Apple Comments on Real

[Elan0204]

I think what Real did is really wrong. Apple wouldn't do business with them for a reason, and Real has shown what that reason is- they're a shady business that probably would have found some way to stab Apple in the back anyway. And it is one thing for Real to use this technology only for themselves, but to start making a profit from it by licensing it to other companies too, is outrageous. So now if Apple does decide to license FairPlay, they are going to have to get into a bidding war with Real to license their own technology.

 

[jocknerd]

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.

Dude, you got it wrong. A fair comparison would be a company producing a header for a Mustang engine and then licensing the header itself. Thats perfectly legal.

Apple has goofed. Greed got in the way again. There will be no licensing of Fairplay. Its history. Now the best thing to come out of all this would be to completely drop all DRM but thats up to the record companies.

 

[movabi]

two cents

So a format that has a monopoly is good? Seems like this isn't a good thing for anyone. What happened to being able to play all formats on a device? oh yes, that would be to convenient for consumers and mean loss of revenue for corporate giants. Nice. I'm no lover of real... but its not like apple is saint either. being forced to use one device, service, or format seems like a microsoft thing... one size fits all.

 

[jocknerd]

Here's a theoretical scenario...

Lets say I develop a way to flash the firmware in the iPod and make it capable of playing other music formats (i.e. Ogg Vorbis or FLAC). Is this illegal? Probably is in this day and time. Especially when people are being thrown in jail for selling mod chips for Xbox's. But it should be perfectly legal. It is in every other industry. Imagine if companies couldn't make aftermarket parts for automobiles. We have to ask ourselves, what do we want the technology laws to cater to? The tech companies or the users. I prefer that the laws work for the user.

 

[rok]

So a format that has a monopoly is good? Seems like this isn't a good thing for anyone. What happened to being able to play all formats on a device? oh yes, that would be to convenient for consumers and mean loss of revenue for corporate giants. Nice. I'm no lover of real... but its not like apple is saint either. being forced to use one device, service, or format seems like a microsoft thing... one size fits all.

movabi, go back one page at the end and read my post and rethink your stance.

 

[pdxdeano]

Reverse Engineering

I would like to clarify the use of the term "reverse engineering". Reverse engineering describes the process by which something is taken apart piece by piece in order to determine how it works...correct? So if Real reverse engineered Fairplat to create Harmony (as admitted by Real) doesn't that mean by definition they Had to use Apple code to do so possibly making Harmony illegal. If however they produced Harmony to mimick Fairplay that would be completely legal. Thought?

 

[rok]

I would like to clarify the use of the term "reverse engineering". Reverse engineering describes the process by which something is taken apart piece by piece in order to determine how it works...correct? So if Real reverse engineered Fairplat to create Harmony (as admitted by Real) doesn't that mean by definition they Had to use Apple code to do so possibly making Harmony illegal. If however they produced Harmony to mimick Fairplay that would be completely legal. Thought?

no, actually reverse engineering means basically taking an established end point, goal, or product as your finishing point, and then in a "clean room" development atmosphere, develop a process by which to achieve that goal, product or end point. you can assemble experts in the field to assist you, but you can't look at another product and how it's put together and operates in order to assist you in that endeavor. what ends up happening is that you develop an entirely new process which can be claimed as your own, which just so happens to result in the same product. it's not easy, or cheap, but it's also 100% legal and will hold up in a court of law.

any bets as to whether real did this much effort?

 

[kenaustus]

It's a bit ironic

to see a lot of people who can be assumed to love Macs (isn't that why they are on this board?) go against Apple on this. The beauty of the Mac is that Apple controls the environment (hardware and software) and can therefore deliver something that is heads and shoulders above the competition. Same with the music environment (iPod/iTunes/Music Store).

Because Apple invested a significant amount of time, money and very innovative human resources they were able to deliver something for Mac users (and later Window users) that blew the competition away in the music market. It also made legal downloading popular, a major achievement, and in the process they even showed the competition "how to do it" if they wanted to invest their time, money and innovative human resources.

Now Real has come up with a hack that invades Apple's environment - probably a lot easier than going to the effort of developing their own fully integrated package. Apple is going to defend their proprietary to the max, primarily to scare others from trying to do the same thing. (I doubt that iPod users who love the integrated package will give a damn about Real's music store.)

I also believe that Apple will push hard on the legal side in order to avoid the can of worms that would develop if everyone came up with their own hack. Just look at the PC world and the mess it is in.

As for consumers, when they buy an iPod they KNOW what they are getting. iTunes, The Music Store and an iPod. That's it. If that's not enough then buy something besides an iPod. Don't buy an iPod and then say that Apple should do this, this and that.

Personally I hope Apple cuts Real off at the knees in the courts. I would hate to see Apple's offering prostituted by companies that are impotent when it comes to designing their own products, or by programmers who want to be famous, even if their offering is crap.

 

[sinisterdesign]

Real's "Flaming Moe"

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.

I'm not a lawyer, but could this be used against Apple if they do go to court?

hypothetical: i make a great car. everyone wants to buy my car. i'm the only one that makes the keys that fit in my car. people HAVE to come to me to get the key. i don't have a "monopoly", i'm just protecting my own product. if the iPod was the ONLY player people could buy and they HAD to come to Apple to get it, then we're looking at a monopoly (i'm no lawyer here, folks). but people just buy the iPod b/c it's stylish & easy to use, not b/c it's the only game out there.

i would like to see Apple open up FairPlay, but at their own pace and under their own terms, not b/c some asshat decides he wants to be a player in the game, too and breaks the DRM to suit his needs. i think this was a smarmy buisiness practice on Real's part and like some others have said, i hope they get their butt handed to them and it cripples the company.

 

[MacCoaster]

hypothetical: i make a great car. everyone wants to buy my car. i'm the only one that makes the keys that fit in my car. people HAVE to come to me to get the key. i don't have a "monopoly", i'm just protecting my own product. if the iPod was the ONLY player people could buy and they HAD to come to Apple to get it, then we're looking at a monopoly (i'm no lawyer here, folks). but people just buy the iPod b/c it's stylish & easy to use, not b/c it's the only game out there.

Yeah, I realized that in an earlier post, that it required the market to be a truly harmful monopoly.

i would like to see Apple open up FairPlay, but at their own pace and under their own terms, not b/c some asshat decides he wants to be a player in the game, too and breaks the DRM to suit his needs. i think this was a smarmy buisiness practice on Real's part and like some others have said, i hope they get their butt handed to them and it cripples the company.

Apple already has the option to license the DRM technology to others. I see it as Apple not licensing it to Real because of their competitive (psh!) music store. Maybe that part is illegal, then again, I Am Not A Lawyer; but another user earlier pointed out that iPod/iTMS is really a closed system (thus far).

 

[ericdano]

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!!!)

Well, isn't the Motorola Cellphone deal to be able to play AAC files the first step?

I personally think Apple is going to enlist the RIAA. Afterall, they are really the ones that should be scared. Would you like some company (IE: REAL) to sell your songs as "iPod compat" when it's not really licensing the technology as it should? Would it be "safe" for the labels to have REAL sell it in this "hacked" format?

I think not. I think Apple should go tell the RIAA to put some pressure on REAL as well.

 

[whooleytoo]

to see a lot of people who can be assumed to love Macs (isn't that why they are on this board?) go against Apple on this

Not at all ironic.

Real will be offering new Mac software. That's good news for Mac fans.
This will mean iPod owners can play songs from other music stores alongside songs from iTMS. That's good news for iPod fans.

While Apple are more likely to make money because of this than lose it (more iPod sales vs fewer iTMS sales), they'll object as it might mean they have less control over the iPod. Which is unlikely, as they can probably break Harmony's compatibility on a whim, if they choose to do so.

Even if you don't use Harmony, choice can only be a good thing. In fact, I'd love to see anyone put together a cohesive argument why the availability of Harmony hurts me, as a Mac and iPod owner. How could I possibly be better off if it didn't exist? Why is the lack of choice a good thing?

 

[Molson]

RealNetworks 'fully committed' to Harmony

From MacMinute

RealNetworks has now responded to Apple's statement on its Harmony technology, which allows songs purchased from Real's online music store to be played on iPods. Real says that "consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod." The company goes on to say: "Apple has suggested that new laws such as the DMCA are relevant to this dispute. In fact, the DMCA is not designed to prevent the creation of new methods of locking content and explicitly allows the creation of interoperable software. We remain fully committed to Harmony and to giving millions of consumers who own portable music devices, including the Apple iPod, choice and compatibility."

"Harmony follows in a well-established tradition of fully legal, independently developed paths to achieve compatibility," Real says. "There is ample and clear precedent for this activity, for instance the first IBM compatible PCs from Compaq. Harmony creates a way to lock content from Real's music store in a way that is compatible with the iPod, Windows Media DRM devices, and Helix DRM devices. Harmony technology does not remove or disable any digital rights management system."

 

[ART5000]

I mean, come on, Apple effectively got the PlayFair guys moving around. Of course Apple would use the DMCA against Real. Real was never licensed to use Apple's DRM technology.

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.

I'm not a lawyer, but could this be used against Apple if they do go to court?

not neccessarily, in order to claim it as a monopoly Apple would have to have significant control over pricing, distribution of online songs, supplier control etc. others are selling songs online and have their own pricing schemes, distribution layouts etc.

Apple doesn't control the selling of songs online. They're the market leader.

 

[StarmanDeluxe]

Please note that I never swear. I don't know how. It's not in my genes.

With that in mind, **** Real.

Edit: Haha, swear filter that I had no idea existed. Now I do

 

[Trekkie]

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.

Can you blame them? Real is a piece of junk and it's taken them years to come out with a decent OS X player (decent for REAL that is) and even now it's still 'beta'

When Apple has a hot product though, they push and shove their way in with their crappy products...

I don't want Real's junk or their music store on my systems

 

[Photorun]

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.

The problem is that the future will be, unless the dumbass rich, fat, record label execs and RIAA kill electronic downloads (I think they're so clueless if they could kill them, they would, but that's another rant), a musical download world, with many people downloading songs. There are people who are going to use services OTHER than Apple... I know that shocks you tremendously, but people do. Honestly I Apple kicks everyone's arse, I don't see why people would, then again, I don't get why ANYONE would want to buy a peecee, lack of taste, brains and class would be my guess. As long as Apple stays competitive they've got nothing to worry about. People tend to think clones in the mid 90s killed Apple, actually clones gave Apple a clue. Companies like PowerComputing made far more kickass computers that ran the MacOS for [gasp] FAR LESS!!! They also innovated more than Apple... yes, Apple, the company that made their OS. That's how ignorant, dumb, and arrogant Apple had gotten, they had lost all sight of being competitive, in both technology and price, it took a them finding they weren't only not the best selling computer that run their OS, in speed tests in MacUser (R.I.P.) they had their asses handed to them in speed tests, they were losing at their own game. Dumbass Jobs came along with this "mine mine mine" mentality and killed clones, for better or worse (or worse).

Healthy competition is a GOOD thing people, GOOD! What's the opposite of healthy competition? Microsuck and their strongarm BS tactics that the DOJ had a mountain of dirt showing how they illegally made it so there WASN'T competition against them (except Apple but they were busy shooting themselves in their foots), of course, the DOJ/Dubya were paid off by Microsuck they minute the new soulless US admin moseyed in.

Licensing out is one way and being competitive is another, both are healthy, expecting everyone to come to you in Apple's way is foolish and will only backfire. Hopefully Arn will leave this thread searchable so in a couple years when iPod/iTunes market share is diminishing I can give all your Apple Koolaid drinkers a very depressed (because I'll be sad at Apple's stupidity that many of your are advocating) I told you so!

 

[whooleytoo]

Real is a piece of junk and it's taken them years to come out with a decent OS X player (decent for REAL that is) and even now it's still 'beta'

Sounds a lot like OS X's early years!

I don't want Real's junk or their music store on my systems

Fair enough! But many others do want the choice.

 

[gopher]

This may sound like playing the devil's advocate, but we face a serious problem of many TV and news organizations only offering online videos of news events in Real and Windows Mediaplayer. Very few offer Quicktime based videos. This even though Quicktime Broadcaster is free from Apple. I honestly believe it would be better for Apple to embrace Real's search for better compatibility between the iPod and Real's software because the next step would be to have better website support from these media outlets that embed video on their website. It is a give and take world, and if Apple is willing to give a little, they'll be able to make Mac marginalization less. Real has a dominance in its own industry. Real's willingness to open its doors and asking Apple do the same should be something Apple should embrace, and not shy away from. Granted Real's tactics at doing this are a bit disingenuous, but the net result is the same. Real earlier offered a partnership with Apple and Apple didn't want it. Now they want to be on the iPod, and are willing to make inroads to do it. What good is a digital hub with only one spoke?

 

[gola]

Way to go REAL. Apple should have opened their DRM a long time ago. If this was microsoft technology, everyone on this list would have applauded real for their bold move.

 

[applebum]

You want to tell me why I'm wrong instead of being snarky about my avatar noobie?!?

You know as well as I do that he can't prove you are wrong any more than you can prove you are right. What you are saying is simply opinion, and you are entitled to that. I can't help wondering if there are some logical reasons that Apple is not licensing Fairplay right now:

A. In their negotiations with the record companies they agreed not to license it for a specified period of time?

B. They have managed to squeeze out some profit from an endeavor that was not supposed to be profitalbe. As a result, they want to pursue that further and see if they can make it even more profitable (such as with deals with Motorolla). Sharing Fairplay certainly means they have given up on getting a profit from ITMS. It also means they are willing to relinquish their hold on the marketshare.

As a stockholder, I am sure you are aware that the reason your stock price has gone up so well is because of the strength of the iPod and the ITMS. Anything that hurts the appearance of their market dominance with those 2 products will send the stock price crashing.

 

[gorkonapple]

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

Sure...OpenOffice.org and others have reverse engineered the .doc format and now it can open Office Documents. It's legal.

 

[3G4N]

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.

I'm so tired of hearing this. I can go to ANY local music store and buy ANY music that comes on CD, and use it on my iPod. A huge selection, and purdy darn easy too. Jeez, people, are we so narrow minded to think that iTMS is the ONLY place to get music? Go make a straw man to knock down, why don'tcha?

 

[wPod]

i think they should be nice and swap with each other. . . real can work on iPods and AAC can work on other players. what does it matter? apple makes most of its money off the iPods anyway. . . and come one is anyone really going to buy a less supirior product!!!! if all formats are compatible then one week i could get free music from the McDonals/real promo, the next week from Pepsi/iTunes promo, the next week Walmart/M$ promo. . . then i never have to pay for music!!!! or apple should be smart and license AAC so everyone starts using it! that way it becomes a standard and apple makes money even when others are selling the songs!!!

 

[gwangung]

Um guys?

Remember Quicktime? A key technology for iTMS?

Who are the competitors to Quicktime? Windows Media Player and....Real.

Hm. What to do, what to do....