Apple Comments on Real

[dizastor]

UPDATE: Microsoft Buys SourceForge

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...

Update:In another arrogant and monopolistic move, Microsoft has purchased SourceForge, the leading repository of opensource software. "Now that we have ported MacOSX to the Intel platform, we have decided that we need to own all of the open source code that it was built upon". In traditional fashion, Microsoft is expected to open massive security holes in the Darwin core that powers Microsoft's New operating system "OSXP Panther" by the end of the week.

In a related story, they have renamed "Rendezvous" to "Microsoft Manual Network Configuration Plus". Microsoft claims to have improved rendezvous by disabling that annoying "auto-detect" feature, however in the current gold master of OSXP manual configuration causes all of your stored passwords to be emailed to a 5000 person spam marketing list. Microsoft has plans to address this issue in Microsoft OSXP SP1 Available in Q4 2007.

 

[Nermal]

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

I hope not, QuickTime is terrible for streaming.

 

[bubbagump]

Glasner on CNBC

Did anyone else just see CEO of Real, Glasner on CNBC? Pretty much he just said that they are doing just what Compaq did and he pretty much said our programmers are good, so Apple bring on the firmware changes. This is just a publicity stunt by Real. They have nothing to lose. Anyway, CNBC just said Apple believes it has little legal recourse, but they will probably regularly change the firmware.

In any case, while I am an Apple fanboy and love Apple products, if this forces Apple to increase quality to 192 kbits/s on ITMS, I am happy. Blow Real out of the water and start selling ALAC downloads on iTunes, even with the sucky DRM! No one in their right mind would download from Real with the uncertainty of Apple changing firmware.

MrBubba

 

[nationElectric]

A simple explanation of what reverse engineering is.

did they copy the rest of the code of microsoft office?

You're missing the point. Nobody's copying code from anybody. Not openoffice, not real, not anybody. Despite how the term "reverse engineering" may sound, you don't "dissect" someone else's code or take pieces of it or anything like that.

Anything -- whether it's a file, or a network technology, or a piece of software, or whatever, has to behave in certain, tightly-defined ways. When you hear someone talk about a "file format" or "network protocol" or "api" (application programming interface), that's what they're talking about -- the set of predefined rules that something must conform to. Let's continue with the MS Word example (for sake of argument, we'll use the word 2000 file format.) Microsoft defined a file format for all word 2000 docs, and they probably defined it before anyone began developing word 2000. After all, if you've got dozens or hundreds of developers working on a common application, you'd better be sure they're on the same page. And hey, it would be nice if your team working on the excel project, or whatever, also has a universal blueprint they can refer to if they want to add word doc integration to their project. So someone sits down and defines a set of rules that all word 2000 files must conform to. If a file does not conform to all of these rules, or conforms to a different set of rules, it's not a word 2000 doc, period. If your program is supposed to be reading or writing word docs and it doesn't conform to these rules -- to this file format -- it's broken.

Well, guess what? You typically can't patent a file format, or copyright it, or legally protect it in any way. Sure, you don't have to publish the internal documents you wrote that describe it, you don't have to tell anyone how it works, you can keep it a secret -- and that's exactly what many companies do. But people are free to come along and look at the files that ms word produces and guess at how they work. They can't examine the code that goes into ms word itself, but they can absolutely look at what it produces. And if they look closely enough, and if they're clever enough, and if they spend enough time guessing and experimenting, they can figure out what rules define a word 2000 file. Then you write your own code that conforms to those rules. It's a long and tedious process, and it's usually an imperfect one -- that's part of the reason why apps like openoffice or whatever tend to be a little flaky when importing or exporting word docs. But it happens all the time, everybody does it, it's perfectly legal, it's perfectly honest, and it provides a welcome alternative for what is usually a minority of users. (After all, if all you want is to create nice-looking word docs, you're most likely to create them in... word.)

That's what real is doing. Or planning to do, anyway.

Here's a simpler way to think of it: there's what a piece of software does, and there's how it does it. The what is the file format or protocol or api; the how is the code itself. You can't copy the how, but you can figure out the what and create your own way, your own how, to do it. Once you've done that, once you've written your own software, it's yours -- just like any other software. You're free to give it away or license it or to do whatever you please with it. Because it's yours; not microsoft's or apple's or anybody else's.

Here's a discussion on the subject:

http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=159957

... Notice how nobody steals or copies anything.

 

[SandyL]

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.

By your faulty logic, Samba in MacOS X is Microsoft's intellectual property.

 

[SandyL]

Yes, but stealing proprietary technology is not.

You mean like stealing Microsoft's proprietary technology by shipping Samba with MacOS X?

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

Hymn is hosted on a server in the US and Apple has not launched a lawsuit. So much for their DUTY.

 

[SandyL]

To be able to use Apple's implementation of FairPlay in one's product one must have a license from Apple to do so.

Fixed that for you. If someone writes their own implementation they don't need a license from Apple because Apple doesn't have any patents on FairPlay.

 

[Savage Henry]

Hymn is hosted on a server in the US and Apple has not launched a lawsuit. So much for their DUTY.

I don't think Apple are going to risk a rash impulsive movement, they have far too much riding on the pod/tunes market for it to fail.

 

[SandyL]

any bets as to whether real did this much effort?

No, RealNetworks probably did not, since someone else already reverse engineered FairPlay over 6 months ago (the "publicly available information" Real keeps mentioning to the press). Note that the clean room approach isn't needed for the reverse engineering to be legal. Just makes it easier to prove "We didn't copy any of your code. We wrote our own code." in case of a lawsuit.

 

[dudemac]

Apple is wrong

I absolutly love apple, but here they are wrong. I can see history repeating itself again in this venture. I would love to think that everyone would want to buy apples DRM. But the truth is that we really need to have "open" standards when it comes to music. Period. I don't have to figure out which LP I can play on my stereo, the same goes with tapes, or CD's. We need an open standard and apple needs to be willing to work with everyone to get that to happen. Until then digital is still too crippled to be mass marketed. mp3 is popular because it works everywhere. too bad record labels have a bad taste in their mouth for it. But there should be no compromise on the users part.

 

[elmimmo]

Apple states:

We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the [...] ethics of a hacker

Now, was that a compliment or what? I am impressed that people are so fond of an Apple company relaying onclosed standards for the sole purpose of getting people locked on their piece of cake. I thought it was the quality of Apple products that people was fond of. You do not like Real Music Store, you do not buy from it. It's that simple. Live and let live.

 

[SandyL]

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.

Harmony also supports converting to Microsoft DRM format ("Supports iPod and 100's of other portable devices"). Funny how we don't see Microsoft issuing press releases about those evil hackers at RealNetworks (however, they probably have a license from Microsoft since MS does not refuse licensing their DRM).

 

[SandyL]

I'm curious about how much work Real even had to do. The Hymn Project figured out how to strip FairPlay pretty quickly.

Hymn is just a wrapper around code that was released 6 months ago (see hymn FAQ). For all we know RealNetworks has been planning and working on this project for quite a while. When they requested a FairPlay license a while ago, it could have been just to cover their ass in case of a lawsuit: "Your Honour, we tried to license FairPlay, but our request was denied. So we had no other option than to write our own implementation".

I don't know how the DMCA applies in this case.

I don't think it applies at all. DMCA covers circumvention (removing) of DRM. RealNetworks isn't doing that, they're adding DRM.

 

[ValiumLolliPoP]

You're not getting it....


If you were apple and a consumer bought an iPod and started downloading only from your own music store. You now have sucked a consumer in and locked them into your company. Now that Real developed Harmony, the apple consumer can go to Real and apple will never see a penny from them again. So if you were apple, would you want a one time payment from that customer? Or would you want a lifetime of charges being made from that consumer when they buy apple's music?

 

[reyesmac]

question

If Apple offers licenses at a very high price and then Real tries to circumvent the fair-play can't they can be sued for trying to steal something that Apple sells?

 

[Loge]

Firstly, I don't see why would other vendors try to license Harmony from Real, if Real had just used publicly available information. Why not just use that same information and implement their own version? In any event, the responsibility for future support of the playability of these files is not Apple's.

The much stated view that ITMS is not a profit centre, unlike the iPod, and that if this move leads to more sales of iPods it will help Apple, is short-sighted. In a few years time, the iPod will be a mature product and most likely sell on much lower margins. The money then will be made on on-line music distribution which I expect will assume much greater significance at the expense of CDs. This has enourmous potential in terms of geographical spread and available content. Currently the margins are very thin on on-line purchased music because the strongest competition now is from the file sharing networks.

The distinctive of Apple's approach is the integration - iPod, iTunes and (where available) ITMS. This is a strong reason why people buy iPods over other players which are often cheaper and have extra functionalilty. This is broken by Real's approach. I understand that while their Harmony tracks play on iPods, they don't play in iTunes and users are force into manual synchronisation. Apple have a duty to their stakeholders to protect what they have created.

Another likely consequence is that, although some record companies have indicated publicly they support Real's approach, in private they will be mad at Apple for providing (in their eyes) faulty DRM. Expect them to lobby strongly for tighter DRM next time they negotiate with Apple.

 

[SandyL]

Firstly, I don't see why would other vendors try to license Harmony from Real, if Real had just used publicly available information. Why not just use that same information and implement their own version?

Ask Apple why they licensed their AAC decoder and encoder from someone else instead of developing their own (AAC spec is open) from scratch and you'll have your answer.

 

[virividox]

SUE THEM SUE THEM

 

[space2go]

If Apple offers licenses at a very high price and then Real tries to circumvent the fair-play can't they can be sued for trying to steal something that Apple sells?

Some people sell oxygen. I extract it from air for free using a biological device (i like to call it a lung(TM)). Now do i steal something from oxygen-vendors?
SCNR

btw Harmony does not circumvent Fairplay as pointed out in this very same thread quite often.

 

[pbrennen]

Here's a simpler way to think of it: there's what a piece of software does, and there's how it does it. The what is the file format or protocol or api; the how is the code itself. You can't copy the how, but you can figure out the what and create your own way, your own how, to do it. Once you've done that, once you've written your own software, it's yours -- just like any other software. You're free to give it away or license it or to do whatever you please with it. Because it's yours; not microsoft's or apple's or anybody else's.

Here's a discussion on the subject:

http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=159957

... Notice how nobody steals or copies anything.

but it seems real has stolen the how! the impression i get is that they are using apple's "how" of implementing fairplay as the basis of their own "how" for implementing harmony. fairplay is not a what, it's a how.

 

[shamino]

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.

And that ceased to be true the minute the DMCA was passed into law.

It is ilelgal to reverse engineer anything that is, or even claims to be a copy protection technology.

This is why DeCSS is illegal, even though the CSS encryption does nothing to prevent disc duplication (and does everything to prevent third parties from manufacturing DVD players without signing patent-royalty contracts.)

 

[Michael Vance]

I hate companies that try to create and enforce exclusiver standards. I hope Realsoft succeeds.

 

[shamino]

there IS a problem with reverse-engineering something if you are going to turn around and "license" it - which leads me to believe they are going to CHARGE a FEE to companies who license it. i doubt it's free.

In the absence of explicit legislation like DMCA, this is perfectly legal.

This is why companies like Pheonix were able to make clean-room copies of the IBM BIOS and license it to motherboard makers worldwide.

 

[notrubcram1]

Shortsightedness

I only read the first couple of pages of posts, but it seems to me that many of you are very shortsighted. Undoubtedly, Real weighed its options before going ahead and announcing Harmony. If they broke the law, they surely know it and they know they will be caught.

But this is what it boils down to:

Lawsuits can take years to complete, and I guarantee that if Apple files suit, Real will push for continuance after continuance. Until a judge tells them to stop telling Harmony songs, they will milk the technology for all they can. If they are forced to cease five years from now and must pay restitution, then so be it, but it'll probably be under different management anyway.

A lot of business practices are utilized only to turn in a quarterly profit before the lead management hoofs it the islands and its tax havens.

 

[shamino]

Hymn is hosted on a server in the US and Apple has not launched a lawsuit. So much for their DUTY.

When did this happen? Last I head, Apple did pursue legal action to shut down their US server, forcing them to re-host in India.

Did it move back since then?