Apple Disabling RealNetworks Harmony Technology

[Bear]

Look at it this way...

Real did a hack. Apple cleaned up code and the hack no longer works. It's Real's fault for using a hack.

And as for Real itself...I don't have Real Player on my system, and I find I don't really miss it.

 

[Inspector Lee]

Is Real still selling $0.79 songs and $5 albums? If so, they must be hemorrhaging coin. This is going to go back and forth with updates until somebody starts looking like an idiot.

 

[proprietary]

but Fairplay is a specific method and is likely patented.

Actually, no. FairPlay is just MD5 and AES.

Apple's being nice by just breaking their software - they could be dragging them through court.

And I could be dragging you through court for being clueless. Fortunately for you, being clueless isn't illegal, and fortunately for RealNetworks, reverse engineering isn't illegal (fortunately for Apple as well, since they depend on Samba for Windows networking support in Mac OS X, and Samba was created through reverse engineering).

After Apple open-sourced Darwin Streaming Server they tried to jump on that bandwagon with their Helix stuff, but they didn't include their codecs.

Darwin Streaming Server doesn't include any codecs either.

 

[bgotori]

Hey All

I just hope that someone starts selling songs for 50-75 cents!!! YEA... AND I DON'T CARE WHO!!!


Have Great Holiday's!!!

Brad

 

[nationElectric]

What a bunch of control freaks.

Get this: when you buy a piece of hardware, IT'S YOURS. It ceases to be Apple's. It ceases to be Steve's. You should be able to do absolutely whatever you want with it, and that includes loading data onto it from third parties. Do you freak out like this when someone downloads a windows media file onto their Mac or, lord forbid, installs YellowDog linux on it? WAIT! They're not getting the Quicktime experience! WAIT! They're not licking Aqua! WE MUST SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES!

The existence of Real's offering didn't force you to do anything. It didn't force you to buy from them, and it certainly didn't force you to abandon iTMS. Sure, Real is in it for the money, but they ain't trying to control you. Apple is also in it for the money, but guess what? They ARE trying to control you, and you're lapping it up. Not surprising, given that you're already paying money (lots of money, from the sound of it) for DRM'ed products. At least Real was trying to expand your options, by however little.

When are you going to wake up and stop letting people yank you around with their proprietary standards?

 

[nationElectric]

It would be like making a car with a new type of wheel which makes tires obsolete. Then in the dark of night a tire company goes out and replaces the updated product with the legacy tires. In the morning as the revolutionary wheel company, wouldn't you ship your new cars with wheel locks to prevent swapping? Sure the locks cost the end users a bit more, but it's better than waking up without the wheels that came on your car and may or may not be compatible with your onboard tire pressure system.

Actually, it would be like a rival company just making tires that fit your car, and your company putting locks on the wheels because you don't want your customers to be able to buy them. Sure, the locks cost the end users a bit more, but it's better than having to compete in a free and open market.

 

[nationElectric]

And how will this make Apple better? If it was competition, you're right. So, if Real came up with an integrated solution like iPod/iTunes it will make Apple build a better iPod. But allowing Real to play songs on this iPod, will not make Apple better....

Might not make the iPod better, but it would certainly encourage them to improve iTMS. If a competing store offered Fairplay-compatible songs for less money, or offered them earlier, or offered a larger catalog of them, or offered fewer usage restrictions, it would certainly be incentive for Apple to improve their music service.

 

[djsteele]

Time to come to a common DRM standard, an open standard controlled by a committee and not a single company so we can download from whatever online music store we want and play our music on favourite digital player.

Let market forces decide on the best music store / mp3 player instead of companies protecting themselves. An open market.

Its going to happen eventually.. but not soon enough.

Good luck with that... As with everything else, you have to follow the money trail. And for companies, especially the music industry, there's no money in an open standard (despite the benefits to customers). If an open standard exists, then companies, software and music alike, cannot leverage proprietary solutions to drive profits.

The bottom line is that an open standard doesn't impact, well... the bottom line.

In truth, there is an open standard already... MPEG4, which Apple is using for it's AAC encoded files. However, Apple has added an additional layer to protect the redistribution of the encoded files. Of course, this is to drive (and protect) profits for Apple and it's partners in the music industry.

We can certainly dream and beg for such an open standard, but it's not likely to happen. Consider high-definition DVDs... there's about 3 major formats all controlled by various interested parties, not the least of which are movie studios or electronics manufacturers. An open standard has been requested for several years by consumers, but companies traditionally will choose profitability over the benefit of consumers. (Unless the benefit of employees creates the potential for higher profits. In the entertainment industry, the potential for profit is based on gimmicks, thus a proprietary solution is more likely to succeed.)

 

[jared_kipe]

Who purchased music from Real that already owns an ipod?

 

[rteichman]

i don't think apple ever will open up Fairplay to others. apple is notoriously picky about the complete control it exerts over its products. cloned OS went nowhere and for apple, they're gonna go solo as far as they can, trusting their superior product and tight integration/control over it...

Yep, and that is how Steve lost the PC battle in the early 80's. Its also how Sony lost the VCR battle, and so on and so on.... Ten years from now I am willing to bet the iPod/iTunes will still be the best product on the market, but instead of 90+% market share, it will be in the single digits.

 

[AidenShaw]

what do you mean?

While this is true keep in mind Netscape/Mozilla never went and reversed engineered Internet Explorer/Microsoft.

What are you implying? Did Safari reverse-engineer tabs from Opera?

Some background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_web_browser

Both IE and Navigator are based on Mosaic technologies....

 

[Doctor Q]

So, it's really none of Apple's business what consumers do with their iPods after the purchase. My question is what will Apple do about the many P2P networks since they are a huge source of alternate music tracks. Is there anybody out there that has never even once put a (stolen, shared, pirated, whatever you want to call it) mp3 on there iPod?

You don't have to install iPod software updates either. If you voluntarily choose to install one, Apple has a chance to replace the firmware that controls how the iPod performs, and therefore what you get out of it, for better or worse. So you still have choice, but you could certainly argue that changes like this should be disclosed, not hidden in an update that you install for other reasons.

And yes, my iPod mini is full of tunes and I've purchased every one.

 

[iGary]

*devils advocate hat*

So what if Apple decides that all third-party software (i.e. iPod Rip) are violating the Fairplay agreement, and decides to disable all third-party hacks?

Happy with Apple's move on this, but think about it.

 

[CTerry]

I would love to see Apple license out Fairplay to other people, Real was right about 'freedom of music choice' but the way Real went about implementing this was all wrong, I know its corny and stupid, but two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[lungaretta]

Geek perspective

There's a huge difference between:

if (clientName.isEqualTo("Real"){
tellThemToBuggerOff();
}


To:

if (!clientName.isEqualTo("Apple"){
tellThemToBuggerOff();
}

I'll go back to sleep now....

(Those who get it: Excuse the quasi-language)

 

[~Shard~]

Take that RealNetworks, ya bunch of hacking bastards.... 😎

 

[nagromme]

My iPod is MINE, not Apple's. I as a owner can do whatever I damn well please with my property, and I shouldn't have to worry about upsetting Big Brother Apple while I do it. I could crush it with a hammer, embed it with diamonds, give it to a friend. So, it's really none of Apple's business what consumers do with their iPods after the purchase.

Not unless you accept a software/firmware update from Apple 🙂

I agree, Apple only has the right to make such a change without warning to NEW iPods sold, not ones already out there.

However, I suspect in the fine print you agreed to upon installing updates, you'll find something that legally IS sufficient warning. And you'd have found additional warnings in Real's own legalese.

The big problem at the heart of it all is DRM. You don't have the right to break the law and pirate music, and DRM enforces that. But a lot of potential hassles can result--and Real has just created one of them. It is a shame that legal downloads would never have taken off without DRM. Thank the pirates and the RIAA.

 

[macfan1977]

You don't have to install iPod software updates either. If you voluntarily choose to install one, Apple has a chance to replace the firmware that controls how the iPod performs, and therefore what you get out of it, for better or worse. So you still have choice, but you could certainly argue that changes like this should be disclosed, not hidden in an update that you install for other reasons.

And yes, my iPod mini is full of tunes and I've purchased every one.

Extend this a little further.... You don't need to buy an iPod. Nor songs online from the iTMS. If you don't like the recommended use model, support the competition's end-to-end solution (device + jukebox + DRM). Until the FCC/Government starts regulating DRM, all other solutions except Apple's is ala cart.

You suggest that Apple intentionally issued a firmware update to prevent play of music downloaded from Real's music store. Although Apple might have got a little satisfaction in this side effect, their intent was to update real bugs and provide feature enhancements. Maybe Apple's marketing department has done the homework and realized that it's not worth the time and risk to spite the handfull of iPod subscribers to the Real music store.

Do you expect that Apple is supposed to perform compatibility and compliance testing with every 3rd party addition and/or hacked version of DRM that gets put on the device? The reputable vendors, like Belkin et. al., probably got the API or hardware interface specification from Apple when they went into license agreements with Apple. "Guessing" at the API for DRM is a house of cards. I bet Apple tests licensed vendors equipment... Maybe there are perks with being licensed 🙂

Finally, I wanted to suggest that the analogy with the cars and tires can be improved. Where do you all live that tire theft is a big problem 🙂 Maybe a better analogy is that you buy a nice BMW which the manufacturer recommends high octane gasoline (BMW==Apple iPod, gasoline==FairPlay). You can drop the cash for a new car, but when you decide you like the cost of diesel fuel better than gasoline (diesel==Real), you put in diesel and the car won't go anymore! You also void your warranty and the support folks don't give you the answers you want...

 

[beg_ne]

Why do people give this a positive rating on the macrumors front page? Who benefits from this besides Apple? I can't see how consumers do.

Who benefits from "harmony" other than Real?

And seriously does this affect you at all? Have you ever bought any songs from Real? If you're a Mac only user then your answer has to be no since Real has snubbed Mac users.

 

[point665]

I didnt get a chance to read all the posts... But Real sucks... To get their player nowdays you have to enter a damn credit card number (at least a few months ago)... who wants to do that? Apple offers quicktime and itunes for free, and microsoft offers wmp. And the real trial version is just that, a trial version... It pisses me off to see media sources that only have Real format audio/video...

Just my few cents.

 

[Steven1621]

I wonder if Real could provide the numbers of how many people are using an iPod with their music service...not many I would guess.

 

[MarcelV]

Might not make the iPod better, but it would certainly encourage them to improve iTMS. If a competing store offered Fairplay-compatible songs for less money, or offered them earlier, or offered a larger catalog of them, or offered fewer usage restrictions, it would certainly be incentive for Apple to improve their music service.

You are assuming Apple has control over this. Unfortunate, but true, none of the DRM restrictions are Apple's. They are enforced by the recording industry.

Pricing is dictated by the margins the labels want for the distribution rights and are already close to a 0 profit. So, unless you're, like real, want to subsidize every sell, it can't go much cheaper.

For catalogs, same thing. Labels control them. And I can pretty much ensure you, Apple want to put every title in their inventory they can get an hand on.

So, tell me, what is there to gain?

 

[outerspaceapple]

There was a previous discussion about whether Apple could make this change, given the way Apple combines standards with a proprietary implementation. Since Apple wouldn't license Fairplay to Real, Real used reverse engineering to mimic it. So an interesting question is how, technically, the iPod software determines that a given tune is from Real?

it could possible range from anything as complicated as an entirely new algorythm, to simply having all the timstamps end at the same digit...

Personally, I think this was a good move by Apple. Real wasn't paying them any royalties, they hacked the algorythm (sp?)! its one thing for a lone hacker in his mom's attic to hack it and give it to his friends (HYMN anyone?), but its entirely different for a corporate entity to hack it, and RESELL IT AS THEIR OWN.

This is first-rate blasphemy. Why won't Real just curl up and die, nobody likes them anyway.



~~Eddy~~

 

[dejo]

Yep, and that is how Steve lost the PC battle in the early 80's

Daring Fireball made a very strong argument back in August that if Apple had licensed the Macintosh back in the '80s, they'd probably gone out of business.

 

[billystlyes]

Real is such a lame company anyway...

Who would buy anything from that POS company anyway. Why don't they go back to doing what they do best make spyware!