Apple Disabling RealNetworks Harmony Technology

[proprietary]

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?

OpenOffice can save documents that Microsoft Word will accept and open. Does that expose a flaw in Microsoft's code? No, it doesn't. MacOS X can communicate with Windows networks. Does that expose a flaw in Microsoft's code? No, it doesn't.

I suggest you read up on how FairPlay works.

 

[ioinc]

Excellent. Apple needs to protect the iPod from such groups who would like to tap into its success.

Because proprietary systems have worked so well for apple in the past?

 

[Gear_media]

Because proprietary systems have worked so well for apple in the past?

Sony's Playstation and M$'s Xbox are prime examples of proprietary systems working. John Gruber of Daring Fireball explained quite well how iPod v.s. the Macs proprietary systems are completely different beasts in a very comprehensive and well researched blog entry a few months ago.

 

[salmon]

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.

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?

That's a good point - I guess I can be accused of getting the two seperate issues mixed up, the DRM and Real's specific tactics. However, there are a couple of points people are bringing up that don't quite make sense when taken together:

• Apple insists they aren't making very much money on the iTMS and that it's really acting as a seller for iPods. If that were true, then they would just be trying to get as many music retailers supporting their format as possible, like MS is doing.
• If Real sucks that badly (and I believe they do), why would people buy from them anyway? Apple is competing on the quality of their offerings (IMO pretty much the only tech company that tries to) and for that I am deeply impressed - so why this inconsistency?

It's a troubling situation for consumers I see unfolding - Apple controls the music distribution and the devices that support it. So when someone has a lot invested in a music collection, Apple's in charge, not the consumer. MS Office (yuck) provides a nice historical example.

And they wouldn't necessarily lose money - it depends on the licensing terms.

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.

No company is interested in giving consumers choice, but a lot of them mouth off about it a lot. They all want to be Microsoft, and whine when they're not.

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

Ditto, fellow Bluenoser! I saw someone else as well not too long ago. We're few and far between.

 

[Gear_media]

• Apple insists they aren't making very much money on the iTMS and that it's really acting as a seller for iPods. If that were true, then they would just be trying to get as many music retailers supporting their format as possible, like MS is doing.

Not so. Bringing all sorts of third parties into the equation dilutes the user experience of the iPod/iTunes/iTMS solution . One of the best selling points of the iPod is its seamless integration with the iTMS. Throw some shoddy third rate company like Real into the mix and apple no longer controls how well the product works.

 

[Yvan256]

Always? How do you explain the success of the iPod then? Does the market consider it just "good enough"?

Well, ok, let me rephrase that, then:

The market forces usually seems to choose what's "good enough" and not "what's best".

There, feel better? ;-)

 

[chevyorange]

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?

IBM ended up selling their PC business and is no longer in that game, that is what happened.

 

[Yvan256]

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.

And since when does iTunes/iTMS *requires* an iPod? Nobody's forcing you to buy a portable music player, at all.

 

[Yvan256]

No.

Nice quote, but then why are the DeCSS programs illegal and even have the authors being thrown in jail?

 

[peharri]

WWWD

There was no doubt that Apple wanted to disable or defeat this technology, given Apple's statement in July that RealNetworks was using the "tactics and ethics of a hacker".

I loved this quote. It shows how far Jobs has sold out. I can see Wozniak's reacting to Apple saying this with a quiet and depressed sigh.

I'm depressed Apple feels the need to cripple the iPod. I do not plan to download any more software updates for my 2G model. It's not that I plan to buy anything from Real any time soon, it's just it's *my* iPod, and I don't like the idea that Apple can dictate what I do with it.

Sorry Apple, but the transaction ended when you debited by credit card. I know that concept upsets you, and many of your apologists, but you're a strange company - you produce some wonderful innovative things, but your ethics, frankly, have gone up and down over the last twenty years, from suing everyone over "look and feel" to trying to prevent your customers from buying over the net music from stores other than the iTMS. You people need a slap. You serve us, the public, not vice versa, remember?

 

[Yvan256]

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>

In fact, what's stopping your from using iTunes and buying an iPod, *even* if there's no iTMS for your country? I've had my 3rd gen, 10GB iPod since around january 2004, and I've been added my bought CDs into iTunes since then. Of course, the topic is online music stores, but with so many people even complaining about DRM and the so-called quality of lossy CODECs and everything, I don't understand why someone would not buy an iPod simply based on the availability of iTMS in their country...

 

[peharri]

Nice quote, but then why are the DeCSS programs illegal and even have the authors being thrown in jail?

Sorry to inject some facts here, but the legality or otherwise of DeCSS remains controvertial and unclear. Nobody is in jail. Nobody has ever been sentenced to jail over DeCSS.

The nearest thing to a ruling against DeCSS was the infamous Judge Kaplan ruling against the magazine 2600, where the context of DeCSS was clearly an issue. At the time, it was claimed, in court and elsewhere, that it was the fact DeCSS was a Windows application (originally) that made it blatently obvious it was designed to circumvent controls. There are implementations of CSS decrypters that are Linux only and are clearly provided as a way to implement DVD players - those remain a potential legal test case, if and when the DVD-CCA decides to prosecute, and it's far from certain they'd win.

 

[Yvan256]

[...] 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? [...]

Well, it's a technological situation. Replace the word "music" to "movie", and you'll see you're probably ALREADY locked into the loop...

For example, if companies did manage to come up with a vastly superior movie format (such as Blue-ray DVD or HD-DVD), won't you be pissed off that you can't use it (the higher quality) because you invested a lot of money into DVDs (which are lower quality)?

The only way to prevent such a thing is to buy actual music CDs (unless you happen to want those SuperCDs or Music DVDs). For movies, it's already way too late (and would probably require a few Terabytes per movie, anyway - we're still very far from having that available to the average customer).

 

[Gear_media]

You serve us, the public, not vice versa, remember?

Exactly. By making sure that you are getting the best user experience possible.

Real isn't offering choice. They are offering a "locked in" solution of their own that tries make people want a different mp3 player. You cant transfer your Real purchased songs with iTunes to the iPod, You have to use your Real software. When Apple (through no fault of their own) breaks the ability then people cry foul and want something else. Real is catering to Dell and Creative and Sony.

 

[Yvan256]

OpenOffice can save documents that Microsoft Word will accept and open. Does that expose a flaw in Microsoft's code? No, it doesn't. MacOS X can communicate with Windows networks. Does that expose a flaw in Microsoft's code? No, it doesn't.

I suggest you read up on how FairPlay works.

But is Microsoft forced to check if any modification in their software/format will break OpenOffice support? No.

Same thing with Apple, they can do whatever they want with their closed system. If it happens to break a hack from someone, too bad. They're under no obligation to support hacks!

 

[proprietary]

Nice quote, but then why are the DeCSS programs illegal and even have the authors being thrown in jail?

Removing DRM (DeCSS) is the opposite of adding DRM (Harmony). One is illegal (without permission), the other is not.

And as peharri pointed out, nobody has ever been jailed over DeCSS.

 

[Yvan256]

• Apple insists they aren't making very much money on the iTMS and that it's really acting as a seller for iPods. If that were true, then they would just be trying to get as many music retailers supporting their format as possible, like MS is doing.

Well, for competitors to be compatible with iPod, wouldn't they have to open up the iPod specs, and in turn the iTunes specs? That would give competitors the ability to ride on both the iPod and iTunes success, and even iTMS if we stretch things a bit.

What if you could buy that el-cheapo 50$, 128MB flash player and use it with iTunes (and even iTMS)? You sure wouldn't even consider the iPod (well, price-wise only, anyway).

 

[Yvan256]

Sorry to inject some facts here, but the legality or otherwise of DeCSS remains controvertial and unclear. Nobody is in jail. Nobody has ever been sentenced to jail over DeCSS.

The nearest thing to a ruling against DeCSS was the infamous Judge Kaplan ruling against the magazine 2600, where the context of DeCSS was clearly an issue. At the time, it was claimed, in court and elsewhere, that it was the fact DeCSS was a Windows application (originally) that made it blatently obvious it was designed to circumvent controls. There are implementations of CSS decrypters that are Linux only and are clearly provided as a way to implement DVD players - those remain a potential legal test case, if and when the DVD-CCA decides to prosecute, and it's far from certain they'd win.

Really?

 

[proprietary]

But is Microsoft forced to check if any modification in their software/format will break OpenOffice support? No.

Same thing with Apple, they can do whatever they want with their closed system. If it happens to break a hack from someone, too bad. They're under no obligation to support hacks!

Apple's update didn't just happen to break Harmony. They deliberately made changes to break Harmony.

They've changed the name and the format of the key file on the iPod. It used to be named iSCInfo2, now it's named iEKInfo, and the format is completely different.

Apple is under no obligation to verify that they don't break 3rd party code. However, deliberately making changes to break 3rd party code is completely different. If Microsoft makes changes in Longhorn to break MacOS X's Windows networking support, I'm sure people here will be singing a different tune.

 

[capvideo]

From a quality and useability perpective betamax was far superior to VHS.

Usability? Sony set the Betamax length to only an hour. This made it impossible to timeshift movies.

Later, after the Beta format had already lost, Sony chose to increase the length of betamax tapes, but by then it was too late.

That, I think, was the number one reason that VHS won. Beta was completely useless for what people actually did with their tapes: timeshift movies. Beta was an inferior format compared to VHS because of this.

Consumers do occasionally factor usability into their purchases. Witness VHS, and witness the iPod.

As far as quality goes, I think that "far superior" is stretching things quite a bit. On my television set from that time period I had a hard enough time telling the quality difference between VHS standard and VHS extended play. Beta wasn't better than VHS by as much as VHS standard is better than VHS extended.

But it doesn't matter, because no matter how much "better" Beta's playback quality was, if Beta couldn't timeshift a movie it was useless and inferior.

Jerry

 

[shooterlv]

I don't understand why people are getting mad at Apple for supporting their product. You purchased the iPod knowing that they didn't support RealMedia. Apple has never said that they support them. So why are you getting mad when they don't support them.

If someone wrote a hack that allowed you to run OS X on a pentium processor and six months later Intel updated their chipsets to not run this hack. I would not be mad at Intel. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

Apple is supporting their iPods so that they work exactly the way Apple has always said. There is nothing wrong with that. If anyone purchased an iPod because of Real's hack then I feel sorry for them. They should have researched and realized that Apple did not support it and it may not work forever. If real's music were corrupted or failed to play to the quality that iPod users expect, Apple's iPod would be judged not Real.

 

[radio893fm]

One again I am dissapointed by the Apple fans. Weren't you the ones that criticize MS because of some type of "unfair market" practices or some crap like that? So what is Apple doing here?

You guys have to wake up once and for all. Be consisten with your ideas please.

And...

real is just using iPod's popularity to its advantage, while giving nothing back to apple. it's pretty clear who needs the other more in this case...

Jajajaja. Is this a joke? The iPod is what it is because of the MP3 revolution... not iTunes... please! So Apple used the popularity of MP3 in its advantage and what was wrong with that?

 

[joeboy_45101]

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.

I don't see how accepting updated software makes the iPod the property of Apple. I see this as a desperate act from Apple to maintain control, sort of like a washed-up rockstar who hasn't brought out anything new in years and is just trying to make money now by going after copyrights and releasing greatest-hits albums. I mean think about it, the only new things that they can bring to the iPod is a click-wheel and a color screen, WOW!

Oh, and they've been complete *******s about supporting older generation iPods. How hard is it really? I know that not all new software features are going to be available to the older iPods but they shouldn't just lie and say that the hardware is that much different. They make is sound, dealing with the hardware, that the 4G iPod and the Older iPods are as different as Mac and PC; night and day; cat and dog; apples and oranges. If they can make OS 10.3 run on my iMac G3 DV SE and make it run on a PowerMac G5, then they can give the older iPods an decent software update.

The problem is not DRM. I think Apple is burnt out right now, they are out of revolutionary ideas when it comes to the iPod. I feel the exact opposite about their computers though, so don't get upset and feel I am some Apple-bashing PC person. I love my Mac.

 

[proprietary]

Really?

Both Reuters and AP reported that he was acquitted.

According to a newspaper in the guy's home country, he was acquitted. I somehow doubt that they're flat out wrong and that some wannabee news site called itvibe is correct.

 

[JGowan]

...I do not plan to download any more software updates for my 2G model... Sorry Apple, but the transaction ended when you debited by credit card. I know that concept upsets you, and many of your apologists, but you're a strange company...

Boo-radley Hoo. See ya!