Slashdot Log In
Will OSX Build In Torrenting?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon May 01, 2006 01:33 PM
from the imagine-that-itunes-catalog dept.
from the imagine-that-itunes-catalog dept.
Cjattwood writes "Mac OS rumors has an article describing a possible implementation of a Bittorrent client into Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard", including a unique sharing reward system where the user can share bandwidth and get rewards, such as credit in the iTunes store."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
BitTorrent still has a better incentive scheme (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.realistic-dragon.co.uk/)
wow... (Score:3, Funny)
(http://prototypecreative.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday July 12, @11:52AM)
When one runs out of feline names! (Score:1, Offtopic)
(http://slashdot.org/)
or OS X "Domestic Cat"
or even OS X "OMGmewmewmew"
Movie Store Distribution System (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Movie Store Distribution System (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder how AT&T and Verizon will try to extort money for this to happen. Are they gonna track ITunes bittorrent traffic and charge Apple for it? If they can demand money from Google, Amazon etc for their content, which is incedentally less amount of data (per request probably megs at max) than a HD movie (gigs of data per request), I don't see why these cartels wouldn't eye Apple as their next target.
Precursor for iT-Movie-S (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday September 09 2004, @09:38PM)
Hard to believe (Score:2, Insightful)
Translation: (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, this is the best implementation of the BitTorrent technology yet.
$eeding.
Interesting, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://ugweb.cs.ualberta.ca/~awolfe)
However, if there's a crediting system, does that mean that Apple is watching your BT usage? If I'm not mistaken, Apple has some interest as a content producer and may not like what they see BT being used for. Is this going to be yet another organization watching what people transfer and ratting them out to the RIAA/MPAA/CIA, or will they be Not Evil (tm) and keep their noses out of people's business?
Groan. (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://robvincent.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 09, @01:55PM)
Beyond that, it's an interesting concept, but one that could seriously botch up torrenting as it is. Bittorrent works so well (with both legal and shady source material) because every user gets the combined benefit of getting what they want, and helping thers who want the same thing to get it. At the very most, a big ratio gets you get bragging rights on some tracker site. My inner folk-song-singing hippie cringes at what result throwing monetary things like iTunes credit into the mix would have.
Want to share updates (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.magpage.com/~flynnmj/tcs.html)
If we can share the software updates between macs, it would be a good thing. With 3 macs in my house, why should I have to download the updates 3 times? I should be able to get a copy from the mac on my local net that downloaded it first. I just hope they allow the torrent client to have a throttle on it.
Re:Want to share updates (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday January 14 2005, @05:11PM)
In Software Update, under the "update" menu, select either "Download Only" or "Install and Keep Package"
You will then find the packages at
Cheers.
Re:Want to share updates (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.magpage.com/~flynnmj/tcs.html)
There are 2 problems with this suggestion:
In the wonderful world of Apple's "it just works", I want the pref panel for software update to have a checkbox that says cache all updates and a textbox that indicates my local update cache.
P2P built into iTunes (the app) makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday July 09 2004, @03:58AM)
So adding P2P to iTunes could be one area where Apple could improve their margins. I guess the credit system would be a way to secure that people actually kept on sharing their files after they were downloaded/bought from iTunes (the store).
It's an interesting idea (if it's true).
A good idea... (Score:2)
Nice idea (Score:1)
Makes no sense (Score:3, Insightful)
If Apple distributes this and then some sleazy congressman manages to make it illegal, they'll have a big media (if not legal) problem and have to disable high profile system services.
If Apple distributes this, it will poison their relationship with the gangsters who control ITMS content (whether it has any bearing on song sharing or not.)
What possible use is it? Apple owns Akamai. Their updates download faster than just about anyone's. If they use a torrent system it _will_ be slower (end user upload speed), not faster, and someone will sooner or later figure out how to upload trojans in place of updates and really wreck their day.
If Apple wants to hurt themselves, it would be easier and cheaper to just start donating computers to Al Quaeda.
What does Apple need all that bandwidth for? (Score:2)
If Apple is really this desperate for bandwidth, could this be a sign that we'll finally see higher-bitrate content on iTunes?
Please. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday October 27 2006, @09:08PM)
This is a fairly typical MOSR pipe dream.
Apple does not need my unreliable, low-speed bandwidth. They deliver 100+ MB software updates to thousands of users without blinking. Given that most of their iTMS downloads (music, movies, whatever) are from Windows users, they would see little gain by offering software update credits to Mac users. In fact, for their paltry savings on the cost of bandwidth, they would have an administrative nightmare to face.
I file this one under bullshit.
Re:Please. (Score:4, Informative)
From the MOSR front page: In the process of researching recent reports from sources regarding Apple's "Gamer's Dream" Macs now in the late stages of development, we uncovered information suggesting that Apple is testing an alternate version of the Gamer's MacBook which would employ an nVIDIA nForce chipset and dual GeForce 7800GTX Mobile GPU's. Memory bandwidth would be slightly less than that offered by the existing Intel chipset in today's MacBook Pro's, but graphics performance would be even higher than the ATi X1800/X1900 based dual-GPU laptop design we've spoken about previously.
Not only does he have no sources, he doesn't have much of a clue about economics or design either. So he's a faker and not a very good one.
I dunno (Score:1)
(http://sharpestmarble.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:51AM)
Free airtime? Last I heard, they were just going to be making the phone, not becoming a carrier. Motorola doesn't include the minutes, Verizon does.
Based on some rough math estimated for the proposal, the team pushing this concept believes they could cut Apple's bandwidth costs by hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars per year.
TFA makes it seem like the project is rather far along. Too far for them to still be working on 'rough math'. Also, millions of dollars per year? I know that Apple sends out a lot of content, but still, that's a lot of bandwidth.
[T]he system would also save terabytes of Internet backbone bandwidth that is now used for Software Updates, QuickTime Movie Trailers, and iTunes Store downloads among other things.
Internet backbone bandiwdth, yes. But again, terabytes?
Another thing: How would the client computer report to Apple that the data of X size was received intact?
Yes, I'm being tormented daily (Score:1)
(http://cryptostenchies.com/)
Not good for me (Score:1)
It's called "grid" distribution. (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday May 21 2004, @11:42PM)
A unique port for Apple? (Score:2)
(http://www.candysporks.org/)
Uploads would use a unique port from other types of BitTorrent traffic so that network administrators can see it as separate and handle it accordingly.
If ISPs recognize Apple's "iTunes BT port" as empirically a no-pirating-zone and remove any packet filtering, then I predict it'll be a prime target for "illegal networks" to use thus effectively making this whole "unique port" deal a flop from the first turn at the track. Because, after all, you can't just run any protocol you want on any port number, especially when the server and client have a mutual understanding (which is all your standard ports are)...
Taking "handle it accordingly" another way, I can forsee that to mean "we [the ISP] want a dime on every 100 MB you send because of increased network load." Nevermind this bit:
So if it does nothing for packet filtering and is just begging for ISPs to charge users then exactly what good is using a "unique port" gonna do? My prediction: not a damn thing!
Can users *share* their bandwith? (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/)
My download is capped now at 250KB/s. That was the slowest I could download as far as I can remember. Is it our bandwidth to share? Is it our to use? If we upload even 20KB/s will other ISPs start capping everyone.
The Day MOSR Becomes a Credible Source on /. (Score:3, Funny)
iTunes (Score:2)
Oh, that's thrilling.
[/SARCASM]
Bets Please (Score:2)
(http://www.darkernemesis.com/)
Partnership idea (Score:1)
I know, it'll never happen, but I can dream can't I?
I would (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Monday May 08 2006, @10:06AM)
macosrumors.com does not have any real sources (Score:2)
(http://www.lkmc.ch/)
MacOS Rumors = Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (Score:2, Funny)
What I'd like to see... (Score:3, Funny)
considering how the network neutrality vote went. (Score:1)
Shameless plug (Score:2)
(http://www.nfsnet.org/)
Here's a better idea (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, BitTorrent is a great way of getting files around, but not for something as big or well funded as Apple...
Why would they want to do that? (Score:1)
... And so comes the death of unlimited broadband! (Score:1)
torrent podcasts (Score:2)
(http://bolson.org/ | Last Journal: Friday May 20 2005, @03:44PM)
So, based on what I've seen Apple do with things like WebKit, is that they'll have an implementation nicely packaged into a library and one killerexample App which uses it.
Bandwidth Problems (Score:1)
lol @ IDS (Score:1)
I'm sure ISPs will hate this and/or forbid it... so I must support it.
Novel idea ... (Score:1)
Coo-- oh wait, it's MOSR (Score:2)
My cable company won't like this (Score:2)
proprietorising torrents for iTunes (Score:1)
(http://www.filthynoises.com/)
Apple demographing a different crowd... (Score:1)
What? (Score:1)
Re:DRM? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DRM? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://en.wikipedia....h_invasion_of_Iberia)
Re:DRM? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a way for Apple to expand their ability to deliver content without having to drastically upgrade their own network infrastructure. You get a little iTunes store credit for being part of the delivery system.
Re:Nahhh (Score:5, Insightful)
The name, sure. Otherwise
Man, every time RFID or the BT protocol comes up, slashdot gets its collective panties in a wad.
Re:Nahhh (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.realistic-dragon.co.uk/)
Somehow I have never seen this as Job's first priority on the list of things to make easy in OS X.
Re:Nahhh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nahhh (Score:2)
(http://robvincent.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 09, @01:55PM)
You mean, like the Internet?
Re:DRM? (Score:5, Informative)
DRM? just curious, I can't imagine that they would let you offer the pirated music and movies and then get itunes credit for it...
I think you're confusing the term upload. They aren't talking about you uploading some data you have to get credit to download other data. They are talking about you authorizing Apple to use your machine as a node in a bit torrent network that distributes data of their choice. Thus you click "yes" and they use your spare upload bandwidth to more cheaply and quickly send software updates, podcasts, iTunes downloads, etc. to other computers. The data is all encrypted and chunked so it is not useful to you at all, even though it is on your hard drive. In excahnge, they give a free itunes song or something every month or year or something.
You win, because you weren't using all your hard drive and bandwidth anyway (and presumably it gives your data precedence). Apple wins because they no longer have to pay as much to distribute iTunes data and software updates. Theoretically, they could even expand this to third party software, cheaply distributing up to date version of any software companies want to give Apple a copy of. Hopefully it would be tied to a full service to keep all your programs updated.
The risks are legally, Apple might have copyright challenges to copying little chinks of encrypted music, even if it is unusable, and the security risk of people masquerading as valid nodes to disrupt the network or try to inject fake data (unlikely unless the implementation is very weak).
Re:Nahhh (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.xanga.com/rhesuspieces00)
Re:Building things in the OS bad (Score:3, Informative)
(http://nekobox.org/)
If MS did not abuse their monopoly, then no problems would have occurred and no one would have complained.
What MS did, specifically, was to extort Compaq by threatening to withhold OS licenses if they shipped systems with Netscape Navigator as the default and on the desktop.
In other words, if Apple threatened Best Buy and Walmart into stopping sales of competitive MP3 players, or PCs, with their iPod dominance then Apple would be in the same boat.
They don't, so they aren't.
Re:Building things in the OS bad (Score:1)
Re:DRM? (Score:2)
Re:Building things in the OS bad (Score:1)
(http://www.christopherwilson.net/blog | Last Journal: Tuesday May 04 2004, @11:49PM)
Aside from the fact that these are only rumors at this point, with no confirmed feature set for OS 10.5 except a newer version of Boot Camp, what's to stop them from building a TorrentKit, that's usable to create torrent-enabled applications for 3rd party developers just like WebKit?
Not every, dare I say, most, of the features touted by Apple's OS upgrades are not built into the OS. iChat isn't AV was not -- its an application. Safari is also an application. You are right that there are instances of OS features, i.e. Spotlight, Dashboard, Rosetta, and Expose, but many features/bug fixes that come with their OS upgrades are also done at the application level (Front Row, PictureBooth).
Re:Building things in the OS bad (Score:2)
1.) Apple isn't a monopoly.
2.) It's not like there's a commercial market for torrent clients or anything that will be threatened. Bittorrent is an open protocol.
3.) What the industry is telling Microsoft is that they can't leverage their monopoly to damage free choice. For instance, making IE default to MSN Search on all new installations, even though MSN Search only has 11% of the market and Google is #1.
4.) This won't be allowed to be used for illegal piracy anyway.
Re:If M$ did this, you'd scream anticompetitive (Score:1)
Dude, what are you talking about? IF MS had the foresight to do this, it would be great. Imagine getting WinXP SP3 at the full download speed your Internet connection is capable of. Heck, MS could save thousands, if not millions of dollars in server and bandwidth costs if they used BT to distribute their service packs and updates.
But, all MS has done is to try to sell BT-like vapor ware. Apple has the vision, if they implement BT they will be the ones saving millions, and getting my respect.
Re:If M$ did this, you'd scream anticompetitive (Score:2)
(http://www.lcscanada.com/jaf)
First, nobody even knows what "this" is yet (other than a vague rumor posted on an unreliable rumor site). Apple hasn't announced anything. Second, when Apple has 90+% of the operating system market and a criminal history of anti-competitive practices, they will be subject to strict scrutiny also.
Re:Building things in the OS bad (Score:2)
"Included with" is what he should have said to be more accurate... and is exactly the termniology Apple uses when they talk about Mac OS X... as in..
Safari is included with Mac OS X - but you can delete the app in one step.
iChat is included with mac OS x - but you can delete the app in one step.
The only "built in" things Apple has been doing lately are...
building in cameras into their computers (you can't take them out - boo!)
building in bluetooth (to the point where its nearly impossible to remove)
When Apple hands out software, you don't see anyone complaining... because you can get rid of/delete whatever you want
like Widgets? Hell, i hate em - and therefore, i deleted them, and diabled Widgets with one System Preference.
Try doing that with Internet Explorer, ActiveX, and the billions of crappy services that cmoe running by default ni Windows.
Re:I sure hope they do. (Score:2)
'Appleseed', duh!
Re:Building things in the OS bad (Score:5, Insightful)
I can delete Safari from any version of Mac OS X it runs on. Can you uninstall Internet Explorer from your current verion of Windows XP?
What I am leading to here is that Apple builds features into Mac OS X, and then creates modular applications that take advantage of them, or allows you to disable these features in the operating system. Plus, other applications built by third party developers can take advantage of the features (such as OmniWeb with WebKit) as well. No one who installs Mac OS X is forced to leave Safari, iChat AV, Mail, iCal, etc installed on their computer. They can delete them and then choose to install Firefox, Thunderbird, Adium, and Sunbird, and there is no penalty to the user.
Again, try doing that to Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, or Microsoft Messenger, without a third party XP hacking tool. You can hide those applications to the user, but can never fully delete them.
If Apple builds torrenting into 10.5, I'm sure there won't be anything that prevents you from running the normal bittorent clients that are already available for your standard pirating needs.
And that, my friend, is the difference between good and evil
Re:Peer Impact (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://www.blowfly.com.au/)
Here's the Patent
COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCING THE DISTRIBUTION AND REVENUE STREAMS DERIVED FROM WORKS MADE AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORM
Abstract of WO2005038617
Methods and computer systems for increasing the revenue stream from a work made available in digital form are provided. The methods and systems of the invention are particularly useful for musical, video, interactive game files, and artistic or commercial works that can be digitally copied and transferred or distributed, such as via the Internet. Embodiments of the present invention advantageously can form part of a greater system that provides access to digital forms of numerous works or groups of works, such as those that are copyrighted, to thereby extend the revenue-producing capabilities for the copyright holder of digital or digitized works to bona fide purchasers of those works. In turn, bona fide purchasers of a work who later provide copies of that work or other authorized works, or provide transfer or distribution bandwidth with respect to that work or other authorized works may receive incentives. Advantageously, no central warehouse of digital content is necessary with the present methods, and users may introduce authorized content into the present system in a controlled manner, through peer-to-peer systems, while realizing economic incentives for doing so. The present systems and methods also provide a myriad of embodiments of incentive and apportioning payment schedules, configurations and properties.
Data supplied from the esp@cenet database - Worldwide
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO2
Re:I sure hope they do. (Score:2)
(http://xinagnet.xs4all.nl/browser_info)
Re:I sure hope they do. (Score:2)
Re:If M$ did this, you'd scream anticompetitive (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://nekobox.org/)
The gist is: Microsoft threatened Compaq to pull their Windows license if Compaq installed Netscape Navigator. Apple has not done any such thing with their OS, so they aren't under scrutiny.
If you're going to complain about how people treat MS, at least understand WHY people treat MS differently too.
Legiferate? (Score:1)
Re:ISPs? (Score:1)
Consider the case of A, B, C, D, E on a local network. As it stands now if they all use Software Update, then they all go outside their local network to get it from Apple. Under file-sharing, if A gets the update from Apple first, then B, C, D, E get the update from A or from each other, so Apple and the ISP only have to supply bandwidth for one update + a small reward to the sharers instead of 5 updates. The ISP can't complain because it is perfectly OK to share files inside your local network.
The local network administrators have little to complain about either, since these are things that would be downloaded anyway, so it is the same number of bits being exchanged, only now the bandwidth is mostly distributed across local computers instead of coming entirely from the gateway server.
We are all speculating at the moment, but think how well this would work on a college network, where multiple labs are updated regularly and there are many students listening to the same few popular songs.
Re:ftp in finder? I think not. (Score:1)
If the command line is too much hastle (as it is for many) then download a free client such as Cyberduck.
Why must Apple supply everything?
I'm not trolling here. Flamebait? Maybe. (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.thenorth.com/apblog | Last Journal: Monday February 13 2006, @07:48AM)
The truth is, if Microsoft enters a niche currently served by freeware/shareware/open source, the assumption is that it is the evil empire out to squash all the little perfect peace-loving Linux and OSX people.
Frankly, I just want to see the same scrutiny applied universally.
Look for a second at Apple. The only reason they're not Microsoft is that they didn't do it well enough 20 years ago. The failed, they didn't "take the high road". Apple is pushed DRM down our throats more successfully than Microsoft. They also found a way to make downloading music workable for the record companies and for most of the customer base (at least for now). Apple's proprietary hardware and planned obsolecense has made upgrading their equipment nearly impossible for decades.
Hell, I had a ][+, a IIe, and a
If Apple builds a BT client into the OS and declares it "Part of the Operating System" because it uses that to obtain its patches, how is that different from Microsoft doing it with IE?