnStrass]

iPod plays MP3's

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.

Beyond iTMS content, iPod is still a great MP3 player; MP3 is still my favorite way to rip my CDs (easy to swap between computers). Maybe Real can just use the MP3 format with a bit of DRM in there

 

[MacCoaster]

I am definitely NOT a lawyer, then.

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.

What do you mean, difficult? DMCA clearly states that reverse engineering for the sake of bypassing a DRM system is illegal. Isn't this what Real is doing, circumventing Apple's DRM to make their own DRM?

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.

Ah, that must be it. "Closed system." Thanks, I see now why monopoly doesn't apply to Apple and their control over iPod. It only applies if Apple had near to or absolutely 100% control of music players, correct? As this was the case with Microsoft, IIRC, Edit #1.) for Windows and its integration of Internet Explorer.

Edit #2.) Oh by the way, monopolies are not illegal. There are plenty of monopolies (especially utilities) but they are regulated. The only types of monopolies which are illegal are the ones that of Microsoft, etc. in order to profit ridiculously more.

Thanks all!

 

[ZildjianKX]

"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!

I never said Apple had a monopoly, I said the issue at hand was that the iPod is a closed product to outside music stores...

I'm not dumb...

 

[pbrennen]

if anyone has brought up the DMCA, i think the DMCA makes illegal the -circumvention- of DRM. this is the -copying- of DRM, which is more like a patent violation. apple has (i think) patented fairplay, and now real has reverse engineered, and presumably -copied- apple's DRM code. this sounds illegal. what's more illegal is that real wants to liscence this method of creating DRM to other companies. correct me if i'm wrong on any points.

 

[bitfactory]

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

what hardware sales?

Real has no audience. the iPod demand is currently outstripping supply - i don't get it. if Real had a successful online store and Apple didn't, i'd agree with you. but they don't... and Apple does.

this is a smart business move by Apple. Real knows Apple would just modify FP every so often to break "Harmony" - which is why i don't think it exists - this is just a PR-style campaign from Real.

 

[3.1416]

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.

Thank you. I'm glad a few people can see through the RDF. There's nothing wrong with reverse engineering. What Real did may or may not be illegal under the DMCA, but the DMCA is a travesty of justice and not worthy of any respect. While Apple certainly has a right to be annoyed with Real and express their opinion on the matter, that doesn't mean Real is in the wrong.

 

[pbrennen]

Isn't this what Real is doing, circumventing Apple's DRM to make their own DRM?

this doesn't sound right to me. real is reverse engineering DRM not for the purpose of circumventing it (real is not marketing a fairplay stripper a la playfair), but for creating a clone of fairplay that they will use for their own purposes. creating a DRM system for the iPod from the ground up seems legal to me, however i haven't read the iPod EULA. so it seems real is guilty of blatant copyright infringement. a device to violate the DCMA can be designed without infringing any copyright (see big black marker and sony CDs).

 

[gorkonapple]

I got a good one for ya...

Here's an easy one....Apple, I have a format that works on all MP3 Players including the iPod....it's called MP3! Oh wait...you wanted DRM in that?

 

[gorkonapple]

I think Apple is clearly in the right here. I'm really a little shocked that Real would release something like this without first seeking some type of approval from Apple. Another brilliant business move from the notorious Real.

Reverse engineering, what Real did, is LEGAL.

 

[MacCoaster]

this doesn't sound right to me. real is reverse engineering DRM not for the purpose of circumventing it (real is not marketing a fairplay stripper a la playfair), but for creating a clone of fairplay that they will use for their own purposes. creating a DRM system for the iPod from the ground up seems legal to me, however i haven't read the iPod EULA. so it seems real is guilty of blatant copyright infringement. a device to violate the DCMA can be designed without infringing any copyright (see big black marker and sony CDs).

Except that it seems that when someone uses Harmony to protect their content, the iPod is fooled in thinking that it is FairPlay. Can anyone verify this?

 

[pbrennen]

Reverse engineering, what Real did, is LEGAL.

so i could reverse engineer microsoft office, and sell it as blahTools, and i'd be fine? that doesn't sound right.

 

[gorkonapple]

Who do Real think they are? The "Oh, we never got Apple's approval, so we did it anyway!" tactic just won't work in court. Your right, no-one needs RealPlayer. Basically, Apple IS the music industry, and they are not going to let any one get in their way.

Real did nothing wrong which is probably why there isn't a lawsuit. Real reverse engineered it. Real has the power and money to do it. The only thing Apple can do is wait until it comes out and they find out if they actually used their code in their software. If that is what real did, then they have a case but if they wrote their own clean room software to produce a protected AAC file, then there's nothign Apple can do. Reverse engineering is LEGAL.

 

[pbrennen]

Except that it seems that when someone uses Harmony to protect their content, the iPod is fooled in thinking that it is FairPlay. Can anyone verify this?

i thought the file carried information regarding its fairplay status (number of different pieces of hardware it's been transferred to) and that the devices are not aware. can an iPod tell the difference between a regular AAC and a fairplay protected AAC?

 

[nagromme]

Of course there are potential benefits of Apple opening up the iPod to other companies' copy protection schemes. And pitfalls too.

The main thing is, though, Apple needs to make such a move on THEIR terms. Getting licensing money from the arrangement, controlling the timing, etc.

I don't know that the time will be right for Apple to help out other music stores for a long while. So they have to go after Real for this.

 

[gorkonapple]

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.

I will say it once more....reverse engineering is legal. End of story. If Real got a hold of some Apple code and used that, then their would be an issue.

 

[MacCoaster]

i thought the file carried information regarding its fairplay status (number of different pieces of hardware it's been transferred to) and that the devices are not aware. can an iPod tell the difference between a regular AAC and a fairplay protected AAC?

I believe it can. I don't own an iPod. Hence my asking if anyone could verify it.

 

[BWhaler]

In other news Microsoft announced today that after a year of hard work and "the Longhorn smokescreen" they will be releasing Mac OSX Panther for windows instead. Codenamed Windows OSXP Panther, Microsoft admits to following in the footsteps of RealNetworks who recently made their way onto Apple's iPod using reverse engineering. "We knew Longhorn was sh*t, so we bought a copy of OSX reverse engineered it and recompiled it to run on windows, we think our customers will be very pleased" Microsoft also admits adding system instability, more frequent kernel panics, and a user favorite, the blue screen of death.

Steve Jobs was unavailable for comment since he had just sh@t on himself.

great post. Great laugh.

 

[stevehaslip]

this is risky because apple need to keep the record companies happy and feeling secure but they also need to stop real, while at the same time not hold back the progress of the iPod. (the real money spinner)

 

[Chaszmyr]

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.

The iPod does make more money than iTMS, but iTMS still generates profits. If I recall correctly, iTMS costed about $10m to develop and implement, and Apple takes a share of about 30 cents per song. With 100 million songs sold, this would be a profit of 20 million dollars.

 

[jocknerd]

This is no different than running Linux on a Mac or iPod

I don't see Apple going after Linux vendors for "hacking" their Mac. Apple needs to grow up and stop acting like a spoiled child. They wanted to milk their profits on the iPod for as long as possible. Well, the milking is coming to an end sooner than Apple wanted.

How can Apple tell me what I can or can't do with my iPod. If I want to copy my music to it, I can. If Real has found a way to put their drm based music on it, they should have the right. And I should have the right to play it.

I've been an Apple user for two years. I recommend their products as much as possible. But until they learn to play fair and not bring out their lawyers on a weekly basis, I still have some reservations about the company.

You blew it Apple. You could have licensed the technology. But you didn't. So others have figured out a way to use work with it. This will go down as another blunder in Apple's history.

 

[peteMG]

Even though Apple's lawyers are probably pawing at the door right now, just salivating at the thought of such a big juicy target, they should really just let Real. The iTMS isn't Apple's core business - the hardware is - and getting more companies to run unprofitable stores just for the benefit of saying "our tracks work on the iPod!" is good free marketing. However, the whole licensing-the-results-of-the-reverse-engineering thing is sketchy, because that makes the labels skittish, which could kill the iTMS, which would hurt the iPod.

Anyway, I don't think this whole mess will have too much of a net impact when it's all said and done - but it'll be fun to watch in the meantime! Especially since the SCO/IBM/Linux soap opera seems to be on hiatus.

 

[obeygiant]

The big angry apple giant bears its teeth and crushes the puny RealNetworks. Maybe now everyone will move from real to quicktime streaming!!!

in my experience Real Player has been better for streaming than QT.

 

[jocknerd]

Yeah

so i could reverse engineer microsoft office, and sell it as blahTools, and i'd be fine? that doesn't sound right.

What do you think AppleWorks did. What about OpenOffice. They reverse-engineered the file formats.

What do you think Samba is? It allows your Apple computer to attach to a Windows network. Reverse-Engineered. Do you think Microsoft gave that information away?

This is the technology industry. Reverse Engineering is a way of life. If it isn't allowed, innovation is dead.

 

[rok]

the mythical "closed" ipod

you know what really irks me? it's that real and even the news keep harping on "oh, the ipod can only play apple's itunes music, and that's not fair..."

no, no, No, No, a MILLION TIMES NO!!!!!!

you know how you play non-iTunes Music Store purchases on an iPod? you go to the friggin' record store and do what you did before the iPod existed... YOU BUY THE CD AND RIP IT TO AN MP3.

THAT, my friends, is apple's counter to ANY argument about how "closed" the iPod is, or for a friend of mine who is still in OS 9 and is mad that Apple' is "making" him upgrade in order to buy songs. um, no. they're just telling you to do what you've been doing all along. sure, Apple's EASY WAY is also APPLE'S WAY, but how the heck is that unfair?

anyway, i know i am preaching to the choir here, but it bears repeating every once in a while.