Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media (Apple) Businesses Media Apple

Financial Times on Apple/Real/DMCA Morass 80

Posted by pudge from the all-your-music-are-belong-to-us dept.
drpickett writes "The Financial Times are carrying an editorial by James Boyle concerning the nascent battle between Apple and Real. Good comments on the DMCA issues. Article sort of portrays Apple as a bunch of close-system types who got the 5% market share that they deserve for shunning interoperability. No mention is made of Real as the poster child for closed formats and cheap spyware tactics." And no mention noting what Real and Apple are really fighting over: who gets to profit from the destruction of the users' freedom.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Financial Times on Apple/Real/DMCA Morass More

Financial Times on Apple/Real/DMCA Morass

Comments Filter:

  • Pudge?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by krel ( 588588 ) <krellNO@SPAMmac.com> on Friday August 20, 2004 @02:01PM (#10025419) Homepage
    And no mention noting what Real and Apple are really fighting over: who gets to profit from the destruction of the users' freedom.

    Ah come on now, that's kind of unfair, isn't it?

    • Re:Pudge?! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2004 @02:32PM (#10025765)
      Ah come on now, that's kind of unfair, isn't it?

      It's worse than unfair. It's the sort of gross, intentional mischaracterization that makes Slashdot look to outsiders like a pack of rabid dogs.

      I fully understand why folks get all up in arms about DRM. There are certainly issues of monopoly, consumer protection, fair use, and fair trade to deal with. But know this: You do not have a constitutional right to use someone else's work however you like. In fact, the creator/owner of a work has a constitutional right to do whatever the hell they want with it. The sooner we all grok that, the sooner we can have an intelligent discussion on the subject.

      If I write a song, I have every right to charge $100 for giving you the right to listen to it. Indeed, I have every right to charge you $100 for the right to listen to it just once! You have exactly the same rights regarding any song you might create. We each also have the right to protect our own works against copyright infringement. Importantly, protecting our own works (via commercial license, GPL, Doberman Pinscher, or electric fence) does not destroy a right or freedom that anyone else enjoyed.

      This is an important thing for the FOSS community to understand deeply, because we generally release stuff under the GPL or similar license, and we fully expect people to abide by that license. The GPL's teeth come from our legal IP infrastructure. To reject the notion of the legitimacy of intellectual property is to reject the foundation of the GPL.

      Apple and Real are fighting because Real has just peed in Apple's very nice, private, swimming pool.

      • Re:Pudge?! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by patheticloser ( 722639 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @02:54PM (#10026037)
        Actually, we do have fair use rights that pertain to songs you might create, even if you'd like to charge us $100 for one listening (hypothetically, of course). The battleground is where the lines are drawn and where your copyright ends and my fair use rights begin.

        For example, if you charge me $100 to listen to your song once, but then I parody your song, that is my fair use right, and you should not be able to drag me to court to use your song in this way without payment.

        As far as Apple pissing on Real, let's not forget that iTunes and iPod can play non-DRM content like mp3, so it is disingenuous for Real to complain too loudly that Apple's system is closed.

        • As far as Apple pissing on Real, let's not forget that iTunes and iPod can play non-DRM content like mp3, so it is disingenuous for Real to complain too loudly that Apple's system is closed.

          ...but it is closed. Real cannot possibly get permission from the RIAA to sell music as MP3s. They do, however, want to make an online music store able to play music with iPods (50% of the market). Apple refuses to let them do this, they refuse to license their DRM to Real.

      • Re:Pudge?! (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        >You do not have a constitutional right to use someone else's work however you like.

        Not "however you like" but we have certain rights. We pay money for goods and with that purchase comes the right to do certain things allowed under the fair use provisions. If you sell me a CD with your songs on it, then I have every right to make copies for my own personal use. You own the content and the distribution rights, but you don't have the right to prevent me from making copies for myself. If you sell that CD

      • Re:Pudge?! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2004 @03:13PM (#10026251)

        You do not have a constitutional right to use someone else's work however you like. In fact, the creator/owner of a work has a constitutional right to do whatever the hell they want with it. The sooner we all grok that, the sooner we can have an intelligent discussion on the subject.

        Sorry, but it is you who lacks understanding.

        Firstly, you don't have a constitutional right to do a lot of things that you have the right to do. Certain rights are protected, but it isn't an exaustive list of what you are allowed to do - it's a list of things the government is not allowed to do. The Consitution and the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it recognises some as being fundamental to freedom and protects them accordingly.

        Secondly, you absolutely do have the right to use a work that somebody else holds the copyrights to however you want. It is copying that is forbidden. In other words, only the copyright holder has the right to copy.

        Thirdly, you lump creators, owners and copyright holders in as the same thing. They are not. If I buy music, I am the owner and I can use it however I want. It is my property. That doesn't mean I have the right to duplicate it, and it doesn't mean I am the copyright holder. Also, in music terms, the copyright holder is almost never the person that created the work.

        To reject the notion of the legitimacy of intellectual property is to reject the foundation of the GPL.

        Just because you fundamentally disagree with DRM does not mean that you fundamentally disagree with copyright.

        • Secondly, you absolutely do have the right to use a work that somebody else holds the copyrights to however you want. That's not quite right. For instance, you don't have the right to broadcast a song that you purchased. Nor can you play the song for public performance.

          As I understand it, fair use rules basically say a copyright holder cannot sue you for exercising your fair use rights, but they don't have to give you the ability to exercise those rights. i.e., DRM and copy protection are legal. But hey,

      • protecting our own works (via commercial license, GPL, Doberman Pinscher, or electric fence) does not destroy a right or freedom that anyone else enjoyed.

        It does. Copyright, in the US at least, is an incentive given by the public to professional artists so they can feel safe to create and distribute their works. The public did not give up the right to hum whatever tune it likes for nothing. In return, the public asks that at the end of your copyright term, the work reverts to the public domain.

        DRM files

  • They've worn their scarlet letter.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by dmayle ( 200765 ) * on Friday August 20, 2004 @02:01PM (#10025420) Homepage Journal

    Real's worn they're scarlet letter, and I'm starting to wonder if they've worn it long enough. I'm syncing my portage right now, and I'm going to install Helix. I think it may be time to give Real a second chance.

    Now, I'm not saying I'm going to be happy, but I've decided to at least give them a shot.

    Just found out that they're player does not run on amd64 yet... Oh well, I'll try the binary version... No wait, that doesn't work either.

    Oh well, I guess Real sucks... ;)

  • Actually (Score:5, Informative)

    by Some guy named Chris ( 9720 ) * on Friday August 20, 2004 @02:03PM (#10025429) Journal
    Rather than portray anyone as a villian, I thought the article did a good job of explaining why the DMCA is so bad, and why we shouldn't endorse government sanctioned monopolies of ideas.

    Particularly I thought comparing software interoperability to knock off razor blades effective.

  • Nascent [nt] (Score:2, Informative)

    by pkhuong ( 686673 )
    nt

  • -1 Flamebait (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Codger ( 96717 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @02:32PM (#10025761)
    I wish I could moderate Pudge's comment. It deserves a nice big Flamebait.

    Yes, DRM sucks. But we wouldn't have the iTunes Music Store without it. Do you really think that the labels would have allowed Apple to provide downloads of their music without some form of DRM?

    • Re:-1 Flamebait (Score:2, Interesting)

      by OmniVector ( 569062 )
      just because that's the only reason the labels let companies like apple and real sell online music, doesn't make it right. DRM serves no purpose but to inconvience the people who would never rip it off, and midly deter the ones who were considering it. for the people that want something for free and are willing to go to any length to get it, DRM is as much of a deterent as putting a sticker on the device that says "Please don't pirate music". these are the people who bootleg for money. these are the peopl
      • DRM serves no purpose but to inconvience the people who would never rip it off, and midly deter the ones who were considering it.

        Before iTMS, music "sharing" was rampant. Nearly everybody and their grandmother was downloading "free" mp3 music from the various P2P networks. Think whatever you like, but Apple was the first company that found an acceptable balance between convenience and security. DRM has a place and a function, so long as it's fair and reasonable. Like anything else, it can be abused.

        Somet
        • FWIW, I am not anti-copyright at all, I am pro-fair use, and while I agree that Apple's DRM has had positive effects -- allowing people to purchase music online they otherwise would have been unable to; helping to curb the illegal sharing and put well-deserved money back into the pockets of the people who own the copyright; helping to legitimize online music distribution -- there have been negative effects as well, and in the end, if we don't stem the tide of anti-consumer copyright "protections" for copyri

          • -1 Uniformative ?? (Score:1, Interesting)

            by David Rolfe ( 38 )
            Since you've listed the 'positive effects' to back up a point, how about listing those 'negative effects as well' so we have enough information to make a judgement.

            What are the negative effects of Fairplay other than the knee-jerk "lulls users into giving up freedoms" or "doesn't work with my favorite OS/music player"?

          • Re:-1 Disingenuous (Score:1, Interesting)

            by David Rolfe ( 38 )
            You'll notice I got moderated troll for the above reply for merely asking Pudge for the substantive negative effects of Fairplay (in particular). You'd think an editor for Slashdot could provide a little something to back up the bias found in: "And no mention noting what Real and Apple are really fighting over: who gets to profit from [Fairplay's only reason for existing] the destruction of the users' freedom." (subtextual interpretation my own)

            I would argue that whether or not an mp3 player supports Fairp
        • Before iTMS, music "sharing" was rampant. Nearly everybody and their grandmother was downloading "free" mp3 music from the various P2P networks.

          And after iTMS, music sharing is still rampant. Apple, Real, Buy, Napster et al have done little to change the landscape; most people who download music still get theirs through p2p networks vs. the so-called "legit" online stores. So what's your point?

          Think whatever you like, but Apple was the first company that found an acceptable balance between convenience
          • By definition, DRM is unfair and unreasonable. Contrary to convention wisdom, tools are not value-neutral objects that can be used for "good or evil"; tools are created with purpose, and the purpose of some tools is to do things that are unethical. Like DRM, for example.

            Oh now come on! DRM, FairPlay in particular, is not out to do evil, nor is it unethical. It's purpose is to enable consumers to purchase music online while protecting the rights of the copyright holders. Hardly unethical.

            What I find od

    • -1 Uninformed Opinion (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GeorgeH ( 5469 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @03:42PM (#10026572) Homepage Journal
      I think a better question is whether Apple would have included DRM if the music labels didn't demand it. The answer is yes [eff.org].

      Apple is using DRM to control the marketplace, at the expense of users' rights and if it were any other company's DRM (say Circuit City with the other DIVX [wikipedia.org]'s or even DVDs) there would be a huge outcry.

      Of course just because Apple is wrong doesn't make Real a company/adware vendor worth rooting for, but at the same time it's hard to get upset that a company is offering their product for half the price of their competition.
      • I think a better question is whether Apple would have included DRM if the music labels didn't demand it. The answer is yes.

        That's not a complete question. If the music labels didn't demand DRM, then another outlet can and probably will compete with iTunes by selling unencumbered music. How long can Apple continue on that course, once somebody else starts selling identical 128-bit AAC songs with no DRM?

        • eMusic [emusic.com] competes with iTunes by providing non-DRMed MP3 files. Of course they don't have as much major label stuff, but it's the only store I'd "buy" music from, aside from http://www.theymightbegiants.com/ [theymightbegiants.com] and Magnatune [magnatune.com].
          • eMusic competes with iTunes by providing non-DRMed MP3 files. Of course they don't have as much major label stuff

            Exactly, so it's still not the same question. You are asserting that Apple would use DRM anyway even if the major labels didn't require it. I'm saying that their supposed desire to control everything isn't enough proof that they would, because they'd have competition who are then likely to offer the exact same songs without DRM. Therefore, the question is, with such competition is Apple likely

      • Damn Apple! Damn them for wanting to make a profit! Damn them to hell, I say!

    • Re:-1 Flamebait (Score:4, Funny)

      by jimbolaya ( 526861 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @09:27PM (#10029524) Homepage
      Shame on you for thinking independently. When you registered as a Slashdot member, you agreed to recognize the following:
      Good:Linux, GPL, Ogg, open source, and anime.
      Bad:Microsoft, copyrights, audio formats other than Ogg (unless their stolen MP3s), patents, and TV networks other than Fox and the WB.
      Good, when they're stickin' it to Microsoft: Apple
      Bad, when they're protecting their intellectual property rights:Apple

      Now step back in line!

  • Why can't people see what Real is really trying? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Paradox ( 13555 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @02:41PM (#10025869) Homepage Journal
    This isn't about DRM, or the DMCA, or anything of the sort. All that's businesses posturing and playing grown-up. It's expected, even if it's tedious.

    What Real is trying to do is shame Apple into doing their engineering for them. Apple has a tightly coded product that sells very well, but which profit margins are smaller on.

    Real comes along, figures out how to slip Harmony into Apple's current system, then complans when Apple says, "We reserve the right to break compatibility with this 3rd party, closed source product that is directly in competition with our music store."

    People need to stop confusing the issues. Real wants Apple to give them something for nothing. It's a concrete effort to not break compatibility with this product, which can be measured in man-hours and engineering dollars.

    And what excatly does Apple get back in return? Has Real made any effort to make Apple's job easier? If Real wants to open the iPod to their format, then they can pay Apple to do so, or offer up the engineering hours to keep everything working.

    Or hey, they could open up THEIR format to Apple. Now there's a thought.

    • Re:Why can't people see what Real is really trying (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jht ( 5006 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @03:30PM (#10026443) Homepage Journal
      I figure it this way: If Real wants to put their music on the iPod, they're free to sell their songs in one of two formats that are guaranteed compatible:

      - Unprotected MP3 files
      - Unprotected AAC files

      All Real has to do is that simple action, and not only will the songs transfer just fine, but users could even use iTunes to manage them! How transparent is that?

      What? You say Real wants to just wrap their DRM with Apple's DRM? Oh well, never mind. Screw them.

      Apple's built a closed ecosystem, but one that supports both major consumer desktop platforms, and can support externally-created files. So I really don't see a problem here. If you want to have totally unencumbered files, you can either buy CDs and rip them (because all the iTunes encoders are DRM-free), or buy them online from Apple - if you choose to do that, though, you pay a little less and get DRM-encumbered tracks that are not quite as good as a real CD would provide.

      Of course, then you can run those tracks through Hymn, but that's besides the point.
      • Basically what the Harmony system does is convert the Real media files to AAC (unprotected) and insert them into the Ipods database. That isnt the issue here. What IS at issue is the insertion into the Ipods database. If Real were to make their downloads AAC, then you would have no reason to use their software on the PC, and their install base goes down. THATS the real battle going on here, Real want Realplayer installed everywhere, and they see Ipod compatability as a way to do it.
    • And what excatly does Apple get back in return? Has Real made any effort to make Apple's job easier? If Real wants to open the iPod to their format, then they can pay Apple to do so, or offer up the engineering hours to keep everything working.

      Exactly. I find it quite ironic that Real is so hell-bent on saying "open up". Just like they were so open with RealPlayer. "Got a Mac? Want to watch video? Wait...you want us to be compatible with QuickTime? Screw you." But now that the tables have turned and App
    • What Real is trying to do is shame Apple into doing their engineering for them. Apple has a tightly coded product that sells very well, but which profit margins are smaller on.

      Since their profit margins are practically nill on iTMS, why don't they let real sell in their DRM?

      Just force them to use no other formats and so all their music will be iPod-specific!

      Apple isn't using it's monopoly to get into other markets, but it used market synergy to make two monopolies, one of which is solely for the purpose

    • I see people complaining about the motivation of Real. It is irrelevant here. Nobody thinks that Real is defending anything but its own interest. Nevertheless, despite that greedy motivation, what they are doing here is positive.

      I wonder how they will look like in the future when they will sue some hacker's ass because they have broken their stream format to make a free player (as in speech).

      Real is trying exploit Apple's hardware designers ? Maybe. But here the free software community will exploit Rea

      • What exactly is positive about it? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Paradox ( 13555 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @04:57PM (#10027474) Homepage Journal
        Nobody thinks that Real is defending anything but its own interest. Nevertheless, despite that greedy motivation, what they are doing here is positive.
        What exactly is positive? Real isn't campaigning to open the format. They're campaigning for their corporation to be let in on a slice of the pie.
        I wonder how they will look like in the future when they will sue some hacker's ass because they have broken their stream format to make a free player (as in speech).
        Umm... why do they need to do any such thing? You could open "Lispy-named's Music Store" right now. You could put MP3s and AACs on there.

        The DRM only gets put on for purchased music. It is not intrisic to the iPod. The iPod is already open to competition. Feel free to make a service that sells music for it.

        What's happening here is that Real wants to force Apple to support Real's DRM and proprietarty format. No one in the open source world stands to gain anything from this.

  • Hmmm, (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 20, 2004 @03:54PM (#10026751)
    Article sort of portrays Apple as a bunch of close-system types who got the 5% market share that they deserve for shunning interoperability.

    No mention of Microsoft either, who obviously must have got the 90% market share they deserve by embracing interoperability!

  • The DMCA Allows Reverse-Engineering (Score:4, Informative)

    by Landaras ( 159892 ) <neil@@@wehneman...com> on Friday August 20, 2004 @04:50PM (#10027383) Homepage
    When the original Harmony story broke, I created a write-up explaining what Real had done and how it was legal under the DMCA.

    The full write-up is available here [fallinggrace.com].

    The executive summary: Real most assuredly circumvented "technological access control measures" in the creation of Harmony. However, under Sec. 1201 (f)(1) of the DMCA this is explictly allowed if the sole purpose is previously unavailable interoperation with an independent software program.

    Their circumvention allows the interoperation of the iPod with the Real music store. This interoperation is achieved by creating a copy of FairPlay on mp3s sold by Real. The consumer themself is not circumventing a thing.

    Yes, Real sickens me as a company. But this situation should be about the law, not about company reputations.

    - Neil Wehneman
    • This seems to me to be a well-reasoned argument. It might explain why Apple has not gone to court (yet).

    • Just reading your comment here, this does not seem correct. "Previously unavailable" is not accurate; any Real song could have been converted to MP3 and played on the device.
      • Good point.

        My argument would stand if you replaced "iPod" with "FairPlay" as the program that is being interoperated with.

        - Neil Wehnneman

        • I'm not really disagreeing, but does the DMCA really protect every possible route to do something? Isn't it enough that one route is possible?

          • I'm not understanding what it is you're asking.

            If you could rephrase or restate, I'd be more than happy to share my thoughts (for whatever those may be worth).

            - Neil Wehneman

            • You wrote: "explictly allowed if the sole purpose is previously unavailable interoperation with an independent software program."

              My contention is that you can already play anything you want on an iPod if it is converted to an industry-standard format first. So does the DMCA really protect the rights of Real to hack the copyright protection code?

              • I think the key difference is that there was currently no way for a DRM'd music file to play on the iPod. Alternately, you could Real's Music Store as the independent program in question, and if that store only sells DRM'd files, then there is no way for it to interoperate with FairPlay / iPod.

                You do raise an interesting point, one that I have attempted to answer. I don't know if there's case law on your question, or if it would have to be adjudicated. I do know that conflicts and questions like this ar

  • Real does not get it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tjp($)pjT ( 266360 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @06:32PM (#10028358)
    Instead of cracking Apple's DRM, Real could have just made a plug-in to iTunes that allowed Real content to be played in iTunes and allowed it to be converted (not sure that is able to be disallowed, but can be limited). That way you'd buy a song from Real's music store (and you can extend iTunes to allow access through iTunes, or do a standalone app) and you'd be able to download directly into iTunes and play Real's DRM'ed songs. Just like WMA can be played now. (Unprotected only as MS won't turn over its DRM keys either and can't be bothered to write a simple plugin for software from Apple.) Then allow the conversion to MP3 or AAC and you are off and running. Very cool would be if apple included the ability to convert to AAC with their DRM, but alas. Then it could play on the iPod. Does Real give away their DRM format? Does M$? No. Why should Apple. Any music service could provide the means to secure the purchased audio and allow conversion at point of use, just like Apple does. And then they'd play on the iPod as well.

    It would, I repeat, be wonderful for Apple to include the ability to recode into AAC with DRM directly from iTunes. That would resolve all those issues for Real and MS directly removing their remaining excuses for their apologists. If Apple needs help with this feature, contact me and we'll do it for you. Same for Real. Same results, only legal w/o violating the DMCA.

  • Author misses the point. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by catwh0re ( 540371 ) on Friday August 20, 2004 @11:02PM (#10030025)
    After reading the article, I feel the author had missed the point on why there is a problem at all.
    From his perspective it's just about apple clamping out another provider from supplying DRM songs.
    Missing entirely on why people purchase iPods over competitor products. Likewise, why they purchase simple across the board DRM from iTMS, instead of more complicated, often per-song DRM from competitors.

    Now follow that with the fact that Apple has an obligation to the record companies, probably promising sales to allow the 99c licensing price, this can't be threatened by 3rd parties trying to bolster their own market share, Apple have to answer to record companies, and must from that already defend their strategy to them. (Real, despite selling the same product, have made no attempt to allow iTMS's greater library of music to play on their players. -That- would be more choice.)

    Probably the most important topic which the author missed was that Apple under no circumstance should be looking through their products to 'keep open' the technological backdoor that Real has made into the iPod. Apple should not have to engineer it's constantly updating firmware to support a 3rd party who reveals no details on how they broke into the iPod (other than "using publicy available information").
    My point being, when the iPod gets updated (and future versions which already come with new firmware), Apple may even without deliberate direction 'break' the hack which Real has engineered to let their DRM'd songs play on the iPod.

    Real has placed itself in a dangerous position of defensive catch up, if i purchased discount songs from Real (Something I can't do on my mac computers as Real's service is Windows only, Real vs Choice.) and my iPod would play them for a short while until i updated my iPod (to do things like work with a belkin photo reader or Voice recorder, or the new one-click shuffle feature), then I'm going to be angry with Real for providing a poor avenue to get their music on the iPod, not for Apple for continuing their product developement.

    Real would always be playing catch up, with every round of iterations invalidating the previous round of music downloaded. No one is going to throw away their iPod and buy a portable real player, simply because it plays $10 worth of real's music.

    In short the iPod presents enough choice for consumers, it plays raw audio in AIFF or WAV format and DRMless MP3 music files, if any of these competitors were worth their salt, they'd produce a DRM free file which the iPod would happily play. As well as most other players, with exception to Sony's offering which only plays ATRAC.)

  • It's nice to read commentary about this issue that doesn't take place on the level of sentimental corporate worship.

    Besides demolishing Apple's case against Harmony, Boyle touches on the larger regulatory mischief that gives Apple any legal ground at all to stand on. Without the DMCA, Apple's complaining would be moot.

    The DMCA, remember, exists not because our lawmakers are Solons but because they are, less grandly, colons: they pass off as law the grunting byproduct of giant wealth. Usually, big busine

    • Re:Boyle's piece is a must-read for the fanboy set (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HebrewToYou ( 644998 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @03:28PM (#10033627)
      Read the article.

      The author had no idea why Apple wants to keep Real from overiding the proper method for loading music on to the iPod: iTunes. The author kept using poor examples -- such as razor blades -- to explain something that is more directly correlated to a void warranty.

      Apple wants the iPod to work, so they design the iTunes MS to provide legal and copyright-protected music to iPod users. Real come along and says "We can load songs on the iPod, too -- only without Apple's permission."

      So what happens when Apple wants to change their software architecture? Are they responsible for the Real music 'breaking?' Of course not! Real is responsible, but I bet you wont hear THEM saying that.

      This author is off his rocker. No wonder he teaches at Duke...

      • I see how confused you are. Let me help.

        Boyle's use of razor blades isn't an "example." It's an analogy. He's showing how absurd it is for a razor manufacturer to say to a generic razor blade supplier, "Your blades rip off my razor because you figured out how the razor works!" Boyle expects you to substitute Apple and Real for the respective parties; it isn't asking much.

        And you kind of need to do that to understand the issue here, my friend. This isn't about "Apple wanting the iPod to work." That

        • You're out of your mind.

          His analogy is not applicable to the case at hand

          . Apple has a responsibility to ensure their product works as intended. Since Real has no intention of partnering with Apple (and instead using the iPod to guerilla market their own shoddy product), why does Apple have to deal with even the spectre of support for Real's product? If this product, Harmony, is allowed to blossom into a true competitor to the iTMS, where is Apple to turn for support?

          Inward? HA!

          Get a grasp of free

  • Speaking of Interoperability (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Slur ( 61510 ) on Saturday August 21, 2004 @03:38AM (#10031002) Homepage Journal
    Apple is actually very much on the ball when it comes to interoperability. They may have closed off the iPod for reasons which should be obvious, but in other areas they have gone far beyond the call of duty.

    For example, by adopting Unix they have opened up a whole new arena of open source, GNU, and X-windows software that simply would not have been possible had they gone the route of 'Be' for example.

    Nearly all the standards adopted for data in Mac OS X are open, which encourages further interoperability. For example, Apple's video conferencing in iChat is based on open standards, and it's entirely possible for an enterprising windows devloper to make a chat client that can communicate - via Rendezvous - with iChat.

    Apple long ago dropped the kind of "not-invented-here" attitude that characterized the Apple of the 90's. Continuing to portray them as closed-off is like prefixing their name with "beleaguered" - hackneyed, worn, and outdated.

  • Hardware/Software Myth (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xiaodidi ( 678443 ) on Monday August 23, 2004 @03:57AM (#10042323)
    The article is based on the false assumption that Apple is trying to protect its iTunes Music Store (iTMS) in itself. The idea is that the iTMS is an as-yet-untapped, but in the future huge, source of revenues, hence Apple's strong stance against Real. On the contrary, Apple sees no opportunity in making money out of digital contents, be it music of software. Its focus is on hardware and so has been for a while, to tell a long story short. True, they make great software, but only to sell (great) hardware.

    As far as the iPod and Real are concerned, Apple wants to avoid, a) in the short term that Real's or somebody else's software interferes with the iPod's workings, a potential headache for Apple's customer support, and b) in the long term that Real or a third party highjacks the iPod to foster the success of an alternative to the iTMS, which in a second time -- and only then -- would turn customers away from the iPod by promoting and supporting alternative players.

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Close