I'm not capable of assessing if Real's move was illegal or not as I don't know American laws. However, Apple should carefully plan their next steps of their iPod/iTunes development. At one point in the not too distant future, one company, whoever it will be, will come out with out with a digital music player that is at least a fair match for iPod. So as longs as there is no real competition, Apple can and should keep the system closed but once competion surfaces, they should open it because many potential iPod/iTunes customers are PC users and they are in no way as bound to Apple products as longtime Mac users. Those people will ask themselves why should I be obliged to buy an iPod to be able to use the iTMS? So if Apple wants to command the digital music market for a few more years, they will have to open up the system sooner or later.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
RealNetworks To Sell iPod-Compatible Songs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Amen brotha'
This is actually quite good for Apple because it sells more iPods. See compatability means the one guy who doesn't like iTMSthe freak!can stil buy an iPod. More and more iPods mean not only do current stores have to institute a kludge to compete, it means that futures stores may just abandon the kludge all-together and start selling iPod-compatible songs via a deal w/ Apple. Now, WMA doesn't have as much of a marketsharesteadily dwindling apparentlywhich makes AAC more attractive. This creates a positive feedback loop wherin people demand products that work with, or at least don't break their iPod/iTunes/iTMS/Quicktime system and maybe even begins to work with it. Now Quicktime is installed on all of these machines and now all of the sudden AAC/Quicktime is the defacto standard for digital music, and now Microsoft has to play ball.
This also means that the future 'iPod-killer' may be subject to these same requirements and Apple still sits in an awfully pretty seat.
Apple doesn't need a monopoly, the company just enough power to guide the course of the game.
eskatonia said:
This is actually quite good for Apple because it sells more iPods. See compatability means the one guy who doesn't like iTMSthe freak!can stil buy an iPod. More and more iPods mean not only do current stores have to institute a kludge to compete, it means that futures stores may just abandon the kludge all-together and start selling iPod-compatible songs via a deal w/ Apple. Now, WMA doesn't have as much of a marketsharesteadily dwindling apparentlywhich makes AAC more attractive. This creates a positive feedback loop wherin people demand products that work with, or at least don't break their iPod/iTunes/iTMS/Quicktime system and maybe even begins to work with it. Now Quicktime is installed on all of these machines and now all of the sudden AAC/Quicktime is the defacto standard for digital music, and now Microsoft has to play ball.
This also means that the future 'iPod-killer' may be subject to these same requirements and Apple still sits in an awfully pretty seat.
Apple doesn't need a monopoly, the company just enough power to guide the course of the game.
hulugu said:
So, you're saying Real knows what's best for Apple better than Apple themselves?
If Apple thought this was a good plan, they would have licensed Fairplay. They obviously don't...
When someone else takes control of your company's marketing strategy, that's a Bad Thing. You can look at it as an outsider and rationalize how it doesn't mean utter doom, but for Apple this is a major problem and I'm sure they're not sitting in their conference room saying "heck, this will probably all turn out just peachy".
groovebuster said:Exactly that kind of reaction (btw, not only from you) was the reason for my post.
I don't need to educate myself, I think I am pretty well informed. And I don't need to defend Apple no matter what. Most of the ideas were developed long before anybody made a running business out of it. But that was not the point. The point was, that Apple integrated the stuff AFTER other people offered it already as a product and they knew exactly that these little companies would go out of business, when they would do that. I don't know any multi billion dollar company that bases its decisions on ethics... and as you can see, also not Apple.
groovebuster
Groovebuster, whats your point? Grow up. A product can not stand still. Oh go cry about the fact someone had a good idea. Lets make a development enviroment that lets you make little tools that float on the screen and do custom stuff. You know what, they called it an API. Wow, API... usually APIs are provided by the OS. Its Konfabulator's fault for not finding more ways to make money, like the development enviroment itself, you know, to build the Konfab apps? They don't have one, they could have made one and charged money for it. Now that Apple is building a superior API into OS X, they cry foul. You know, if Konfab has a "Widget Studio" they could now make it output both Dashboard and Konfab widgets. If an API has a real purpose, it makes its way into the OS whether or not the OS provider can claim total responsibility for inventing it. The Konfabulator team focussed too much on the wiz-bang features and not enough on how to make money once the inevitable occured.
And 2:
I know you dont like it when companies step on share ware developers, but try this one on for size: Do you feel your Mac should be able to connect to the Internet? How about all computers? Did you know that through Windows 3.11 that TCP/IP support was available from a shareware company? Microsoft plowed them under by adding TCP/IP support to Windows 95, no one needed to buy that company's products anymore. But you know what? Today all modern OS's have TCP/IP. Hell, the 2 most popular OS's on the planet, OS X and Windows XP, come with their own built in browser, where HTML rendering is done in libraries joined into the OS. People (including myself) cried foul to MS integrating IE, and due to buggy programming they made a lot of bad security decisions.... HOWEVER integrating the browser into the OS at some levels (HTML rendering, help integration, web out of the box, etc) is one of the best things for usability and great document API sets ever provided to users and developers.
Now that I've made my point that some products need to get absorbed into OS's over time, I will gracefully say shut up and stop your complaining.
Ok, there is something you guys have forgotten about if Apple were to allow this to happen.
As for the question if Apple should allow others to sell FairPlay music:
Apple doesn't have a monoply on music purchases right now. They may be leading the way for online music but they, in no way, have a monoply for distributing music. Even if they stay numero uno for downloads for the next five years, they still won't be out pacing CD sales.
There really isn't a reason for Apple to open anything up right now. Maybe in another 3-5 years but not now.
On the other hand, I don't want to see anyone control how music is distributed whether that's Apple or Microsoft. So, for right now, Apple doesn't have to let anyone in. In the future, if they do become the source for music distribution, they damn straight better allow others in.
Hope that clears things up for you guys.
- Lets assume Real will be going out of business soon (this will more than likely happen).
- When they do go out of business and Apple updates a few things on the ipod and itunes that don't jive with the hack that Real did, all those songs won't be playable anymore. Guess who the people are going to call that have Real 's formatted songs? Answer = Apple. Guess who will have a law suit because people can't play all these songs? Answer = People vs. Apple. Yes, the people won't have the ground to stand on but think of all the bad press that come of it.
As for the question if Apple should allow others to sell FairPlay music:
Apple doesn't have a monoply on music purchases right now. They may be leading the way for online music but they, in no way, have a monoply for distributing music. Even if they stay numero uno for downloads for the next five years, they still won't be out pacing CD sales.
There really isn't a reason for Apple to open anything up right now. Maybe in another 3-5 years but not now.
On the other hand, I don't want to see anyone control how music is distributed whether that's Apple or Microsoft. So, for right now, Apple doesn't have to let anyone in. In the future, if they do become the source for music distribution, they damn straight better allow others in.
Hope that clears things up for you guys.
Gherkin said:
We'll definitely have more places to get songs now, but this sounds wrong as hell. AAC is a file format that can be used by anyone, but Fairplay is Apple's. The people who are saying, "Apple will be selling more iPods, so everybody wins!" are wrong. Apple still needs to make SOME money from iTMS, and this will simply take away from iTMS revenue. And worst of all, nobody is going to become more interested in iPods because Buttcrackmusicstore.com is now selling AAC files with Harmony DRM.
Apple makes less profit from iTMS because of this, so Apple can probably sue because of this point alone.
I hope you're not naive enough to believe that this will sell more iPods. Do you really think people are saying, "Wow, now that Real has created this new Harmony DRM, I can now shop at Napster (for example) and buy iPod compatible music!!" People who want an iPod are already looking at the iPod, whether they have iTMS, or whether they buy any music online or not. This won't sway them at all.
I'm not an Apple worshipper, and some of you know that, but this is wrong. I don't care who did what to whom in the past. In this particular instance, Real is wrong. I just hope the law finds this is true.
Any playability problems are exceedingly unlikely to be caused by iPod firmware changes. The DRM keys employed by iPod have a very straightforward format, and breaking that format would also break all the tracks people have bought from Apple.bertagert said:
A much bigger potential problem for if Real (or Apple!) gets out of the music sales business is what happens when people want to retire old computers. If the key servers are phased out, there would be no way to reauthorize those files to play on a new machine.
This what Apple should have done long ago.
License Fairplay to most if not all Music Stores so all of their music will play on iPods.
This will only increase iPod sells.
If there is a lawsuit and SJ wins I'm sure he will take over the company and use it to Apples benfit and to also increase their iTMS base some more.
License Fairplay to most if not all Music Stores so all of their music will play on iPods.
This will only increase iPod sells.
If there is a lawsuit and SJ wins I'm sure he will take over the company and use it to Apples benfit and to also increase their iTMS base some more.
Abstract said:
Well think about the person with a Rio that DL's from Real or some other store. Well none of their music will play on the iPod in it's current form...well unless it's all DRM free MP3's.
So no matter how much they want a iPod it would mean losing all of their Real DRM music if they switched to the iPod.
I doubt anyone would switch to the iPod if it meant losing about $100 or more bucks worth of DL'ed DRM music. I know I wouldn't.
"Lemme have some....that's not fair!"
When Apple decided to make compatibility with the iTunes music store and the iPod a closed relationship, that was their decision. And once the ease-of-use and great quality of these products brings on success for Apple, they still have the right to keep it closed. Just because other companies want to hitch a ride a get a piece of the action doesn't mean that Apple is a big monster who is screwing over the little people by not letting other companies use what Apple has created. Why don't these other companies take their own chances instead of waiting for Apple to always explore the unmanned territory to make sure everything is OK.
When Apple decided to make compatibility with the iTunes music store and the iPod a closed relationship, that was their decision. And once the ease-of-use and great quality of these products brings on success for Apple, they still have the right to keep it closed. Just because other companies want to hitch a ride a get a piece of the action doesn't mean that Apple is a big monster who is screwing over the little people by not letting other companies use what Apple has created. Why don't these other companies take their own chances instead of waiting for Apple to always explore the unmanned territory to make sure everything is OK.
Isn't this the same company that made a threat to Apple that "either license the AAC with us, or we'll talk to Microsoft"?
I guess Microsoft doesn't want to play with Real either
I guess Microsoft doesn't want to play with Real either
Huh. The more I think about this, the more I think that letting Real roll its own may be what Apple wants to happen.ITR 81 said:
At the annual meeting, Jobs' explanation for turning down Real is that they weren't a big player in the market and that it would be expensive to maintain Fair Play for use by multiple vendors. This is true, because it then would become Apple's responsibility to make sure that Fair Play encoding changes make their way out to other vendors and worked properly with updated versions of iTunes.
By letting Real go off and build their own key generation infrastructure and tools, Apple are let off the hook. Real can maintain their own little QuickTime plugin that deals with their own DRM, and do their own worrying about depositing the right magic numbers onto the iPod, and come up with their own fixes if their DRM is broken. As long as Real are careful to touch only the parts of the system Apple have to leave unchanged (i.e., to support iTMS tracks already sold), their stuff should keep on working and not get in the way of Apple's.
Abstract said:
Apple have stated that the iTMS is not intended to make money, it's intended to sell iPods.
If I buy a CD, i want to be able to play it on any CD-player. Apple's policy concerning FairPlay is abusive and testifies of corrupt -monopoly- business practices.
I just can't believe that especially Mac-users do justify these practices.
I would really like to buy 192kb songs and I believe that Real is going to provide just that.
I just can't believe that especially Mac-users do justify these practices.
I would really like to buy 192kb songs and I believe that Real is going to provide just that.
i dont think apple will take this lying down, although with this they could settle and maybe find a way to further dominate the market; maybe killing real isnt the best option here who knows, hopefully a creative solution arises that is good for both apple and the consumer; competition is a good thing
Ahhh.. finally, I was hoping someone would bring some sense to this discussion. As you say, they haven't broken Fairplay - the article says they found how to load songs onto the iPod so Real's copy-protected songs will play on an iPod. They reverse engineered how Apple loads it's songs onto the iPod.Analog Kid said:
In reference to Real's strategy helping to make AAC a defacto standard, which ultimately helps Apple.... you said:
Yeah.... you want to be in control of your strategy.... though that doesn't mean your strategy doesn't have some problems. Or that another company forcing your hand might not make things better in the long run.Analog Kid said:
On a personal level, I find Apple saying their format (AAC) is better because it is open is utter crap so long as nobody else can use it. When companies in this business were looking for a viable alternative to Microsoft, Apple told them to look somewhere else.
I would LOVE to see the iTMS, iTunes, and iPod each work with any other music store, music software, and music player. Then we would buy the best solution for our personal needs.... and if Apple makes the best music player, software, and music store it'll win. . .... Of course, if Apple doesn't have an Australian music store it'd mean I'd be able to buy music to use on iTunes.
Jalexster said:
Yes, the iPod will keep selling. But that is not the only part of the iPod experience. If, through Reals implementation, the useability suffers (what happens when you sync your iPod to iTunes the next time, after buying something from Real ? Can iTunes cope ? Does it overwrite the new files, try to import them ? Does it crash ?), what will people think?
Apple won't want people to get upset when plugging their iPods into their computers, and the whole simple syncing starts going weird. The iPod is one part of a product. You can't use it without synincg it to iTunes (unless you're a geek, of course ;-)). But if that part fouls up, you'll have one very unhappy customer - and rightly so.
This is a pain, and will create headaches for Apple, even if it does sell more iPods (not that they aren't selling enough..). The point is that Apple cares about the whole experience. Not just selling units.
Serves you right, Apple
Apple trying to establish a vertically integrated business model without letting in anyone at any point was silly to start with. It was neither user-friendly nor the best way to keep the competition at bay.
They should have allowed other companies to sell custom iPods over a year ago (doesn't someone find it strange that HP is still not selling HP-Pods?) and to rebrand the iTMS too. Laughing off Real in public like they did was a short laugh to satisfy Jobs ego. Now they are getting served.
I am not sorry for them. Apple is great when it comes to inventing things but a complete ass when it comes to sustain their initial achievements. They obviously need to suffer more to understand that in selling over the internet, you need to move from exclusively selling on your platform to licensing out and inviting others as fast as possible - see Amazon.
I hate Real and their ReallyCrappySoftware as much as the next guy, but if they open up FairPlay they protect my investment in iTMS-music I bought should Apple one day abandon the iPod or move it to a high-price segment of the market.
Apple trying to establish a vertically integrated business model without letting in anyone at any point was silly to start with. It was neither user-friendly nor the best way to keep the competition at bay.
They should have allowed other companies to sell custom iPods over a year ago (doesn't someone find it strange that HP is still not selling HP-Pods?) and to rebrand the iTMS too. Laughing off Real in public like they did was a short laugh to satisfy Jobs ego. Now they are getting served.
I am not sorry for them. Apple is great when it comes to inventing things but a complete ass when it comes to sustain their initial achievements. They obviously need to suffer more to understand that in selling over the internet, you need to move from exclusively selling on your platform to licensing out and inviting others as fast as possible - see Amazon.
I hate Real and their ReallyCrappySoftware as much as the next guy, but if they open up FairPlay they protect my investment in iTMS-music I bought should Apple one day abandon the iPod or move it to a high-price segment of the market.
snowdog said:Isn't this the same company that made a threat to Apple that "either license the AAC with us, or we'll talk to Microsoft"?
I guess Microsoft doesn't want to play with Real either
Yeah - lol !! The poor guys at Real !! oh my, what are they going to do if a lawsuit holds that 'Harmony' is illegal ? If Apple and MS won't have them around, maybe they can try to develop for Be or Amiga.
Mudbug said:
Does it? I am not so sure the DMCA speaks to this at all. By all appearances Real has copied the technology, not bypassed its copy protection mechanisms.
I would like to see the section of the DMCA that specifically outlaws what Real has done.
