Apple Disabling RealNetworks Harmony Technology

[desdomg]

Apple has spent a lot of its own money and energy developing and building up the iTMS - iPod ecosystem that is so successfull today. It has every right to enjoy the fruits of that labour and sell/licence a piece of the action to whoever it wants, or if it so chooses nobody.

Real has hacked into that eco system and now finds itself locked out - they have only themselves to blame. They asked Apple in the first instance whether they could join the party and Apple said "no". What did they expect?

The iTMS/iPod combo has done revolutionised the digital music scene. Its efforts cannot be underestimated. Before Apple the entire music industry confronted a nightmare scenario of all its content being evenutally delivered illegally but freely via P2P software.

Apple has shown that they market can evolve into a legal one and not damage the artists or the record companies. Real seems to be attempting to turn the clock back to a hacking situation.

They are a disgrace on the whole industry.

As to formats, the whole "debate" in my opinion is a non starter. We do have an open market at present - the record companies/artists can make their songs available to any music store/drm they wish. Unlike the Windows OS monopoly, songs can be made available for any platform very easily. Easier than windows programs for the mac, or sony playstation games for the xbox. Bridgestone and Co. make tires for all makes of car, it would be stupid to say that they should make one standard size so consumers can use tires from one car on another. You choose your player and buy the songs from the corresponding store. The market is wide wide open with new players appearing daily. The consumer will soon be overwhelmed with player choice, and store choice.

If real are so confident that WMA is the right DRM for the future of the market why are they so obsesed with Fairplay compatibility?

 

[nationElectric]

You are assuming Apple has control over this. ... So, tell me, what is there to gain?

Any song, on any other service, that iTMS doesn't have in its catalog, is unable to deliver to my locale, or is unable to deliver at the lowest price.

You can wring your hands and tell me all about Apple's woes, but it just doesn't change the facts: competition would either further motivate Apple to improve their offerings, or other services would do it for them. Other services manage to have different songs available. Other services manage to have cheaper prices. Why shouldn't I be able to buy from them when I want to?

There are a number of record shops in my town. Due to logistical constraints, they cannot all offer me the same selection or the same prices. I have a favorite, sure, but should I slavishly chain myself to it and hope that someday they'll be able to get their hands on the album I want, or should I be able to shop wherever I damn well please?

This is one of the (many) problems with the emerging music download business -- everyone has a scheme, everyone has a proprietary format, everyone is trying to lock you in. Sometimes they even have a heart-wrenching sob story to accompany it. Apple is no different -- it has merely mastered the role of the poor Bohemian street waif; so beautiful, so tragic! That such a lovely young thing should fall victim to competitiTUBERCULOUS? Don't you worry, good sir, I have my hopes to sustain me. My hopes... and love. Oh no, did I just drop my lily-white hankerchief at your feet? What, sir, that tiny scarlet stain upon it? No, kind sir, I'll be fine, I am just of... delicate constitution. These are trying times for such a pale young thing as myself. I feel absolutely faint! Yes, so very, very tragic indeed, sir. It just makes you want to... swoooooon!

That'll be $.99, please. Visa? That's great. Thank you, thank you, we're nothing without you. Sign here, please. You know, we're also available for weddings and bar mitvahs. *cough!* *cough!*

Seriously, at least Real's offering, however flawed it might be, revolves around increasing your options rather than limiting them. I like the idea that there is a music service who will sell me what I want REGARDLESS of the player I own. I like the idea that such technology might become prevalent and that MANY services would spring up who don't first require a $300 purchase before they deign to do business with me. Call me crazy. Giving consumers real choice (which means the choice of when and how to deal with YOU) is the first step in the right direction.

 

[BWhaler]

Normally, I would be against Apple in this situation since I hate DRM in all shapes and forms.

But in this case, I say screw Real. They had it coming, and I hope people sue them for false advertising and fraud.

Real tried to own the DRM standard and be the next MS. They put spyware and adware on my machines. They faked a grass roots campaign. The list goes on and on with this company. And it disgusts me they are now about, "choice." Open up your DRM and file formats then.

And it is no surprise since it is run by a former Microsoftie, with all the ethics of Redmond. He didn't get his monopoly, so he's trying to leech off of Apple.

Nice try, but no thanks. Apple should keep sticking it to Real. Screw Real.

 

[ioinc]

Before I made the very good switch into Mac'land I had already given up on Real Networks brand of corporate spyware. I am glad that Apple is attempting to shield its users from a company such as REAL. My iPod mini (green) proudly sports the brand.

I don't know that you need apple to shield you from this... just don't go there.

Apple is not shielding anything... they are removing an option for their customers.

 

[proprietary]

A slashdot poster on hypocrisy:

I agree, but the obligatory Slashdot Bizarro twist... what if this was about Microsoft Word locking out Org with respect to "protected .doc" files. ...

Number one, this is old, since Microsoft Word was released eons ago.

Number two, Microsoft is under no obligation to support ANYONE else's DRM, period.

Unprotected .doc files from ANY source will open fine on ANY version of Microsoft Word. This is ONLY about Org reverse engineering the Microsoft DRM (more power to them) in order to allow their ".doc" DRM-protected files to work with Microsoft Office. They succeeded. And Microsoft is under NO obligation of any kind to allow it to continue. Word DOES NOT SUPPORT DRM files from ANY other source, so this isn't a matter of "doing what you want with something you bought". If you can personally get OpenOffice.org's protected files to open on your version of Word, go for it. If Org re-engineers it such that the files work, great. Further, you are not forced to update the software. What's that? You'll eventually have to to get new features and bug fixes? Tough. Don't like it? Don't buy another version of Word.

Microsoft is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong. ...

 

[proprietary]

Didn't the USA pass laws a few years ago stating that reverse-engineering of protection measures was illegal?

No.

`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

`(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

`(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

 

[salmon]

I personally think this is a disgusting move by Apple. When Microsoft does the same thing (try to lock people into certain file formats), every one is rightfully outraged, but Apple receives glowing praise. Just because it's Apple doesn't make it right, they're still trying to limit consumer freedom and lock people into THEIR stuff.

I refuse to buy any music until it's in a file format I can:

• move and do whatever the hell I want with.
• port it to any computing environment I want without hassle, including Linux.
• cheaper, I think songs are quite overpriced.
• little to no money goes to the "industry", it goes directly to the artist(s) and the store.

Until consumers FORCE tech companies to give up on this proprietary bullcrap, they'll keep doing it. What happens in the future when someone bought $2000 worth of iTunes songs and they decide they want to run Linux instead, or simply better jukebox software? Perhaps because IBM buys Apple and runs them into the ground? (hey, it's possible) Yeah, I know there's funky PITA ways around it (burn to CD then rip it back), but that's a hack.

Apple can compete (and destroy the competition) on the design of their products, they don't have to play these kinds of games and limit consumers.

Real might suck as a company - I don't know, I don't use their software - but that's really beside the point here.

 

[wnurse]

Not taking sides but

1. Because iPod and iTunes are integrated system--and a much better, easier-to-use, and reliable music experience as a result. Letting another company's bugs in the door, and removing iTunes from the process, dilutes that quality and harms Apple's brand. (It's not just about the store--Harmony users can't use iTunes as their jukebox/library manager even! And then iPod-specific features that are connected to iTunes are lost as well. It's a mess, and one that some users and reviewers WOULD incorrectly blame Apple for. Better that Apple share the blame for not allowing the "choice" to have that mess.)

2. Because Apple wants to be able to CHARGE companies to use the iPod. They are offering no such option yet, but it's their right to collect that money when and IF they feel the time is strategic to do so.

3. To show to other companies in other negotiations that they won't be bullied, like Real has tried to do.

Point 1 is the exact same reason microsoft uses to integrate their browser into the operating system. Point 1 is valid for any monopoly or any company in a monopoly position for a product. It's really not a justification to maintain monopoly (so says the federal government, the europeans and a host of other govt's that have sued microsoft).

point 2 is not valid. Does microsoft charge other companies to use windows? Does your dvd maker charge hollywood studios to use their players?. Does your tv set maker charge cbs to use their sets. Point 2 is not valid at all.

point 3. Real bullying apple?. When?. How?.

 

[Arcady]

Does microsoft charge other companies to use windows?

Why yes, they do.Do you think they give Windows away for free?

Does your dvd maker charge hollywood studios to use their players?

MPEG-LA charges DVD manufacturers for the rights to use the MPEG-2 and CSS system on DVD discs, the answer is also yes.

 

[wnurse]

A note to the nostradamuses.

I've been reading many post about Real dying. Soon, the Real death predictions will equal the apple death predictions. Yes, i realize that people here don't use real but i have a relevation to many of you. There are lots (and i mean lots) of people that still use real software. There are many websites that still use real format. This is coming from a mac user since 1998. I should know, i use real sometimes. Lets not become those that have been sounding the death of apple for years. They bagan to look foolish and soon we will too. Look around you. How many people post to this forum?. You are not the sum total of the universe. Real is alive and will be for a long time. Even if no one in the U.S uses them, there are over 2 billion people total in asia and india. There are billions more elsewhere. The U.S only has 300 million people and of that, only like 10 post in this forum. The 9 out of 10 people here who don't use real does not indicate real is a dying company.

Just a perspective.
Disclaimer: I've never bought music from real or apple. Actually, i've never bought music online so i have no idea on the relative quality of their offerings.
On the other hand, maybe this makes me a little bit more objective.

 

[sinisterdesign]

Yes. If Real comes to NZ before Apple does, guess who I'll buy from.

and if Real comes to NZ before Apple, guess what music player you won't be playing the music on?

i mean, bummer that iTMS isn't available for you yet, but this can NOT be a surprise to anyone that foolishly bit into Real's "marketing" scheme. you know when you buy an iPod that it only works w/ iTMS, so i have no sympathy for anyone who's stuck w/ a bunch of Real's garbage that won't play on their iPod all of a sudden.

there are a ton of dig music players on the market. if someone wants "compatability", don't buy an iPod. it's a closed system. it just happens to be a very good closed system. apple doesn't need your purchase anyhow, they can't keep the shelves stocked. </rant>

 

[rickag]

Real is not about options, it's about Real

...
Seriously, at least Real's offering, however flawed it might be, revolves around increasing your options rather than limiting them....

And I QUOTE

We're sorry​

This service is currently not available for Mac​

Now please explain to me again how "Real's offering, however flawed it might be, revolves around increasing my[your] options" one tiny bit.

 

[silverone]

Impulse Buy!

Hello All,

Long time IT professional and newly converted Mac Geek here.
Take a few deep breaths a realize that Apple sits in the best position of anyone here.
Everything they offer is purely optional, nothing is built into a standard OS, browser or media player, iTunes, iPod, Quicktime is all freewill on your part. If you use it, comment on it or want it changed or improved, that means that you've bought into the idea behind it. No one forced you to but a some off ITMS or get the new U2 iPod but you made the choice.
At the end of the day, it's Apple who is riding a wave all on an Impulse Buy - the real goal is to get you to but a new Mac laptop or G5. The iPod is just a taste and an great position to be in. Real, MSN, Napster all offer services and no tangible product. They all have more to loose in terms of just what is there left to sell in Real, Napster, etc, loose total market share? So in the end you have to give Apple all the props for making a real great "pack of gum" to chew on till we all purchase a new iMac. I'm living proof, MS Certified for over 15 years and upon the purchase of an iPod 1G years ago, I've moved on the Apple Certification and Developer status - Oh, and I've also bought three more iPods, a PowerMac G5 and and 17"PB - that's one hell of a Impulse Buy! - silverone - see the bigger picture; no fear of viruses in an attractive package

 

[sinisterdesign]

I personally think this is a disgusting move by Apple.
...
I refuse to buy any music until it's in a file format I can:

• move and do whatever the hell I want with.
• port it to any computing environment I want without hassle, including Linux.
• cheaper, I think songs are quite overpriced.
• little to no money goes to the "industry", it goes directly to the artist(s) and the store.

Real might suck as a company - I don't know, I don't use their software - but that's really beside the point here.

you think Apple just CAME UP with these "rules" out of thin air??!? you think THEY dictated what usage rights consumers have for music. Apple doesn't create this music, the music industry does and the music industry required DRM before they would allow companies like Apple to sell their songs online. i think Apple did a pretty damn good job of negotiating the usage rights.

- they're overpriced? and CDs aren't? go to Barnes & Noble and shell out $18 for a CD and tell me iTMS doesn't seem like a bargain.

- "little money goes to the industry"? i don't know the exact figure, but i believe the industry gets about 70+% of each sale. they of course have to pay the artists, but apple is a reseller, they don't dictate how much an artist gets paid.

- you want to do anything you want w/ your music? tell that to the RIAA. they love that kind of gung-ho attitude when it comes to music.

do i like proprietary formats? no. i hate Sony's ATRAC format, that's why i threw my Walkman DMP away and bought an iPod (that and it was compatible w/ my Mac). but until there's a wildly popular opensource DRM'ed format, the music industry isn't going to allow their music to be sold that way. there's no WAY the music industry would allow Apple to sell music in MP3 or Ogg Vorbis format.

do i think the music industry is going to change drastically in the next 5-10 years? absolutely. i think Apple is leading the way on this and so far i think they've done a pretty good job all things considered.

 

[salmon]

1. Because iPod and iTunes are integrated system--and a much better, easier-to-use, and reliable music experience as a result. Letting another company's bugs in the door, and removing iTunes from the process, dilutes that quality and harms Apple's brand. (It's not just about the store--Harmony users can't use iTunes as their jukebox/library manager even! And then iPod-specific features that are connected to iTunes are lost as well. It's a mess, and one that some users and reviewers WOULD incorrectly blame Apple for. Better that Apple share the blame for not allowing the "choice" to have that mess.)

2. Because Apple wants to be able to CHARGE companies to use the iPod. They are offering no such option yet, but it's their right to collect that money when and IF they feel the time is strategic to do so.

3. To show to other companies in other negotiations that they won't be bullied, like Real has tried to do.

So that's great for Apple... but how is that good for consumers?

 

[anonymous161]

Games

How is this really any different than PS2 games only playing on a PS2 and XBox games only playing on an XBOX. I mean if I like the XBOX's controller and graphics set then why can't I play Metal Gear Solid 3 or Gran Turismo on it? Sony is just monopolizing the market.

 

[hayesk]

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. D

Yeah, so do with it as you please. Nobody cares.

You're acting as if Apple is the devil for fixing broken code in their firmware. The fix broke Real's exploitation. Tough. But as you said, it's your iPod - so don't update the firmware. Or hack your own firmware to get the iPod to play whatever you want.

There is a group that is making Linux for the iPod - join them and do what you like.

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.

Actually Real has screwed over Apple's customers for years with subpar software and now Mac users still can't buy from their store. Real is trying to leech off the iPod's popularity. They're trying to control their bottom line.

Apple is not trying to control you. Your tinfoil hat it on too tight. Apple is protecting their image of offering quality. If Real sells crap that doesn't sound good or work well on the iPod, customers are going to fault Apple for it, and that's bad for business.

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

The iPod plays MP3 - that is a standard. Real can give you normal MP3s if they like.

 

[salmon]

you think Apple just CAME UP with these "rules" out of thin air??!? you think THEY dictated what usage rights consumers have for music. Apple doesn't create this music, the music industry does and the music industry required DRM before they would allow companies like Apple to sell their songs online. i think Apple did a pretty damn good job of negotiating the usage rights.

- they're overpriced? and CDs aren't? go to Barnes & Noble and shell out $18 for a CD and tell me iTMS doesn't seem like a bargain.

- "little money goes to the industry"? i don't know the exact figure, but i believe the industry gets about 70+% of each sale. they of course have to pay the artists, but apple is a reseller, they don't dictate how much an artist gets paid.

- you want to do anything you want w/ your music? tell that to the RIAA. they love that kind of gung-ho attitude when it comes to music.

do i like proprietary formats? no. i hate Sony's ATRAC format, that's why i threw my Walkman DMP away and bought an iPod (that and it was compatible w/ my Mac). but until there's a wildly popular opensource DRM'ed format, the music industry isn't going to allow their music to be sold that way. there's no WAY the music industry would allow Apple to sell music in MP3 or Ogg Vorbis format.

do i think the music industry is going to change drastically in the next 5-10 years? absolutely. i think Apple is leading the way on this and so far i think they've done a pretty good job all things considered.

Of course I know who's behind it - the music industry is trying deperately to cling to power and remain in the chain of things. Because if artists can use stores on the internet to distribute their music and get more of the revenue, what purpose does the "industry" serve? I guess to train people into believing they want to listen to garbage like Britney Spears.

Yes, CD's are terribly overpriced too - I've bought maybe a half-dozen in the last 10 years, and they've all been ones that I know I like every song on. And there are a couple of smaller artists I like that sell their songs on MP3 - so I buy them. And iTMS is an improvement, the songs are cheaper than most CDs in stores.

It always amazes me when consumers don't exercise the power they ultimately hold, and they buy into these systems. If everyone stopped buying music unless it was in an open format, it would be in a HEARTBEAT. Just like I stopped watching baseball when they screwed over the Expos, and how I'll stop watching hockey if they don't fix their problems.

At the very least, you should have the option of moving your DRMd music to any other DRM system you want - for example, if Sony did manage to come up with a vastly superior audio device, won't you be pissed off that you can't use it because you invested a lot of money into AAC files?

Screw that, I say - there's plenty of companies trying to get my limited amount of cash, and unless they deliver me the products I want, they aren't getting it.

 

[wPod]

so i am confused. at what point does apple screw themselves over? yes real is bad for reverse engineering their software to work with the iPod, but, if apple really doesnt allow anyone else close to the big apple in the sky, then wont they turn into the M$ of portable players?! "you can not see our software, we will not be compatible with anyone. .. F*** OFF you little people." wouldnt more people buy iPods if it was compatible with more players and MP3 stores anyway?!?! and thats where apple makes the real money, not off the 99cent sales. remind me again what happened when IBM allowed other companies to produce "IBM compatible PCs" while apple did not allow this?

 

[JGowan]

It amazes me that so many people on here can act as if somehow all iPods are the property of Apple Computer. 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.

You CAN put just about anything on it, even convert unprotected WMA files on it -- Apple is working to make it very versatile.

WAV; AIFF; MP3; Apple Lossless; AAC; Conversion of WMA files to AAC.

The only thing Apple doesn't allow is protected files from other companies to work. I think that is quite fair. When it becomes a viable and fair way to MAKE money, I'm sure Apple will finally allow others to have their DRM. While it would TAKE money from them, I'm certain Apple won't budge. How can you blame them?!

Blockbuster: They are being forced to discontinue LATE FEES... this is unheard of -- but their hands are being forced because of competition from Netflicks. When competition becomes a factor for Apple and they must license or lose, they will hopefully see the light. But I can't begrudge them for not doing it until it has to happen.

Sony: has their TRAC (sp?) format and no one's bitching at them and their players won't even play all of the other STANDARDS, including the mother of all files: the freaking MP3!

Bottomline - some people create standards and then license them out. Some don't. It's their product. They can sell or not.

If the REAL customers want to keep playing their music on their ipods, there is one REAL simple solution: don't upgrade your firmware. Don't piss and moan, just live with what you have. Later, when you have to have the new 80GB IPOD, then burn your REAL music and bring it over to the Apple in their Lossless format -- it will be some trouble, but you will have gotten your $5 album and been able to circumvent the system.

 

[superfunkomatic]

i think it's good that apple has responded to real's underhanded way of using their licensing / DRM solution. now, i think it's time for all these weenies and apple to decide on a common format for music - like ISO standards for film, communications symbols, etc. let's get a common format so we can all play nicely in the sandbox.

 

[rteichman]

As has been said before, the digital music player is still in it's infancy. There was probably a time where there were more Betamax players than VHS. Sony made a few really big mistakes with Betamax but there is no force like JVC and VHS yet on the horizon for Apple. If anything, Apple is the late-comer that took the market away from the early players. I would like to think that Apple won them over with a better product. It's still early though. You won't be able to write this book for another 5 years or so.

Not true! Sony Betamax had the same market share (heck maybe more) that Apple does now with iPod. From a quality and useability perpective betamax was far superior to VHS. Sony's ONLY mistake with Betamax was not licensing it out. JVC (a smaller company than Sony at the time) developed VHS only after being denied license rights by Sony. VHS, a much poorer product, but available everywhere became the standard, and betamax disapeared because unlike Sony JVC licensed the technology to whoever asked for it. Apple is ignoring the lessons that Sony (and even Apple) learned a long time ago.

 

[hayesk]

I personally think this is a disgusting move by Apple. When Microsoft does the same thing (try to lock people into certain file formats),

This is an argument about the same file format. Not locking people into a format. You don't have to buy songs from iTMS or Real to use the iPod. Nobody's locked into anything.

every one is rightfully outraged, but Apple receives glowing praise. Just because it's Apple doesn't make it right, they're still trying to limit consumer freedom and lock people into THEIR stuff.

Bull. Apple supports MP3 an open format. Real is free to offer MP3. Apple would have to invest money to build an infrastructure to sublicence FairPlay to Real - why would they do that only to lose money to Real. Where's the upside for Apple?

- snipped demands that are enforced by the record industry, not Apple -

simply better jukebox software? Perhaps because IBM buys Apple and runs them into the ground? (hey, it's possible) Yeah, I know there's funky PITA ways around it (burn to CD then rip it back), but that's a hack.

That's a hack?!? And Real's Harmony is also a hack. Why should Apple bend over backwards to support a hack that exposes a flaw in their DRM code?

Real might suck as a company - I don't know, I don't use their software - but that's really beside the point here.

Yes, Real sucks as a company. They jump up and down about wanting to give consumers a choice, but yet they don't even offer music to Mac users. Some choice.

P.S. It's good to see another Nova Scotian on these boards.

 

[hayesk]

Not true! Sony Betamax had the same market share (heck maybe more) that Apple does now with iPod. From a quality and useability perpective betamax was far superior to VHS. Sony's ONLY mistake with Betamax was not licensing it out. JVC (a smaller company than Sony at the time) developed VHS only after being denied license rights by Sony. VHS, a much poorer product, but available everywhere became the standard, and betamax disapeared because unlike Sony JVC licensed the technology to whoever asked for it. Apple is ignoring the lessons that Sony (and even Apple) learned a long time ago.

A couple of nitpicks - VHS was only poorer when trying to copy over and over again. Original copies of VHS and Beta were very similar. Another iissue was Beta tapes were smaller - they weren't as long at VHS tapes were - bad for longer movies.

 

[hayesk]

i think it's good that apple has responded to real's underhanded way of using their licensing / DRM solution. now, i think it's time for all these weenies and apple to decide on a common format for music - like ISO standards for film, communications symbols, etc. let's get a common format so we can all play nicely in the sandbox.

The problem is no upside for Apple to do this. Until Apple sees an advantage (which may come way of the record companies demanding it) we won't see it happen.