Apple Disabling RealNetworks Harmony Technology

[Yvan256]

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.

Well, in hardware/software there's usually a "dev kit" you can purchase from the original company. It gives you the real specs, the right development tools, etc. It allows you to make a software/product that'll be sure to work 100% with the system.

Acclaim does pay Nintendo to develop games for the Gamecube. Tecmo does pay Microsoft to develop games for the Xbox. I'm sure Griffin paid Apple to get a "hardware interfacing development kit" from Apple. Motorola surely paid Apple for a "DRM playback kit" for their upcoming iTunes-enabled cellphone (or whatever they're gonna call it).

Real asked Apple for a DRM dev.kit, Apple said no, and Real hacked their way into the iPod anyway. They're simply paying the price for being stupid and acting like a child. Why should Apple be careful with their updates (intentionally or not) for hacks from other companies?

Real didn't pay Apple anything, why should Apple waste money on trying to keep Apple's hacks compatible with their updates?

 

[salmon]

First, microsoft sells windows, they do not charge people to use windows.

Actually, this is exactly what they do, according to the EULA. When you pay Microsoft money, you're purchasing the ability to use windows, not do with it what you want. For example, the license is only allowed to be transferred once.

You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer").

This is also an interesting bit related to use restrictions.

ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT.

Analysis
Here, by excluding implied covenant quiet enjoyment, the EULA is removing the user's rights to use the software as they see fit, and neutralising the right the user has to be left alone in the 'quiet enjoyment' of the use of this software. The covenant essentially states that a user has the right to use
the software without interference by the software publisher.
By excluding the the right to quiet possession, the EULA is removing the user's right to privacy and peaceable usage of this software. By analogy, someone who is renting a house does possess the implied right of quiet possession, whereby the landlord cannot intrude on the renter's privacy (for
example, by entering the house when the renter is not there, through the use of a master key.)

(Source: www.cybersource.com.au/cyber/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf)

 

[iPost]

Jez.

You guys complain all day about Microsoft..in fact it's hard to click on a thread in this entire forum without seeing something that bad-mouths microsoft for acting exactly like Apple is starting to act.

Glad to see the devotion didn't come without some blindness, too.

This thread sounds, for the most part, like M$ fanboys, except the M$ has been replaced with Apple.

for shame

I couldn't agree with you more. During the DOS days, Microsoft had the mantra of "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" to stifle its competition. Apple is doing the same thing.

What's next? How would all feel when Apple releases an iPod software update that no longer allows you to play MP3 files on your iPod and only allows music (AAC) purchased from their iTunes store to play?

 

[dejo]

How would all feel when Apple releases an iPod software update that no longer allows you to play MP3 files on your iPod and only allows music (AAC) purchased from their iTunes store to play?

If they did this, I would feel old. Very old. Cuz it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. There is just too much music encoded in MP3 out there for Apple to abandon this right now. Could you imagine the public backlash? Look at all the griping on this issue, mostly from people who aren't even directly affected (i.e. those that did buy tunes from the Real Player Music Store and can no longer play them on their iPod). I don't even want to picture what would happen if they made a move that so directly affected a HUGE portion of their customer base.

 

[iPost]

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 don't buy that argument. Let the market decide here. If people have a bad iPod experience with using a certain service, no one would use it and the service would die.

Apple allows a number of iPod add-ons such as FM tuners, speaker systems, car stereo connections, etc. Apple calls it the "iPod Ecosystem." Obviously they don't have a problem with opening the iPod up in areas where they aren't interested in competing (just like Microsoft does).

You know, Toshiba and Sony compete with Apple in the computer space. If both Toshiba and Sony started making CD and DVD players that could detect if a CD or DVD was burned/created on a Mac and refused to let it play on their CD/DVD players, you'd all be up in arms!!! (and rightly so!)

This is the same thing that Apple is doing.

I cannot understand why anyone who doesn't own Apple stock (or isn't an Apple employee) is defending this. You're acting against your own self-interests.

 

[Savage Henry]

I cannot understand why anyone who doesn't own Apple stock (or isn't an Apple employee) is defending this. You're acting against your own self-interests.

Consumers are a stakeholder of any company, and therefore have viable interests. Apple's actions should encourage Real to start innovating properly and give consumers an alternative to Apple. It's not the consumers fault that Real can't come up with anything worthwhile.

 

[ltgator333]

I DO NOT feel sorry for Real at all. They had to know that this was entirely possible and would eventually happen anyway. The only people I do feel sorry for are the people who bought music from Real, but I really don't think they've totally lost that music, it's just gonna take a lot of blank CD's.

 

[Doctor Q]

Real may find yet another way around Apple's latest firmware. And Apple may then find a way to defeat that. Any consumer buying from Real will get whiplash from their playback capability going off/on/off/on/off. Which probably wouldn't bother Apple a bit.

 

[rteichman]

Same goes for here. Apple is trying to take away the customers ability to leave.....

Which is exactly why I rarely buy anything on iTMS, and if I do, then I IMMEDIATELY burn it to a CD, save the CD, and then rip the song. If its something where I really care about the quality lose, I just buy the CD

Not, that I plan on leaving Apple, but because I feel in a few years a "more open" alternative will trounce it (the way PC clones trounced the Mac), and I will likely have a different type of music player.

 

[Doctor Q]

Can we be absolutely sure that Apple isn't using a hard bargaining tactic to drive Real to the negotiating table for a lucrative new Fairplay licensing deal?

And now to answer myself:

Nawww, if Apple wasn't interested before, they would have no reason to be interested now. They want the whole pie, and they can probably have their way for now.

 

[Loge]

Which is exactly why I rarely buy anything on iTMS, and if I do, then I IMMEDIATELY burn it to a CD, save the CD, and then rip the song. If its something where I really care about the quality lose, I just buy the CD

Not, that I plan on leaving Apple, but because I feel in a few years a "more open" alternative will trounce it (the way PC clones trounced the Mac), and I will likely have a different type of music player.

What you describe gives you the ability to leave if you want. But what kind of "more open" alternative do you have in mind? Microsoft will licence protected WMA to just about anyone prepared to pay, but it's not exactly trouncing iTunes. Distributing DRM-free content might do it, but it doesn't look like the music industry is in that place just yet. If they did, then Apple would need to support it, but that time does not appear to be now.

 

[Scottgfx]

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.

I call BS here. Almost all of the 5+ GB of music on my iPod are from my own CD collection. Apple is in fact, not in charge of my music collection. I also have purchased a few tracks from the iTunes music store. It's a wonderful thing indeed. I've only a few dollars invested and I feel safer putting it in Apple, rather than Real.

 

[Scottgfx]

I couldn't agree with you more. During the DOS days, Microsoft had the mantra of "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run" to stifle its competition. Apple is doing the same thing.

What's next? How would all feel when Apple releases an iPod software update that no longer allows you to play MP3 files on your iPod and only allows music (AAC) purchased from their iTunes store to play?

A slight flaw here... Real has attempted to piggyback on the DRM system that Apple uses. No one told Real to do that. They could have easily have released MP3, AIFF or regular AAC files that would still work with the iPod to this day.. No one, not even Apple is keeping Real from making music files that work with the iPod.

The logic here is that Lotus was buile on API's that were known to everyone. Microsoft went out of their way to damage Lotus. Microsoft was also found to be an illegal monopoly by the US justice system. The Fairplay API's are not common knowledge and the iPod is not a monopoly, or even an illegal monopoly. Real has no leg to stand on.

 

[adamberti]

I call BS here. Almost all of the 5+ GB of music on my iPod are from my own CD collection. Apple is in fact, not in charge of my music collection. I also have purchased a few tracks from the iTunes music store. It's a wonderful thing indeed. I've only a few dollars invested and I feel safer putting it in Apple, rather than Real.

That may be true now, but the point being made is that our buying habits are changing. I don't own a single DRM'd song, yet. Soon a lot of people will have the majority of their collection from online stores. Then Apple IS in charge of their music collection. As some have calculated Apple is upto over 800,000 songs sold per day. People are being locked in as we speak.

 

[iPost]

A slight flaw here... Real has attempted to piggyback on the DRM system that Apple uses. No one told Real to do that. They could have easily have released MP3, AIFF or regular AAC files that would still work with the iPod to this day.. No one, not even Apple is keeping Real from making music files that work with the iPod.

The logic here is that Lotus was buile on API's that were known to everyone. Microsoft went out of their way to damage Lotus. Microsoft was also found to be an illegal monopoly by the US justice system. The Fairplay API's are not common knowledge and the iPod is not a monopoly, or even an illegal monopoly. Real has no leg to stand on.

Not true. Microsoft was not yet a monolopy when the incident with Lotus occurred. Also, while there were published API's in DOS, many things were left undocumented and it was a common practice to figure these things out... just as Real did with the iPod because the controlling company would not release the information. (Do a Google search on Undocumented DOS if you aren't familiar with that time in history.)

 

[pianojoe]

Also, while there were published API's in DOS, many things were left undocumented and it was a common practice to figure these things out... just as Real did with the iPod because the controlling company would not release the information.

I think the iTunes EULA doesn't allow you to reverse engineer Fairplay. Anyway, Apple got the major record labels to join the wagon when they promised that Fairplay was not hackable. And, of course, they need to live up to that.

I think it's as easy as that. Imagine Real would start selling OEM MP3-Players that were capable of playing Fairplay DRM. What then?

 

[Benj]

Not defending Apple because I think they should have the courage to stand behind their product - iTMS. They (and the fanboys) have bitched and whinged about Microsoft doing this sort of thing forever. Jobs can pretend he is Robin Hood all he likes - this is just plain hypocrisy and as bad as anything Microsoft have ever done (or perhaps worse),

BUT

Even though I'm not an IP lawyer I think you do have to do everything you can to protect your IP rights or you lose them. That might mean going to court or it might mean a tech solution.

 

[Savage Henry]

Jobs can pretend he is Robin Hood all he likes - this is just plain hypocrisy and as bad as anything Microsoft have ever done (or perhaps worse)

Jobs has never pretended to be Robin Hood, he goes for what he wants, when he wants and however he wants it. Modern dynamic CEO.

This is just a business decision to protect his business.

 

[zwilliams07]

I'm glad that Apple stuck it to Real.

Real has never put out anything that wasn't bloated spyware. All they do is force their garbage on us. And they expect Apple to roll over and let them leech off the iPod? I don't think so. I can't think of a single positive thing to say about Real excep-tttt--[buffering]

 

[proprietary]

I think the iTunes EULA doesn't allow you to reverse engineer Fairplay.

1. There is no need to install iTunes to reverse engineer FairPlay.
2. In many countries such clauses are not legally binding.

Anyway, Apple got the major record labels to join the wagon when they promised that Fairplay was not hackable.

Apple promised no such thing. In fact, Apple made it very clear to the record labels that there is no such thing as "not hackable".

 

[wnurse]

Well, in hardware/software there's usually a "dev kit" you can purchase from the original company. It gives you the real specs, the right development tools, etc. It allows you to make a software/product that'll be sure to work 100% with the system.

Acclaim does pay Nintendo to develop games for the Gamecube. Tecmo does pay Microsoft to develop games for the Xbox. I'm sure Griffin paid Apple to get a "hardware interfacing development kit" from Apple. Motorola surely paid Apple for a "DRM playback kit" for their upcoming iTunes-enabled cellphone (or whatever they're gonna call it).

Real asked Apple for a DRM dev.kit, Apple said no, and Real hacked their way into the iPod anyway. They're simply paying the price for being stupid and acting like a child. Why should Apple be careful with their updates (intentionally or not) for hacks from other companies?

Real didn't pay Apple anything, why should Apple waste money on trying to keep Apple's hacks compatible with their updates?

Real didn't use apple development kit so they shouldn't have to pay apple anything. If one can develop products for a platform without the development kit then power to you.

One thing i agree with you is that apple shouldn't waste money trying to keep apple hacks compatible with their updates. I totally agree with that and point out then that real has the right to go ahead and do another hack. It's the same situation Dr Dos had with microsoft. MS would constantly release operating system updates making DR Dos not work and DR Dos would fix it to work. In fact, if apple had the right to demand real not hack their player, they would have taken real to court a long time ago. This is apple we are talking about. They just announced a suit against annonymous leakers. They are extremely secretive, if they can sue people they don't know, what's stopping them from sueing someone they know? Real has every right to hack the player and apple has every right to break the hack. The game is afoot!!!

 

[wnurse]

Actually, this is exactly what they do, according to the EULA. When you pay Microsoft money, you're purchasing the ability to use windows, not do with it what you want. For example, the license is only allowed to be transferred once.

Restrictions on end use does not equal paying for use. Almost all software products sold have end user licenses. What does that have to do with the central argument?

 

[iPost]

Not defending Apple because I think they should have the courage to stand behind their product - iTMS. They (and the fanboys) have bitched and whinged about Microsoft doing this sort of thing forever. Jobs can pretend he is Robin Hood all he likes - this is just plain hypocrisy and as bad as anything Microsoft have ever done (or perhaps worse).

I agree.

I love Apple products and have been buying and using them for over 20 years, but this thing really hits a nerve with me.

The digital music revolution (which was started years ago by the MP3 wave) is all about correcting the intolerable situation with the record labels. Record labels were screwing customers with highly inflated CD prices as well as screwing the musicians with bad contracts where the labels ended up keeping most of the revenue off of sales (see "Courtney Love Does The Math," http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html has a copy)

With the digital music revolution, musicians are now able to bypass the Big Evil System and promote and distribute their music directly to their fans -- and receive a fairer share of the profits.

However, there still is the issue of music protection. How does the small musician distribute her music in a protected format that would prevent someone from posting it on a P2P site? Well, there are a number of music services that have been springing up -- some that cater to the independent musician.

But if Apple has their way, none of this content will play on your iPod. Apple wants to control EVERYTHING! In Apple's vision, if you want to sell music, you'd have to sell it through the Apple iTunes Music Store and play by Apple's rules. Apple will call the shots, determine if you are allowed to sell your music there at all, and tell you what they will pay you for it.

In effect, the digital music revolution would change NOTHING! The Big Evil Record Labels will just be replaced by another Big Evil Corporation -- Apple!!! This really goes against everything Apple has stood for in my mind and I don't want to see it happen.

The iPod is a great product and it's nice to see Apple reaping the financial benefits for designing it -- but I really don't like where it's taking the company -- deciding what music people can listen to and where they must buy it. The temptation of the Dark Side is looking like it might be too great and I fear that we're losing Steve Jobs to it.

It's getting much easier these days to picture Steve Jobs as Dr. Evil, sitting in his underground lair wearing a dark black turtleneck, stroking a hairless cat, and pressing those buttons on the panel of death...

 

[hulugu]

But if Apple has their way, none of this content will play on your iPod. Apple wants to control EVERYTHING! In Apple's vision, if you want to sell music, you'd have to sell it through the Apple iTunes Music Store and play by Apple's rules. Apple will call the shots, determine if you are allowed to sell your music there at all, and tell you what they will pay you for it.

No. No. No. Apple allows almost everything but WMA and WMA DRM. Should they add FLAC? Yes.
Should they add OGG? Okay, I couldn't care less about Ogg, but what the hell.
Should they allow Real to ride their coat-tails and use bully tactics to get onto a platform they once scored? No, further hell no! Real has been producing spyware and shoddy products for years, and now they spin their little hackjob as 'choice' as if they gave a rat's ass about the consumer.
Apple needs to defend their quarter not just for the iPod, not just for the iTMS, but further for the presence of Quicktime and the Macintosh platform itself. Can you only imagine how much the Macintosh platform would be marginalized if WMA with or without DRM becomes another de facto standard?
You have to look beyond just this little particular skirmish and think about how the Macintosh platform survives in the new digital music revolution.
You want choice? If you want real choice you don't want Real.

Apple isn't going to be the one-true-label because it will always be in competition with other music stores, but I think it can set a standard that works well for both labels—or what becomes of them—and consumers. No one else has given the consumer as much as Apple has.

 

[hulugu]

Real? No. But...

Can we be absolutely sure that Apple isn't using a hard bargaining tactic to drive Real to the negotiating table for a lucrative new Fairplay licensing deal?

And now to answer myself:

Nawww, if Apple wasn't interested before, they would have no reason to be interested now. They want the whole pie, and they can probably have their way for now.

I think Jobs is waiting for a sea-change before making or finalizing a deal. Right now they have all the control and haven't had to make deals or alliances, well except for HP and Moto, and...oh wait:

Apple does make deals. Just not with Real.
I think that Apple will be ready and willing to make deals, but why leave money on the table right now, and why not put yourself in such a position where you can demand the labels change how DRM works and get more money out of the deal; Apple's in this for the long haul.