Apple Disabling RealNetworks Harmony Technology

[peharri]

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

No, breaking my ability to play my music is not giving me 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.

And you have to use iTunes to put iTMS music on your iPod. For goodness sake! What you're posting implies nothing more than that Real could be described as being just as bad as Apple, not worse. And, when it comes down to it, no Real is not being "just as bad as Apple", because they're both offering iPod owners a choice of multiple music vendors, and offering people who buy music from them a choice of hardware vendor for the player.

I'm sure the apologists would also justify it if all of a sudden I could only play Sony DVDs on a Sony DVD player, and couldn't play them on anyone else's, or play Universal DVDs on a Sony. "Sony is just trying to give you the best possible user experience!" they'd argue. No, they're not. They're trying to lock me in to a particular set of buying options.

If I choose to use just the iTMS and Apple iPod and iTunes, then, clearly, I get the Apple "buying experience". So the "buying experience" is always open to me. To imply that that it should be difficult to get out of that "buying experience", because in some way, that would benefit me, is silly.

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.

Through no fault of their own? Are you serious? Are you the only person who really believes Apple didn't deliberately cripple the functionality? Not even MacRumors believes that, they emphatically quoted Apple's anti-Wozniak slam on their front page.

Real isn't catering to Dell and Creative and Sony. It's catering to as many music player buyers as possible. Real is independent. It needs to support as many players as possible, or else it dies because it has too few customers.

I remain amazed at the total and blind devotion so many Apple users have to Apple. Apple is not a God. It is not perfect. It does do bad things. It betrays its founding principles and has done on many an occasion. In this case, it is removing an option, removing a feature, that clearly people wanted to use, that didn't in any way cause any damage to users.

That's a *bad* thing. Not a good thing. It's unambigiously bad. Apple is screwing the customers here. Real isn't wonderful, but they're doing absolutely nothing wrong in this particular instance that Apple isn't doing anyway. I don't take Real's side or Apple's side, I take *my* side. Get your damned dirty paws off my iPod. Stop Real doing this, and you stop *everyone* doing this.

 

[adamberti]

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?

Like most business', Apple is responsbile to their shareholders, not their customers. If it was in their investors best interests to close up shop and stop losing money, that is what would happen. It wouldnt matter how much consumers whined and complained. Most often making their customers happy makes their investors happy, but occasionally not.

In this case, Apple's sees it in their best interest to keep the iPod as closed as possible. We will just have to wait and see the outcome.

However, I'm not supporting Apple in their decision, as I think that is great what Real is doing, trying to create competition and choice for consumers.

 

[dejo]

However, I'm not supporting Apple in their decision, as I think that is great what Real is doing, trying to create competition and choice for consumers.

As has been stated earlier, if Real is really trying to create choice than how come I can't use the Real Player Music Store on a Mac?

 

[Gear_media]

In this case, it is removing an option, removing a feature, that clearly people wanted to use, that didn't in any way cause any damage to users.

An option CLEARLY unsupported by the company you bought it from. It was never a "feature" as you suggest. It was a hack by a company that had nothing to do with your original decision to purchase an iPod. The iPod is still 100% compatible with ANY music you own. Burn a CD from Real's files and rip them into iTunes if you have a problem with iTMS. Inconvienient? Yes, but no one is forcing you at gunpoint to use Apples service.

Just because people "clearly" want to use a "feature" doesn't mean Apple is under any obligation to support it whatsoever. Especially if they implicitly state that they won't.

Apple is, and always has been, fond of proprietary systems. This isn't news. They've been like that from the start. It allows them to release quality controlled products that "just work." You knew this going in. You are obviously not happy about it, but unfortunately for you that's just the way Apple works. Want to do something about it? Get a Dell DJ and come back after attempting to sync it a few times. Then tell us how wonderful and easy the user experience is with that.

If Real was all for freedom of choice as they claim, their service would be compatible with Mac. That's hypocrisy. Apple allows you freedom to use whatever service you want. You have to work slightly harder to get your songs on your iPod but YOU are the one who chose to buy an iPod and use someone else's service in the first place.

 

[grobbins]

As has been stated earlier, if Real is really trying to create choice than how come I can't use the Real Player Music Store on a Mac?

Because it's pointless competing with the iTunes jukebox software on the Mac (MusicMatch and Panic have given up; no commercial developers offer competing jukebox software on the Mac now.) iTunes doesn't support protected files from any source other than iTunes Music Store, nor does iTunes support any alternative music stores.

 

[adamberti]

As has been stated earlier, if Real is really trying to create choice than how come I can't use the Real Player Music Store on a Mac?

As I understand it, they rely on Microsoft's WMA DRM. And that is not available on the Mac. All Real can do right now is create choice for Windows users, not Mac users.

 

[grobbins]

As I understand it, they rely on Microsoft's WMA DRM. And that is not available on the Mac. All Real can do right now is create choice for Windows users, not Mac users.

No, Real uses its own DRM for the RealPlayer Music Store on Windows, and Real's DRM is supported in RealPlayer 10 for Mac OS X.

 

[adamberti]

No, Real uses its own DRM for the RealPlayer Music Store on Windows, and Real's DRM is supported in RealPlayer 10 for Mac OS X.

I had no idea.

 

[dejo]

Because it's pointless competing with the iTunes jukebox software on the Mac (MusicMatch and Panic have given up; no commercial developers offer competing jukebox software on the Mac now.) iTunes doesn't support protected files from any source other than iTunes Music Store, nor does iTunes support any alternative music stores.

Why is it pointless to compete with iTunes?

If iTunes doesn't support protected files from other sources and doesn't support alternative stores, that sounds like a perfect opportunity to produce a competing product that does.

 

[ioinc]

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.

I agree... In fact I think apple should see what they can do about stopping 3rd party vendors from writing apps for the mac os platform... some of those apps really suck. And as we all know when somebody writes a bad application we all blame the computer manufacturer.

 

[Yvan256]

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.

The guy DID end up doing jail time anyway, and was my point in the first place. I never said "someone is in jail for the rest of his life for DeCSS".

 

[proprietary]

The guy DID end up doing jail time anyway

No, he DID NOT.

DVD-Jon wins new legal victory
Norway's most famous computer whiz got an early Christmas present on Monday. An appeals court in Oslo upheld Jon Lech Johansen's earlier acquittal on all counts of alleged copyright violations.

Acquitted first time = NO JAIL TIME
Acquitted on appeal = NO JAIL TIME
Prosecution did not appeal to Supreme Court = NO JAIL TIME

If you want to believe that every major news organisation in the world is wrong and that some wannabe IT news site is correct, go ahead. I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to convince someone that deluded.

PS: The itvibe article you linked was dated December 12, 2003 and claims that "An appeal is set to be lodged on 22nd December 2003". Then on December 23, 2003 the very same "journalist" (haha) at itvibe reports that he was acquitted (just as every major news organisation reported the day before). It's pretty obvious what happened. When the prosecution on December 12 asked for a 90-day suspended jail sentence, the "journalist" (haha) at itvibe thought that was actually the judgement. There was no appeal to be lodged on December 22nd - that was actually the date when the judgement would be handed down.

 

[superfunkomatic]

If Real was all for freedom of choice as they claim, their service would be compatible with Mac. That's hypocrisy. Apple allows you freedom to use whatever service you want. You have to work slightly harder to get your songs on your iPod but YOU are the one who chose to buy an iPod and use someone else's service in the first place.

amen to that. if you don't like it, find your damn alternatives. that like telling ford that you've replaced parts in your car from a hyundai, and strangely they are incompatible. we'll, they weren't intended to be compatible.

this debate really is pointless - if you like real, use it. if you like another use it. if they are incompatible, tough luck for now - do the extra work to rip the tunes again if it's that "important".

 

[psycho bob]

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

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

Although off topic (sorry) I do find the Betamax comparison interesting. What IMHO killed Beta as a format wasn't anything to do with the fact its recording time was limited but more to do with licensing. Sony never licensed the technology so while VHS prices were tumbling and advertising was all around Beta was a one man band. We still have a Betamax recorder (under the bed!) it is built like a tank. The actual picture quality was far superior to VHS machines of the same time period.
Apple do need to be careful, they cannot afford to end up looking like the bad guy otherwise all the possitive moves and coverage they have had will be forgotten. Microsoft made good software and were very innovative but that is all forgotten now and they are just the big corporation out to rule the world at any cost in the eye of the public. I do not and cannot condone what Real have done and indeed are doing. Whether their breaking of Apple's DRM is legal or not the way they have reported this as an act for the good of all rather than just a cheap ploy to make money themselves on the back of another companies success is appalling.

 

[Scottgfx]

Not true! Sony Betamax had the same market share (heck maybe more) that Apple does now with iPod.

Hmmm, I seem to recall saying that Betamax probably did have a larger market share at one time. So my statement is not necessarily "not true".

From a quality and useability perpective betamax was far superior to VHS. Sony's ONLY mistake with Betamax was not licensing it out.

Yes, we are all aware of the facts, which is why Betamax is so often brought up in these discussions.

It's not all apples to apples though. Sony didn't license. Apple doesn't share Protected AAC. The difference here is that Apple is in a commanding position and there is not yet a technology that appears to be in a position to knock Apple out of that perch. WMA? Well perhaps someday, but there are different dynamics in play. The iPod is still the machine everyone wants, therefore AAC and Protected AAC will continue to be strong.

I think this may be the reason everyone is trying to build the "iPod Killer". Until a portable player dethrones the iPod, consumers have little reason to switch from Betamax to VHS... Or make that AAC to WMA.

Perhaps if Sony had the ability in the late `70's or early `80's to bring exclusive content to the Betamax. What if Star Wars was only available on Beta? Could Sony have built an empire around the format? Perhaps we're seeing where Apple has learned from past failures of not only themselves, but of Sony?

BTW. I have no less than 4 or 5 Betamax machines here at the house.

 

[nationElectric]

amen to that. if you don't like it, find your damn alternatives. that like telling ford that you've replaced parts in your car from a hyundai, and strangely they are incompatible. we'll, they weren't intended to be compatible.

Always with the terrible car analogies! What is with the kids today and the terrible car analogies?

It's like buying replacement parts from third party, like, say, Flowmaster. A part that was specifically intended to be compatible. Guess what? Most of the time they work just fine, and sometimes even better than OEM parts. Guess what else? Nobody in their right mind has a serious complaint with Ford when they buy a crappy exhaust system manufactured by somebody else.

Now, if Ford mechanics punched holes in your Flowmaster exhaust system every time you took it in for a checkup, that's be a different story...

Oh, the car analogies!

 

[nationElectric]

As has been stated earlier, if Real is really trying to create choice than how come I can't use the Real Player Music Store on a Mac?

Probably because it's quicker and cheaper to get a software package out the door for one platform instead of two. It's worth remembering that this issue specifically concerns iPod owners, and that there are quite a number of Windows users who own iPods. Steve Himself has blessed that reality, so you can't really blame Real for responding to it.

That said, Real has clearly stated that they want to license their technology to third parties, and there is every reason to believe that it's in their interest (or that of one of their licensees) to open it up at some point to Mac users.

 

[Scottgfx]

What IMHO killed Beta as a format wasn't anything to do with the fact its recording time was limited but more to do with licensing

It took the industry almost 20 years to get the VCR to the consumer. There were attempts back in the 1960's to make consumer recorders. Sony's first attempt was the 3/4" U-Matic from 1971. That format was instead adopted by TV stations for news gathering and was in wide use for 20 years. Betamax was the first practical consumer VTR in the US. That one hour recording time shows that the industry didn't yet know what the consumer would do with a VCR. They didn't know that people would want to rent or buy copies of movies. As the consumers tastes were tabulated, the machines evolved. Perhaps JVC was able to look at market data in 1976 about Betamax and see that their machine needed to record for double the time?

Apple wasn't the first in either portable players or online music stores. They were able to analyze the markets and see the opportunity. Their success lies in the fact that they innovated the 'look and feel', usability and made it hip all at the same time. Everyone else is now trying to figure out what Apple did right, and cannot see the big picture. It's not just one cool feature on a player, it's everything as it comes together.

It's interesting why the Betamax cassette shell is the size that it is. The chairman of Sony held up a paperback book and said that the cassette should be that size.

 

[nationElectric]

Yeah, so do with it as you please. Nobody cares...<snip!>

First of all, as the owner of a 3G iPod, you're right -- Apple certainly doesn't seem to care much about my hardware anymore. So kudos there. But getting on with it...

Do you know that Apple broke Harmony by accident, or are you just speculating? If it was entirely by chance, you know what? I'm cool with it. I don't expect Apple to go out of its way to accomodate Real. Real took a gamble and paid a price. That said, I find it pretty difficult to believe that there was no conscious intent on Apple's part. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that it was accidental, and there's plenty of reason to believe it was deliberate -- snarky PR flaks aside, changes to the format aside, they're pretty clearly orienting their business model around a closed system. Even putting all that aside, there seem to be a lot of people here who believe that it was intentional, and who support it in that case, and that's the whipping dog mentality that concerns me here.

So then, the story is about Apple disabling third-party DRM on iPods. Literally, that is the story that started this thread: "Apple Disabling RealNetworks Harmony Technology." You can wave your hands all you want about MP3s or the availability of Real's store to Mac users, but that's all entirely beside the point. Real is offering a product that allows iPod owners to put more music on their iPods, more kinds of music on their iPods, music from different services on their iPods. None of it with Apple's consent or control. And while this doesn't currently affect iPod owners who also happen to be Mac owners, it probably will eventually. Real has been pretty clear that it wants to license its technology.

Note that none of this effects iTMS in any way. None of this forces people to abandon iTunes. None of this effects the user experience people have come to expect from Apple. And you know, I have trouble imagining it would harm Apple's image all that much -- people generally understand that buying off-brand products carries a certain amount of risk with it. It's an entrenched concept. In the end analysis, it just gives people more options. So why does Apple take such offense to it?

Apple has built a DRM strategy for itself that in every way revolves around maintaining the tightest, most closed system possible. If other people can sell music for iPods, guess what? It cuts into iTMS's profits. More than that, iTMS is basically a loss-leader (or near enough to one) for the sale of new iPods, and so obviously Harmony cuts into that action. But even MORE than that, the existence of a (relatively) portable DRM format gives users the ability to LEAVE. Given the relatively short life of an iPod (18 months? two years? three, maybe?) an iPod owner is going to be making that decision sooner or later. On the other hand, if somebody buys hundreds or (lord forbid) thousands of DRM'ed songs that ONLY work on the iPod, they'd have to be out of their minds to leave. In that world there's little need to support users with older hardware, but plenty of incentive to keep cranking out newer, shinier models constantly -- which brings us back to my ancient 3G iPod that nobody cares about.

There's no tinfoil here, man, just marketing realities. This isn't even NEWS. Vendors have been playing games like this -- this EXACT game, actually -- to keep customers coming back by artificially restricting their ability to choose. It's called lock-in, it has nothing to do with "protecting an image of quality," and it has everything to do with trying to keep your customers on a really, really short leash.

So, yeah. Control. Lap it up, love it, because they want you to be in it for the long haul.

 

[adamberti]

...But even MORE than that, the existence of a (relatively) portable DRM format gives users the ability to LEAVE. Given the relatively short life of an iPod (18 months? two years? three, maybe?) an iPod owner is going to be making that decision sooner or later. On the other hand, if somebody buys hundreds or (lord forbid) thousands of DRM'ed songs that ONLY work on the iPod, they'd have to be out of their minds to leave. In that world there's little need to support users with older hardware, but plenty of incentive to keep cranking out newer, shinier models constantly -- which brings us back to my ancient 3G iPod that nobody cares about.

There's no tinfoil here, man, just marketing realities. This isn't even NEWS. Vendors have been playing games like this -- this EXACT game, actually -- to keep customers coming back by artificially restricting their ability to choose. It's called lock-in, it has nothing to do with "protecting an image of quality," and it has everything to do with trying to keep your customers on a really, really short leash.

So, yeah. Control. Lap it up, love it, because they want you to be in it for the long haul.

Well said. Just wanted to add in some more of the business side to it. It's called Porter's 5 Forces. One of them is your customers. You do the best you can stop them from gaining power over you. As many companies do, you lock them in. Airlines are the same way with their frequent flyer programs. If you leave, you lose all those built-up points, why leave? How about a bank. The effort involved in closing accounts and moving banks is not worth it (if you've got savings, chequing, mortgage, investments, credit). It's so bad in the cell phone market, they charge you incredibly high prices, or force you into a contract. Why do you think the Wireless carriers are trying to stop the push to allow the movement of phone numbers between carriers? Switching costs! My current carrier would have to mess up royally and screw me over before I would even consider switching.

Same goes for here. Apple is trying to take away the customers ability to leave. If you've got the hundred's of dollars in 'Fairplay' songs, are you going to switch to a competitor? Not likely. It's also a major reason PC people give for not switching, the are incredibly high costs to switch. Companies do everything they can to stop you from switching. And nothing makes Apple any different. If someone can switch into their system, they can certainly switch out. And Apple wants to catch everyone in their nets before consumers make a choice.

 

[nationElectric]

... Same goes for here. Apple is trying to take away the customers ability to leave. If you've got the hundred's of dollars in 'Fairplay' songs, are you going to switch to a competitor? Not likely. It's also a major reason PC people give for not switching, the are incredibly high costs to switch. Companies do everything they can to stop you from switching. And nothing makes Apple any different. If someone can switch into their system, they can certainly switch out. And Apple wants to catch everyone in their nets before consumers make a choice.

Right on! Brings to mind the whole Switcher ad campaign, and the relentless intensity with which they pursued it... Apple understands all too well how powerful a force this is.

On a loosely related note, I just read a great article from drunkenblog on this whole sordid issue. It goes waaay beyond what I said and is quite a bit more eloquent about it... Interesting stuff. I doubt it will go over with the whole dissent-from-Apple-must-be-dementia crowd, but here ya go:

http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/000313.html#more

And now it's 6am, and sleep beckons...

 

[salmon]

There's no tinfoil here, man, just marketing realities. This isn't even NEWS. Vendors have been playing games like this -- this EXACT game, actually -- to keep customers coming back by artificially restricting their ability to choose. It's called lock-in, it has nothing to do with "protecting an image of quality," and it has everything to do with trying to keep your customers on a really, really short leash.

So, yeah. Control. Lap it up, love it, because they want you to be in it for the long haul.

This is exactly correct, and what my comment in an earlier post was getting at. WHY do customers have any tolerance for this at all? I suspect it's ignorance and that people simply don't give it the consideration it deserves, because it's a no-brainer to anyone who has spent a minute or two thinking about it. It is an astoundingly bad idea to allow a company to lock you or your business in, yet 95% of the world continues to allow it to happen. Somehow, most people I talk to about it have even allowed themselves to be convinced by marketing types that it's a GOOD THING!! And DRM'd music is one thing, but how can anyone explain allowing a company to control THEIR OWN intellectual property?

I switched to Apple because of their fantastic products, but only because they had great support for industry standards. I make a very consious effort to ensure everything I have is in a cross-platform format, because if Apple pisses me off, I'll go back to Linux where the concept of open is epitomized. This iPod/iTMS controversy is a black mark against Apple as far as I'm concerned, but since I never bought (nor will buy) ANY DRM'd music, it's not a practical concern for me, just in principle.

And the idea of them doing it to "protect the iPod/iTMS experience" is absurd, as has already been quite articulately rebutted.

And Apple doesn't need to play these kinds of games anyway. Why are people buying iPods? Because they support AAC files? Or because they are a fantastically engineered product that is better than the competitors? People (including me) love iPhoto, but all of it's data is stored in XML, JPGs, GIFs, etc.

Apple is without peer in their ability to provide a great experience and deliver products people like to use. They should trust themselves enough to compete on those terms, it earns them much more respect and long-term customers than BS like closed formats. It'll backfire on them some day, unless they plan on opening up the file format at some point.

 

[salmon]

Boo-radley Hoo. See ya!

Ah, another one of those rather intelligent comments that is meant to be helpful I guess.

Most of us on these boards seem to be interested in debating ideas, with a focus on how Apple could be a better company for all, including the poster you replied to.

I don't think these types of comments are helpful, but it does make you (and others who make them) look like an ass, IMO.

 

[wnurse]

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


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

First, microsoft sells windows, they do not charge people to use windows. After buying windows, you are free to develop any software for the operating system without paying microsoft a fee. Apple sells ipods, why after selling ipods, should they then be allowed to charge people to use it?

MPLEG-LA may charge dvd manufacturers but the dvd manufactores then incude that cost in the dvd drives they sell. After selling the drives, they do not demand hollywood studios pay them a fee to create a dvd that play in the drives. I can see from your response you did not understand the points being made. Think of it this way.. if you made a personal dvd of your vacation trip, do you have to call whatever manafactorer and make a payment to them?.

Basically, why should real have to pay apple to make software compatible with ipods? Does griffin pay apple for each fm transmitter that they make for the ipods? This makes no sense.

 

[Yvan256]

No, he DID NOT.

Acquitted first time = NO JAIL TIME
Acquitted on appeal = NO JAIL TIME
Prosecution did not appeal to Supreme Court = NO JAIL TIME

So, he didn't do any jail time. But do you see that the DMCA is so powerful that they brought him to court for such a thing? He had to write software which, in the eyes of the industry, was illegal? Can't you see the media industry is passing laws that aren't equal justice?

Software patents are a bad thing too, I mean, Atari was able to get a patent on the concept of "sprites"!

Next time you know, somebody will patent the knife and fork, and we'll all have to eat using sporks!

Ok, so I'm rambling off here.