Apple Comments on Real

[Windowlicker]

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.

remember a product named Windows? there was this kind of a situation in the 80's... if apple just lets things pass by, they'll be outta businezz in no time. (this was a pretty black&white point of view, but that's pretty much what I think)

 

[Windowlicker]

I hope not, QuickTime is terrible for streaming.

not really.. i'm on ISDN and the buffering system on QT works better than anything for me (winplayer or real).

 

[superbovine]

Apple needs to reverse engineer the real audio/video formats and make them opensource and part of quicktime. Then we can all laugh when real threatens apple. Hahaha...

why would you bother to reverse engineer something ****ty.

 

[rdowns]

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?

YOUR issue is the lack or availability of consumer choice. I don't think anyone would argue that more choice is a bad thing. I see no way that Harmony hurts a Mac/iPod owner. As a Mac and iPod owner, I like more choices.

APPLE'S issue is clearly a different one. They are concerned with their business and technology. As an Apple stockholder (650 shares), I don't like Real trying to crash Apple's party.

You have to wonder about Real's timing of this announcement. Just a day or two after it, they announced yet another loss. About $5 million IIRC.

 

[rdowns]

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?

The computer is the digital hub, the iPod is a spoke.

 

[rdowns]

apple makes most of its money off the iPods anyway. . . and come one is anyone really going to buy a less supirior product!!!!

WRONG! Apple still earns the vast majority of their revenue and profits from the Macintosh.

 

[wiz7dome]

iTunes did what?

I understand the argument about having more choice, but it seems that people forgot that iTunes reinvented the music download market. Its not as if iTunes became successful in an already successful market. People I know who are looking to buy an iPod are not asking themselves "Hmm....can I play songs from Walmart's download store?" Actually this is a rehash of the same arguments we heard when Buymusic.com was launched. "If you buy an iPod your not going to be compatible with all of the music download services" OK, except that EVERYBODY knows that every online music is playing catch up to iTunes.

I dont see the iPod anywhere being closed like some are reporting. Anybody can create an Mp3 file and play it back on the iPod. Real is indeed tring to "jump on the bandwagon" by end-zoning licensing Fairplay from Apple.

 

[Viv]

Is the new sony walkman compatible with other stores? we are all arguing about the IPod but did Sony go for compatibility with their player or their music catologue.

Viv

 

[whooleytoo]

YOUR issue is the lack or availability of consumer choice. I don't think anyone would argue that more choice is a bad thing. I see no way that Harmony hurts a Mac/iPod owner. As a Mac and iPod owner, I like more choices.

Judging by some of the passionate arguments here, some posters do seem genuinely upset at this new choice being made available.. strange.

APPLE'S issue is clearly a different one. They are concerned with their business and technology. As an Apple stockholder (650 shares), I don't like Real trying to crash Apple's party.

That's perfectly fair. But to be honest, I'd be gobsmacked if Apple's share price (or market share) suffers because of Harmony. In fact, I think Apple could benefit from the iPod being seen as a more open platform. The competition here could benefit both parties; and consumers too.

I absolutely love the convenience and selection of iTunes (even though I can't buy from it yet), and am on my second iPod; but there's no way I'm going to start building a collection of iTMS music with Apple keeping such tight reins on whose devices I can listen to it on. The Motorola deal is an impressive move in the right direction, but I still am at the mercy of Apple when they choose which select devices I can play with.

And I'm far from alone here. I believe a lot of people will refrain from online music stores until I can "buy once, play on any device". And these customers who are staying away from online music sales are hurting Apple far more than Real and Harmony, IMO.

You have to wonder about Real's timing of this announcement. Just a day or two after it, they announced yet another loss. About $5 million IIRC.

Absolutely agreed there - QuickTime is encroaching on it's streaming market, iTMS is dominating online music sales - and there are too many conflicting music formats/DRM standards. Unless something changes, I can see Real starting to fade PDQ.

 

[JGowan]

apple makes most of its money off the iPods anyway. . . and come one is anyone really going to buy a less supirior product!!!!

WRONG! Apple still earns the vast majority of their revenue and profits from the Macintosh.

He MEANT that of the ITUNES MUSIC STORE and the IPOD, Apple makes its real money from selling ipods, not music from the store.

It was pretty obvious because we've been discussing both for 9 pages and 200+ comments.

 

[whooleytoo]

Is the new sony walkman compatible with other stores? we are all arguing about the IPod but did Sony go for compatibility with their player or their music catologue.

No, and that's the main reason why it's going to flop.

 

[MacCoaster]

$20,000 ?

When I say open standards, I don't mean Apple's definition for AAC. I don't consider AAC to be open. If I want to write an encoder and use AAC, and I have to spend $20,000 to license AAC, its not open in my opinion.

Where did you read this? This is not necessarily true. Read the AAC FAQ.

Do you charge use fees for AAC?
No. Royalties are due on the sale of AAC encoders and/or decoders only.

Seems like if you do free tools, you might not need be subject to the license.

Who needs to license MPEG-4 AAC patents?
An MPEG-4 AAC patent license is required for manufacturers or developers of complete (or substantially complete) end-user encoder and/or decoder products, or for manufacturers/developers of component encoder and/or decoder products that are provided directly to end-users.

This conflicts with the first question. This time it doesn't even say anything about requiring the program to be non-free.

If anyone could research this further, that'd be great. I know Real uses AAC, but did they license it from VIA Licensing?

 

[shamino]

AAC FAQ.

Do you charge use fees for AAC?
No. Royalties are due on the sale of AAC encoders and/or decoders only.

Seems like if you do free tools, you might not need be subject to the license.

This paragraph is talking about recurring fees. It is saying that there is no charge to use AAC. People using AAC-based products don't need to pay ongoing royalties. People selling devices/software need to pay a per-unit royalty.

Who needs to license MPEG-4 AAC patents?
An MPEG-4 AAC patent license is required for manufacturers or developers of complete (or substantially complete) end-user encoder and/or decoder products, or for manufacturers/developers of component encoder and/or decoder products that are provided directly to end-users.

This conflicts with the first question. This time it doesn't even say anything about requiring the program to be non-free.

No conflict.

The second paragraph is talking about patent licenses. This is a one-shot fee for developing AAC-based tools. The first paragraph is talking about per-unit recurring fees for selling AAC-based products.

There's a one-shot fee (of $15,000) to get a patent license. Once you have that, you can make all the AAC products you want, owing royalties on the number of "channels" shipped, pricing, and whether your product is professional or not. (A "channel" is one audio channel. So a mono device has lower royalties than a stereo device, which has lower royalties than a 6.1 surround device.)

 

[broken_keyboard]

I have to come down on Apple's side here. They made a custom file format for the iPod and Real asked if they could license it and Apple said no.

Real can not now turn around and say that copying the format is not stealing, since they implicity acknowledged that it is Apple's property when they asked if they could license it. Their CEO even wrote an email!

 

[MacCoaster]

Not my point...

This paragraph is talking about recurring fees. It is saying that there is no charge to use AAC. People using AAC-based products don't need to pay ongoing royalties. People selling devices/software need to pay a per-unit royalty.

No conflict.

The second paragraph is talking about patent licenses. This is a one-shot fee for developing AAC-based tools. The first paragraph is talking about per-unit recurring fees for selling AAC-based products.

There's a one-shot fee (of $15,000) to get a patent license. Once you have that, you can make all the AAC products you want, owing royalties on the number of "channels" shipped, pricing, and whether your product is professional or not. (A "channel" is one audio channel. So a mono device has lower royalties than a stereo device, which has lower royalties than a 6.1 surround device.)

That's not my point. I fully understand that if I wanted to rip a CD to AAC, that's my right to via iTunes without having to pay royalties, as Apple has done that already. My point was in the first question the answer said "selling encoders/decoders"... note: selling. What about those free open source programs? That was my point. When I said "If you do," I meant, "If you program." Please tell me if you need any further clarification.

 

[space2go]

I have to come down on Apple's side here. They made a custom file format for the iPod and Real asked if they could license it and Apple said no.

Real can not now turn around and say that copying the format is not stealing, since they implicity acknowledged that it is Apple's property when they asked if they could license it. Their CEO even wrote an email!

How about another theory:
Real knew that what they were going to do was legal, knew that Apple might try and sue anyway and wanted to know what a license would cost to find the cheapest way to get their DRM'ed stuff to play on the iPod.

 

[manu chao]

To start with the basics:
- AAC is an open standard, everybody is allowed to use it.
- I guess everybody is allowed to modify the AAC file format in a way to add a DRM mechanism to it (Apple did it, and the Dolby Labs did not complain).
- When you buy an iPod you are (or let's say you should be) allowed to play any songs on it, from whoever you obtained them (assuming you obtained them legally).
- Apple is certainly not required to provide support for all file formats (e.g. WMF), but having a wide a choice certainly makes the iPod more appealling.
- You can right now play Fairplay-AACs on as many iPods as you like, in other words the owner of the iPod does not have to be owner of the songs. You can place any Fairplay-AAC on any iPod and it works.

So, why should Real not be allowed to place their own version of DRMed AACs on the iPod (violation of DRM patents notwithstanding)?

They just added a quirk to their DRMed AACs, so that they can be played on iPods as well, and not just with the RealPlayer, by allowing the song to be played even if no DRM control mechanism (as there is in the RealPlayer) is present, as it is the case on the iPod.

Apple could easily break this via technological means, but this would be akin to blocking all MP3s which have been created on a Windows maschine. They could do this, no legal barriers to that but I guess everybody would consider such a thing unfair and unneccessary.

 

[shamino]

That's not my point. I fully understand that if I wanted to rip a CD to AAC, that's my right to via iTunes without having to pay royalties, as Apple has done that already. My point was in the first question the answer said "selling encoders/decoders"... note: selling. What about those free open source programs? That was my point. When I said "If you do," I meant, "If you program." Please tell me if you need any further clarification.

I already wrote that.

If you make a free program, you won't have to pay royalties. But you will have to pay a one-time patent license fee.

The patent license is a flat fee, not a function of how much money you make selling your product.

The two paragraphs you quoted are referring to two completely different fees. One is tied to sales and the other is not.

 

[MacCoaster]

$15k, ouch.

I already wrote that.

If you make a free program, you won't have to pay royalties. But you will have to pay a one-time patent license fee.

The patent license is a flat fee, not a function of how much money you make selling your product.

The two paragraphs you quoted are referring to two completely different fees. One is tied to sales and the other is not.

Ah. That's quite a set back for an open source project, no?

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[shamino]

To start with the basics:
- AAC is an open standard, everybody is allowed to use it.

Everyone can buy a license. It's not free, however. (Note that MP3 isn't free either - it is also covered by patent licenses. The only reason it's freely used is that nobody has bothered to sue shareware authors yet.)

- I guess everybody is allowed to modify the AAC file format in a way to add a DRM mechanism to it (Apple did it, and the Dolby Labs did not complain).

DRM doesn't change a file format.

You can add DRM to anything - even plain text - if you like. It's just a matter of encrypting some/all of the data and appending a certificate describing the license terms. Authorized players/viewers will respect the terms in the certificate. The encryption prevents the use of unauthorized players/viewers.

Apple could have put their DRM on top of MP3 if they wanted to. They chose AAC because it sounds better (and interoperability is no longer a concern once you've wrapped DRM around a standard format.)

- When you buy an iPod you are (or let's say you should be) allowed to play any songs on it, from whoever you obtained them (assuming you obtained them legally).

This is very misleading and incorrect.

Nobody is saying that Real can't distribute iPod-compatible songs. They can distribute non-DRM songs if they want and absolutely nobdy will complain. This entire argument is about their reverse-engineering Apple's DRM. But the iPod will not prevent you from playing non-DRM files (unlike players from some other vendors.)

Second, your claim that you should be able to play any songs on it is far too broad. Using this argument, you may as well say that Apple is evil for not supporting Ogg/Vorbis, or FLAC, or WMA, or some other unsupported CODEC. Every product manufactured has a limit to its feature set. Saying that there should never be a limit is rather naive.

- Apple is certainly not required to provide support for all file formats (e.g. WMF), but having a wide a choice certainly makes the iPod more appealling.

A wider selection is definitely better, but that's very different from saying it should be able to play everything you have.

From a product standpoint, there's more to it than just supporting what people ask for. Each new CODEC has development, testing and support costs. It may also cause hardware changes if the existing chipsets don't have enough power/memory to handle everything.

- You can right now play Fairplay-AACs on as many iPods as you like, in other words the owner of the iPod does not have to be owner of the songs. You can place any Fairplay-AAC on any iPod and it works.

... as dictated by the terms of the Fairplay DRM.

So, why should Real not be allowed to place their own version of DRMed AACs on the iPod (violation of DRM patents notwithstanding)?

Ummmm.... because Fairplay is Apple's intellectual property and others have no right to use it without a license?

Because reverse-engineering any DRM scheme is prohibited by the DMCA laws?

They just added a quirk to their DRMed AACs, so that they can be played on iPods as well, and not just with the RealPlayer, by allowing the song to be played even if no DRM control mechanism (as there is in the RealPlayer) is present, as it is the case on the iPod.

Maybe. That's what Real is claiming. It's not necessarily true. I haven't seen any technical analysis of Harmony-protected files yet.

Apple could easily break this via technological means, but this would be akin to blocking all MP3s which have been created on a Windows maschine. They could do this, no legal barriers to that but I guess everybody would consider such a thing unfair and unneccessary.

Or similar to changing undocumented APIs in OS updates in order to break programs that violate the rules. Which Apple has done many times in the past. And which most developers today approve of, because it kept Apple out of the trap of having to be backwards-compatible with broken code (one of the things that's hurt Windows over the years.)

 

[benpatient]

i see no difference between compaq reverse engineering the IBM PC and real reverse engineering Fairplay.

The results can be the same despite a totally different processes.

Do you know how AMD got into the x86 business?

yup.

If Real did a GOOD job building Harmony, then Apple won't be able to block out Harmony-only files...They're on a slippery slope even if they can...if a court rules that Harmony isn't violating a copyright (which they almost certainly would), then if apple makes a change to intentionally cripple a competitor's product, Real & Co. could sue apple!

That would be sad, and ironic.

 

[Manowatt]

what happen?

 

[manu chao]

- When you buy an iPod you are (or let's say you should be) allowed to play any songs on it, from whoever you obtained them (assuming you obtained them legally).

This is very misleading and incorrect.

Nobody is saying that Real can't distribute iPod-compatible songs. They can distribute non-DRM songs if they want and absolutely nobdy will complain. This entire argument is about their reverse-engineering Apple's DRM. But the iPod will not prevent you from playing non-DRM files (unlike players from some other vendors.)

Second, your claim that you should be able to play any songs on it is far too broad. Using this argument, you may as well say that Apple is evil for not supporting Ogg/Vorbis, or FLAC, or WMA, or some other unsupported CODEC. Every product manufactured has a limit to its feature set. Saying that there should never be a limit is rather naive.
A wider selection is definitely better, but that's very different from saying it should be able to play everything you have.

I naturally meant "any songs HAVING A FILE FORMAT SUPPORTED BY THE IPOD", and AAC is a supported file format on the iPod and as you said before adding the DRM does not change the file format.

Ummmm.... because Fairplay is Apple's intellectual property and others have no right to use it without a license?

As I said patent issues notwithstanding, if Real is violating any patent rules then Apple can and should sue them (or negociate license fees).

Maybe. That's what Real is claiming. It's not necessarily true. I haven't seen any technical analysis of Harmony-protected files yet.

Can't anybody give them the benefit of the doubt? If not so they gonna be thrashed in court anyway.

Or similar to changing undocumented APIs in OS updates in order to break programs that violate the rules. Which Apple has done many times in the past. And which most developers today approve of, because it kept Apple out of the trap of having to be backwards-compatible with broken code (one of the things that's hurt Windows over the years.)

AAC is a standard (even if it is not a free one), if Real does not adhere to it fine, kick them out.
But should Apple refuse to let you play copy-protected CDs because they are not Red Book compatible, so you don't have to blame Apple if they crash your computer.

 

[iMeowbot]

Do you know how AMD got into the x86 business?

yup.

Nope. AMD had a second-source agreement with intel for many years. Up into the 486 generation, they were given access to the source materials. At that point intel decided they wanted all the business for themselves, but lost a court challenge intended to accomplish that. The instruction sets for later generations of 32-bit x86 processors really haven't evolved that much, and borrowing back and forth between intel and AMD has been about equal.

Really, by now intel had done more of the borrowing, since AMD's 64-bit revisions were rather substantial.

 

[iMeowbot]

what happen?

Somebody set up iPod the bomb.