Will OSX Build In Torrenting?

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."

BitTorrent still has a better incentive scheme

You upload a little and you get infinite download credit for whatever movie you want. Sometimes even before it's out in the stores!

wow...

imagine getting credit for itunes music for torrenting itunes music... what fun.

When one runs out of feline names!

When will we see codename "Kitty"
or OS X "Domestic Cat"
or even OS X "OMGmewmewmew"

Movie Store Distribution System

Credit for torrenting? Why would Apple give away iTunes music just for people to run torrents? Well, maybe because those torrents will serve up iTunes movies. Dedicated bandwidth has been the greatest obstacle to getting a full iTunes HD movie store (well, that and the movie companies' agreement, but if the tech is there and economical, the content will follow).

Re:Movie Store Distribution System

"...but if the tech is there and economical, the content will follow..."

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

I can see Apple doing this for movies since they're so large size-wise. I wouldn't mind using half of my upstream to earn credit at the store. Good way to defray the cost of my internet bill - and since I'm on a comercial account my ISP doesnt say anything about me using a lot of bandwidth.

Hard to believe

I don't think that the legitamate uses of BitTorrent come close to equaling the bandwidth wasted on downloading pr0n, music and the latest blockbuster movies. So why would Apple build this into thier OS? Will it help legitimize BitTorrent? I doubt it. It would be interesting to see them distribute updates via bittorrent though.

Translation:

Help us take our hosting cost and we'll help you negate that bill you pay for 30 tasty megabytes of fiber... Yesss...

Personally, this is the best implementation of the BitTorrent technology yet.

$eeding.

Interesting, but...

This sounds like a great thing, since it would make BitTorrent more available for non-techie users and add another vote to the legitimacy of BT.

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.

TFA seems slashdotted already, but given the name of the site I can only take this with an extremely large grain of salt.

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

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

You can already do this.

In Software Update, under the "update" menu, select either "Download Only" or "Install and Keep Package"

You will then find the packages at /Library/Receipts and can copy them to other Macs.

Cheers.

Re:Want to share updates

There are 2 problems with this suggestion:

1. This works when there is only 1 software update available. This solution gets ugly when there are multiple updates to install. Doing these updates via the command line end up requiring multiple reboots, where the software update panel will only require 1 reboot if needed. I may need to review doing updates from the command line so that I can do multiple installs.
2. I'm lazy. ;-)
   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

I don't know if P2P built into the OS makes any sense, but certainly it makes sense to build it into iTunes (the application). Some people have claimed that Apple's margin on iTunes content is razor thin. I don't know whether that's true or not, but I certainly know that bandwidth -- when you want the best possible access to your customers, no matter where they are -- doesn't come cheap.

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...

Why? Well, Apple are trying to get in the movie business, and the only efficient scalable way to distribute huge files is, frankly, P2P, and giving people incentives such as free credit is cheaper than providing the bandwidth themselves. It also partially legitimises P2P, which is considered a "bad thing". About time more companies caught onto it

Nice idea

But it probably won't happen. Not anytime soon at least.

Makes no sense

The name "torrent" would scare off the few IT managers willing to play with Apple: they wouldn't dare put anything that even suggests P2P on a company system (their VP may not know what a torrent is, but he's heard the name and thinks it's bad.)

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?

"...including a unique sharing reward system where the user can share bandwidth and get rewards, such as credit in the iTunes store."

If Apple is really this desperate for bandwidth, could this be a sign that we'll finally see higher-bitrate content on iTunes?

Please.

Mac OS Rumors has a long history of being the most uninformed, random Mac rumor site in existence. Its predictions are rarely accurate, and when they are, they have generally been mentioned on another site first.

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.

Totally concur. Here's another example of this guy smoking stuff:

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

FTA: Rewards would include[...]free airtime minutes for Apple's forthcoming "iPhone" and the like.
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

Trying to get X windows in OS X configured correctly. Whoops, misread the title.

Not good for me

I live in halls of residence at the University of Manchester. As I work on the support team, I know that all P2P applications, inc. torrents, are blocked by the network packetteer. So if this feature does get put in, we'll get all sorts of complaints from users...

It's called "grid" distribution.

I'm working on a project for one of the megaconglomerates we all love to hate. It incorporates bittorrent style sharing, but all literature refers to it as "grid" downloading. Also, content is never downloaded to the user's computer-- it's "cached". But since downloads are so damned DRM'ed, I guess you can't consider it downloaded anyway.

A unique port for Apple?

FTA:

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: ...the 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.

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?

I use Cablevisions Optimum Online cable Internet service. They have some mysterious rules about subscribers using bandwidth. Seems if you upload for any extended period of time you will get capped. Capped being data transfer limits [logicalexpressions.com].

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 /.

The day MOSR becomes a credible source on /. is when not only toasters fly but water flows uphill.

iTunes

bandwidth and get rewards, such as credit in the iTunes store.

Oh, that's thrilling.
[/SARCASM]

Bets Please

Anyone wanna take bets on how fast the RIAA is going to start yelling? If this rumor becomes true of course.

Partnership idea

The folks at Azureus could partner with the folks at Apple/iTunes to create a really great combination torrent/itunes client. The Azureus team would be able to offer an incredible insight into the torrent distribution technologies and the expertise to have a truly OS transparent iTunes client.

I know, it'll never happen, but I can dream can't I?

I would

I would do it in a heart beat. As it is, my computer stays on all day. If I could build iTunes credit towards all that idle time, I would go for it. Too bad the service will never be used on the Windows Platform. Guess its time to buy a Mac Mini with the media center enhancements and just let it sit there and earn me...auctually my wife...some iTunes credit. She loves that damn store.

macosrumors.com does not have any real sources

He's just making up crap. The site is only right by accident. Why the hell does /. link to that?

MacOS Rumors = Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf

I don't really know what else needs to be said. If the guy who runs MacOS rumors told me the sky is blue, I'd check. What's sad is he used to be reliable. Now he's just a washed up has-been who fabricates stories to drive traffic to his site. He's as reliable as Hussein's old minister of information, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf.

What I'd like to see...

This may be a little OT, but I'd like to see Apple offer advertisements for download on the iTMS in exchange for store credit. They could make them interactive or something if they want to make sure you watch them. I don't mind commercials, I just mind that they interrupt whatever I'm trying to watch. I'd gladly sit and watch/interact with commercials for 20-30 min if it got me $2-3 to spend on commercial-free TV shows like Lost or The Colbert Report. There's a strange bit of psychology that makes me despise spending $2 out of my pocket for an episode of Lost but be fine with watching 20 minutes of commercials for it, even though my time is worth more than that.

considering how the network neutrality vote went.

how long do you think it will be before comcast...etc throttle / block this traffic? or start charging you per mb easily costing more than any credit the apple store might give?

Shameless plug

This is just the perfect story for me to plug my latest research [iacr.org], a couple of crypto protocols to help ensure P2P users behave honestly when uploading and storage rewards of some kind are involved, and there exists the incentive to cheat. Hope someone puts them to good use.

Here's a better idea

Apple call up a few of the really big ISPs, and arrange to co-locate a couple of servers, with unlimited bandwidth to that ISPs customers. Should be brilliantly cost effective, and save both parties money.

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?

I mean, bittorent has illegal music downloads on it, right? So why on earth would apple want to promote that, considering the iTunes store?! Unless they took the bittorent protocol and modified it into something of their own, and then filtered any music sharing on it, they would be working against themselves. I think this "rumor" must have been started by the author of the article.

... And so comes the death of unlimited broadband!

This is yet another reason that unlimited broadband will soon disappear. Now Apple is planning to exploit DSL accounts to max out the traffic for their own benefit. I would imagine, looking at the costs of bandwidth, they'll use about $5 of bandwidth and credit the subscriber around a nickel to the itunes music store. IT's a total win for apple as they now won't have to increase infostructure and can ride on all the ISPs infostructure instead and their credit is a mere 1% (guessing) of what their cost to deliver it themselves would be. ... the beginning of the end of unlimited broadband.. it happened to dialup, and broadband is right around the corner because of exploitations of the service just like this.

torrent podcasts

Podcasts should be automatically fetched by torrent. This may require yet another extension to RSS for podcasting, but the benefit for creators of all size and bandwidth budget would be totally worth it.

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

With lots of ISPs restricting the ports that BitTorrent clients generally work on to preserve bandwidth often on the premise that bittorrent is used for illegal file swapping. So with the option of using your 40 Gigs a months bandwidth to get yourself a substantial volume of music/whatever, it would be an attractive offer. But I can see that with a legitimate use of such huge amounts of bandwidth being used, is this going to point out the naughty tactics that Broadband ISP sell services that their network couldn't sustain given higher usage.

lol @ IDS

Some of the noisiest network traffic is caused by BitTorrent. It's responsible for so many false alarms that organizations tend to ban it completely.

I'm sure ISPs will hate this and/or forbid it... so I must support it.

Novel idea ...

Interesting idea for limiting infrastructure costs for content delivery. Alleviate the the bandwidth and server burden on the supplier end and leverage the good things in a technology deemed evil by the very content providers (i.e., the RIAA, and MPAA) you are serving. Nice little bit of irony there.

Coo-- oh wait, it's MOSR

Mac OS Rumors is, as usual, very, very high.

My cable company won't like this

Spare upstream bandwidth isn't mine to "donate". The cable company actually resells it. The choices are they will block apple's "service" or be forced to raise my rate to provide more continous upstream bandwidth.

proprietorising torrents for iTunes

I reckon if Apple do this, it'll be a variation on BitTorrent (rather than a more generall torrent engine) specifically for making iTunes purchased downloads faster.

Apple demographing a different crowd...

So Apple is rewarding people who share music illegally...with more free music?

What?

1. They are not talking illegal downloads, more software updates, and *speculated* itunes content. 2. It's not an upload for credit, it's a permission to use you as a node for credit. 3. MS has already bought groove networks and ray ozzie helped build p2p into vista - go look it up - Apple just following suit.

Re:DRM?

RTFA. Traffic would occur on non-standard ports and you wouldn't be able to share anything you wanted. You would donate your bandwidth to share content Apple approved like software updates. It makes perfect sense and I'd certianly donate my bandwith at home when I'm at work in exchange for iTunes credits.

Re:DRM?

The rumor goes that they will give you credit for uploading their software updates to other people (thereby reducing their bandwith bills); they won't offer you anything for uploading anything else...

Re:DRM?

Perhaps they intend to make torrents a legitimate method of delivery of purchased iTunes songs. So, you purchase an iTunes song, seed it as an 'iTunes torrent.' Then you get some amount of credit for more iTunes songs. Someone else who buys the first song you bought downloads it as a torrent from you (and others).

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

> I don't care how many good uses there are, Bit Torrent will always be labeled as a piracy tool.

The name, sure. Otherwise ... it's just a goddamn protocol. WoW uses it for updates, and it's catching on elsewhere. They just won't call it BitTorrent, and it might not even be perfectly compatible. Just call it an "exchange-interlocked pareto-efficiency protocol" or something.

Man, every time RFID or the BT protocol comes up, slashdot gets its collective panties in a wad.

Re:Nahhh

2. Legal downloads of Linux/BSD CD's.

Somehow I have never seen this as Job's first priority on the list of things to make easy in OS X.

Re:Nahhh

Except Apple is the one that dictates what it is you'll be sharing. You're simply donating some disk space on your computer and bandwidth. The traffic will also occur on non-standard bit torrent ports so admins can tell the difference between the Apple feature and standard bit torrent traffic.

Re:Nahhh

I don't care how many good uses there are, Bit Torrent will always be labeled as a piracy tool.

You mean, like the Internet?

Re:DRM?

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

People said the same thing about CD burners.

Re:Building things in the OS bad

No, abusing your monopoly is bad.

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

I would argue that the difference is in how opaque the integration is. The interfaces to WebCore (or is it WebKit?) and other Apple-provided frameworks are well-defined and in known locations. There is nothing preventing someone from (for example) writing a facade for Gecko and changing html rendering throughout the system. I don't believe (but don't know) whether that would be possible in Windows.

Re:DRM?

I'm hoping this torrent technology is used for downloading podcasts. Currently, the Apple Store does not host the podcasts it's listing but links to their direct download links instead, which can kill their servers.