Apple Smacks Down iCommune 567
flipsidejones writes "Looks like Apple has killed iCommune. iCommune, as mentioned previously, allows users to share music libraries across a network from within iTunes. It seems the license for the iTunes plugin API does not allow for software-based plugins (only hardware: MP3 players, etc). Apple issued a 'Notice of Breach and Termination of License' to iCommune, who have since pulled the download. Something tells me that they won't be putting it back up anytime soon. Every time I forget about Mac OS X being proprietary, Apple does something to remind me." Well, in fairness, this could happen even if Mac OS X itself weren't proprietary, as iTunes still could be. For that matter, iCommune still is, too. Hm, none of that makes me feel any better ...
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to see this type of editorial byline in the next Borg article, please.
I'm constantly amazed at how Apple is really not considered evil because they happen to sell an OS based on Unix. Duh. They're a company that sells stuff and makes money just like any other.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
When I first read that, I agreed, but when I actually tried the thought on for size I found it didn't fit.
If Microsoft was the "wanna-be" there's no way I'd be championing them. Most people who "prefer Microsoft" seem to do so for reasons other than "quality of product" or "innovation" or "great cool factor."
If Microsoft was the underdog I don't think there would be all that many people rooting for them.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I don't even think their market positions would have to be reversed for this to happen, just closer to parity (and preferably with other competitors, e.g. Linux, at about the same level.) An example of this is IBM. Big Blue actually makes some pretty good products these days -- once they lost their absolute market dominance, they figured out how to do actual engineering again.
If Windows were head and shoulders above the competition the way, say, Photoshop is, no one would hate Microsoft that much. It's the combination of power and crappy products that makes them uniquely hated, especially when there are better products with much lower market share (OS X, Linux, et bloody cetera.)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care for Microsoft or Bill Gates' managerial style (let others come up with something and scream at them for getting details wrong) but I don't see them in dark robes sacrificing young employees to the God of Pain.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
- vendor intimidation
- semi-legal, prohibitive licensing practices
- price gouging
- market control
- FUD
- product tying
- hiding software features
and
- employee abuse
that our friends in Redmond are famous for. The only difference is that Apple tried to cater to a niche market while Microsoft decided to go for the lowest common denominator and won. The only reason Apple is seen as good is because they are not Microsoft.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they are a corporation and they have the same intentions of profit like every other corporation, but their path to it, while not always favorable, has always been legal. They follow the same rules everyone else does. Thats why I think people will still try to defend Apple.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, that's true, but I remain to be convinced that if it were Apple with 95% market share they'd be any less evil than Microsoft is. If anything, they'd probably be more evil - MS pulls more than its fair share of dirty tricks but they rarely resort to using the law as their weapon as Apple do all too frequently.
At the end of the day, Apple have the same business models and methods that Microsoft do. Look at MacOS and Windows and tell me what's really different underneath. I'm not talking about technical details or "experience", I'm talking about business models. They both charge money for the OS and give away some free stuff with it. They both use it to try and reinforce their other products.
So sure, in the real world it wasn't Apple, but it could have been if Jobs had actually followed the advice Gates gave him when he asked for it and licensed clones. Whether Apple would have tried to destroy Netscape is debatable, but they seem happy to clamp down on people when they make competing products to themselves, or even products that alter their own in some trivial way. It's a moot point, but interesting speculation.
Difference between M$ and Apple... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Same rules"? I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem in this case, is that the rules are not the same for Microsoft, because of their unique market position (a monopoly on desktop OSes).
Had Apple held such a monopoly, many of its practices would cause just as much, if not more, of an uporar as the ones MS got in trouble for. Think about it: they bundle all sorts of software "as part of the OS", and they have repeatedly cracked down hard on clone and part makers trying to enter their niche market.
So, I say the actions of MS and Apple are pretty much the same. Only in the case of MS, these actions get defined as illegal, while for Apple they are merely low, dirty and unethical. But don't you think that sort of hair splitting should be left up to the lawyers?
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, if iCommune became a huge hit, don't be suprised if Apple suddenly had to kill off the plugin APIs because the RIAA came after them for aiding and providing a means of illegaly sharing music.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Flamebait)
My point is, every time Apple does something corporation-ish that is Evil and Stupid (as we understand that sort of thing) everyone just sorta ignores it. It's like "yeah, they're starting to be like [insert corporation name here] BUT hey, they have Darwin and iPod rocks, yipeee!".
I think OS X is incredible although I haven't used it that much - but it's still a closed OS running most closed software produced by a company that is in the business of competing and being profitable.
apples and, well, oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want "nice", use open source. While companies have profit motives that get in the way of quality and features, the interests of most open source developers are aligned with those of users because they are users.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
And when did making money become evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
So they're evil because they're a company that sells stuff?
<rant>
Exactly. You know I'm really getting tired of slashdot articles _and_ comments which suggest that such and such a company or organization is evil or good. Whether it's Apple or Microsoft or even the RIAA, things are not as black and white as most
Since when did the FSF become the bastion of all that is good and pure? Since when did making money become a crime? I don't think I want to label any company as purely good or evil, and particularly not any action so general as making money! Too many of us here are simply zealots, blindly spewing doctrine based on some twisted free-software/open-source/unix-rules/fsck-the-gov
Don't get me wrong, I love open source. I agree with many of these principles. Heck, I contribute to couple projects and release open source code myself! But I hope I'm pragmatic enough not to simply buy the standard dogma that makes comments like "M$ sucks" or "making money is evil" rated "Insightful". Okay, <rant> off.
Re:And when did making money become evil? (Score:3, Interesting)
The FSF has been fighting from a moral stance on copyright since its inception. They have been a bastion of good since people started accepting those morals as good morals.
It has been the fashion now for twenty or more years never to refer to anyone as purely good or evil. Our culture has prevailed upon us to believe that all (or at least most) morality is relative to the culture it is a part of. In the past two years US culture has been moving away from being non-judgemental. Many sets of conflicting moral values are coming into conflict, and the morals of the FSF are only one of those. Contrast the arguments over property rights, freedom of expression, and freedom to share with the much more violent conflicts over family planning, abortion, and globalization.
So you see, I agree with you in a sense. There certainly isn't one global set of morals that we can all agree with. On the other hand I think the moral relativism mindset is doomed for the near future -- eventually you'll have to decide what you believe in or people will label you as a bullshit hypocrite, not as one who is tolerant.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
If you want to bitch and whine, at least do it when I do something actually *wrong*. It's not that hard to find such cases.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, in comparison to M$, they've remained relatively benign and tend to produce products of a higher quality. Microsoft has a long history of using underhanded business tactics (e.g. punative lawsuits, abuse of monopoly power) to pursue their ends, while Apple has maintained its edge primarily through innovation.
In reality, this is a move made by Apple to protect itself from exposure to legal liability. It has more to do with the litigious nature of the US business environment than any desire by Apple to "smack down" anything.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Oh, a little bit yes and a little bit no.
Apple is a company, yes. They sell stuff and make money, yes. Just like any other? Not exactly.
Microsoft's products are, at best, just good enough. Though they try, Microsoft doesn't really innovate very much. Microsoft isn't concerned with making the user experience pleasant.
Apple is just the opposite. Most people (given a few notable exceptions [slashdot.org]) respect that, and appreciate it.
Look at it this way. Macs are slower (yeah, they really are, dollar for dollar) and more expensive than PC's... and yet millions of people use 'em anyway. Doesn't that tell you something?
Re:by that logic (Score:4, Insightful)
Feel a Mac's keyboard. Again, no cheap plastic parts. They're built to last. Take a look at an Apple-branded monitor. There is no brighter, sharper, more color-accurate LCD anywhere. Hell, even the mouse is an amazing work of engineering.
Here's just one example. Let me tell you how my Power Mac G4 is hooked up. The mouse is plugged into the keyboard (USB). The keyboard is plugged into the monitor (also USB). The monitor is plugged into the computer (ADC). The computer is plugged into the wall (power). That's it. There are no more cables. The monitor draws power from the computer over the ADC cable, so there's no need for a separate power plug. ADC also carries USB, so there's no need to run a long USB cable down to the floor for the keyboard and/or mouse. And both the monitor and the keyboard have two USB ports on them each, so when the need arises I can plug my digital camera or whatever directly into my keyboard, no muss or fuss.
This is some extremely well-thought-out stuff.
Then there's the thing about the OS, and how the Cocoa API's are the most powerful and yet easy-to-use API's for any operating system anywhere. But that's a whole other discussion entirely.
People who think Macs are really no different from PC's have never looked very closely at them.
Apple not considered evil (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, they know how to make something geeks love, and that's why a healthy percentage of geeks are moving to Apple despite the well known proprietary disadvantages and CPU speed shortfall.
I don't think most of us truly consider Microsoft evil because of their monopoly. I think it can all be traced to bad products like Windows 3.1, Windows95, etc. The fact that they rapidly obliverated the competition, thus all but forcing people to use their products made them even more vile, but their original sin was bad products.
If monopoly was truly evil, Adobe would be one of the most evil companies in the world, with Photoshop having a massive, massive market share. Photoshop users love the company, and this is because Photoshop, while a near-monopoly, is also a great product genuinely beloved by its users(*).
Monopoly is only truly evil when the monopoly products themselves are evil. But when that is so, monopoly makes the evil even worse, since it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore evil products.
If you think Apple IS an evil company, well, it's trivial to ignore them. And that's the difference.
Hope this helps.
D
(*) Some people would say Adobe was evil due to its recent misuse of the DMCA. But that's not because Adobe is a monopoly, so it's not germane to this discussion.
This messsage was posted from my PowerBook G4/1ghz SuperDrive running MacOS X 10.2.3.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't.
Slashdot Editors should be using their privileges for editing, not editorializing.
The only situation in which they should append anything to a submitter's own copy is when a correction or a clarification is required.
If an editor has an opinion to share, or a comment in response to the submitter, they can damn well post a comment like the rest of us do.
Unix and others (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Unix is actually a big deal.
2) One of the key principles of the FSF is that IP creates an artifical economy. That is why should things which are expensive to produce the first copy of and virtually free to produce additional copies of be sold on a fixed cost per copy basis? That is why shouldn't an alternate means of financing software be found which brings its pricing structure in line with the cost of manufacture?
The same artifical economy does not apply to hardware. Apple being primarily a hardware vendor gets treated more like: NEC, Intel, Dell or Seagate rather than like Microsoft which is the number 1 proponent of the artifical economy.
3) Apple publically supports BSD, GPL and is moving towards releasing a great deal of software into the public domain. Microsoft publically attacks GPL and succesfully lobbied the government not to provide any support for GPL products. Further they've included anti GPL clauses in their license agreement.
4) Apple has worked hard to improve software which effects
5) Microsoft Palladium is a move away from file permission systems back to the capability systems of the 1970s. The capability philosophy has been an enemy of Unix for 30 years. And it has been an enenemy primarily because it shifts political power within corporations away from the IS/IT staff and towards security management. Obviously that's not going to be popular with
I could go on and on but those are 5 good reasons.
The Scene At Apple (Score:4, Funny)
Jobs : Well, our hardware advantage has gone, our OS is lukewarm Unix, all we have left is our fanatically loyal customer basis. Now, how can we piss them off?
Senior exec : Why not deny them music file sharing, possibly the single biggest growing sector of internet use in the last 5 years...
Jobs : Excellent! We'll be filing chapter 11 in no time...
Re:The Scene At Apple (Score:3, Informative)
Don't have a link, but I'm sure somebody else has posted this by now..
Re:The Scene At Apple (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess is they aren't ready to have the full brunt of the RIAA's legal division brought down on their heads.
Re:The Scene At Apple (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple definitely does shoot itself in the foot too often. Here's the canonical article [satirewire.com]. Next, Apple's decision to abandon Quantum Link's bulletin board service caused that company to change its name (and its focus) to America Online [google.com]. And of course, Palm arose in Newton's wake. It's amazing how many fortunes were created by Apple's failures.
Re:The Scene At Apple (Score:3, Funny)
I think the problem is the "Slashdot Mentality". Let's see if can create the Ideal Apple:
1. Setup RMS as the CEO/President/Company Savior
2. Release all software completely open source
3. Port OSX to the PC
4. Become a huge, massive corporation that uses it's installed base of now open source software in some sort of monopolistic shutout of Microsoft, putting M$ as we like to call it, out of business
5. Put all movies and music online to download for free
6. Send in Steve Jobs with a machete to hack all RIAA/MPAA/Record Co Execs to pieces.
7. Immediately go out business, since we hate big companies.
Would that fix everything? I hope so. If it doesn't work, we can have Apple shoot some sort of Natalie Portman porn and see how that works out.
Let it be said I never waste a list...
quit bitching (Score:4, Funny)
I took a nice new car that I saw at the dealership down the block, and the bastards called the police on me.
Everytime I forget that certain goods and services cost money, Lexus does something to remind me. Isn't this America? Can't I have everything for free?! The terrorists have already won.
Re:quit bitching (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, I don't think the poster was saying anything about prices, but rather the ability to extend the funcionality of a product.
Re:quit bitching (Score:2)
You're correct, and my position was a little overstated. I guess I'm venting my frustration about the "Slashdot Attitude" against sucessful companies/non-GPL software that's constantly shown. I think the story was worth posting, but the smug attitude at the end was annoying.
Let's see... what would make everyone on slashdot love apple:
1. Setup RMS as the CEO/President/Company Savior
2. Release all software completely open source
3. Port OSX to the PC
4. Become a huge, massive corporation that uses it's installed base of now open source software in some sort of monopolistic shutout of Microsoft, putting M$ as we like to call it, out of business
5. Put all movies and music online to download for free
6. Send in Steve Jobs with a machete to hack all RIAA/MPAA/Record Co Execs to pieces.
7. Immediately go out business, since we hate big companies.
Would that fix everything? I hope so. If it doesn't work, we can have Apple shoot some sort of Natalie Portman porn and see how that works out.
Re:quit bitching (Score:2)
Re:quit bitching (Score:5, Insightful)
Not your product, dude. Apple didn't create iTunes so people could illegally (right or wrong, it is definitely still illegal) exchange music files. And because Apple created it, they have the right to tell you not to do that with it. If you don't like it-- and obviously some people don't-- then you should write your own MP3 library manager.
It bothers me that people-- not you, but others-- actually use the word "free" in this context. Are you free to do whatever you want with other people's stuff? Um... no. That's the beginning and the end of the discussion, guys.
Re:quit bitching (Score:3, Insightful)
Then don't use software that comes with license agreements. Seems like a simple solution to me.
The same goes for hardware.
Then, once again, don't use hardware that comes with license agreements.
Of course, if you want to get your hands on good software, or good hardware, then I suppose you're going to have to accept the terms under which the vendors want to sell it. They created it, after all, so they get to decide how, or even if, they want to distribute it.
Re:quit bitching (Score:3, Informative)
You're confused. This has nothing to do with copyright, except to the extent that the creator of a work has the exclusive right to distribute that work. In this case, Apple is exercising their exclusive right to distribute the iTunes device plug-in SDK by doing so only under terms. If you agree to the terms, Apple will give you (at no charge, even!) a copy of the SDK. However, you have to agree in advance that you will only do certain things with it. If you don't agree, then you can't have the SDK. And those terms constitute a contract; if you later decide not to abide by the terms (like these guys did), then you are in material breach of contract.
The copyright aspect of this situation begins and ends with Apple's exclusive right to distribute the SDK. What's really relevant here is the contract between the guy who created iCommune and Apple, and the extent to which the guy is in breach of it.
The lesson, of course, is that you shouldn't enter into a contract unless you're both willing and able to abide by its terms completely.
Re:quit bitching (Score:3, Insightful)
Blah blah, philosophy, blah blah. It's really very simple, dude. If you say to me, "I want a copy of your whozit," and I say to you, "Okay, but I'll only give you one if you pay me ten shekels and promise never, ever to use it on a Tuesday," and then you say "Okay" and you give me the ten shekels and make the promise, you're obligated. You've entered into a contract. And if you then decide to be a jerk and break the terms of the contract-- using the whozit on a Tuesday, like I asked you not to-- then I have every right to do whatever stuff we agreed I could do when we made the original contract. Including, but not limited to, retracting your permission to use the whozit.
This is true because you agreed to it. It's not necessary to fall back on talk of "natural rights" and "fascism." It's a simple deal, no more complex than the deals that people have been making between each other since the dawn of civilization.
What I want to know is this: what makes you think you have the right to bust a deal?
Future Apple product? (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually thought they'd go after iCommune for trademark dilution...
Re:Future Apple product? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Future Apple product? (Score:2, Offtopic)
iCommune as a possible competitor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:iCommune as a possible competitor? (Score:5, Insightful)
--Mike
mod_rendezvous and apache; it is all in the config (Score:5, Insightful)
Alias
Al.ow from all
Along with a small perl/python script which took your playlist and turned it into a
That is all. Any one who can handle vi can do it manually.
However, combine this with Eric his mod_rendevous and then it gets interesting... http://homepage.mac.com/macdomeeu/dev/current/mod
As that will dynamically announce your web server to the local network.
In Safari; just go to bookmarks, rendezvous - and here we go. Sharing as it should be.
Dw.
I may be missing the point but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Since iTunes is a proprietary work, I'm not too upset by this - luckily, all iCommune needs to do to counter this is to produce an MP3 player better than iTunes, open source it, and they can very well do what they please. Just because iTunes is a proprietary MP3 player doesn't mean that it's the only possible one that'll work on the MacOSX platform.
This is more molehill than mountain.
Re:I may be missing the point but... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but it comes bundled for 'free' with every Mac. I think most of us would agree that Mozilla is a better browser than IE, it has tabs, popup blocking, it's more secure, it's more standards compliant, it can look boring if you want but it can also look cool and so on. The latest builds are even comparable to IE6 in speed. Internet Explorer itself has hardly moved on in the last few years, Gates has his eye on other balls.
Nonetheless, it's practically impossible to convince a lot of people to use it. Mozillas market share remains at rock bottom. I've tried to convince friends to try it and they point blank refuse, "IE is fine for me, why would I need Mozilla?".
And you know what? I think they might be onto something. Trying to convince somebody to change their web browser, or media player, or zip extractor is like trying to convince people to buy a different brand of oil for their car.
I mean, to most people, things like that are part of the furniture, it works, they don't think about it. The effort required to try something else, when what you have works, is simply too great. We can't be discerning buyers in everything we do (part of the reason classical economics fails) and so the idea that somehow a company could displace iTunes by making a better media player is probably wrong.
The only way that'd be possible is if it was SO much better than iTunes, and iTunes was SO bad that people were willing to find out about the competition and download them and try them out etc, ie not going to happen anytime soon.
So really this company is sort of screwed. I don't agree with the "well it was in the plugin license agreement so they are the criminals here" line either - arbitrary restrictions on plugin APIs that serve seemingly no purpose just reeks of control freakery and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if that was a planned feature for iTunes.
Using license agreements to arbitrarily restrict competition like this is a classic Microsoft tactic, it's sad to see Apple do the same, but not entirely surprising.
Audion already does a form of file sharing (Score:4, Interesting)
I am kind of disappointed that Apple is bullying developers who promote their hardware and software for free. But I am not sure why you need plugin SDK for this project. iTunes writes its libraries and playlists as XML files. I wrote a tiny shell script to copy files in the playlist to my MP3 player, which acts as a USB hard drive. Why not just write a small web server that reads those XML files and lets others browse the files and listen to your playlists as streams?
Also, MacOSX has Samba and NFS in addition to Apple's own file sharing. On a local network, everyone can just export their MP3 collections and then just point MP3 players to the parent directory under which other collections are mounted. Should be even more transparent than the plugin.
Re:I may be missing the point but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple didn't want to get hit with a Napster-Kazaa-like lawsuit. It's all a game of CYA when it comes to this sort of thing. Take a look at what RedHat did with the mp3 libs. That doesn't make the situation suck any less, but that is why they bother to make the license like the do and why they bothered to smack iCommune.
There was a reason they did that... (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I hate to see projects killed, in this case, its not necessarily a Bad Thing(tm). In windows-land, I've got a plethora of networks to hound for one file, depending on who has it. With my mac, I'll only have one, and if the file is out there, it's on that network.
Like I said killed OSS projects are bad, mmmkay? But, a single, united, SUPPORTED p2p network is (maybe) worth it.
Re:There was a reason they did that... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There was a reason they did that... (Score:2, Interesting)
What if this network has DRM? Or forces you to prove you own the CD? Or reads your mind to see if you own it? Or whatever the hell else Apple comes up with?
And what if it is a target for RIAA? Once the software its out, its out. Corporations know this as well as we do. They'll ship it, go to bat with RIAA (Lose), but the p2p plugin will already be out and floating on every newsgroup across the globe. So great, Apple stops shipping it (and presumably keeps competition down like it did here), the plugin is still out, and its still that single, united network, the one that would be so nice.
I'm sure redhat desktops are important to you, but get your head out of your ass, stop being a typical troll, and think a few steps ahead.
Re:There was a reason they did that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is fighting the RIAA/MPAA by democratizing the tools of music and movie production. This makes music and movie production outside the RIAA/MPAA possible for small indies, individual musicians, and small business studios.
The big five labels especially form a sort of cartel that has been ripping off artists and customers alike, and fixing prices. By giving that cartel competition from many small sources, Apple is weakening that cartel, draining its power. Given enough time, the cartel will collapse, and a new, better, music industry will rise in its place, with an abundance of good music, good prices, and rights for the artists.
P2P will never defeat the media sharks by itself, though it will provide promotion to indie artists. Apple is taking the high road, and solving the real problem: the RIAA/MPAA and the monopoly power their members hold over their industries.
"Mothra Leo, the fluttering of your wings is life!
Between the sky and the water,
You wake up.
A flock of moths turns him to stone.
Sleep defeats him."
Japanese language "Mothra Leo", "Rebirth of Mothra"
Re:There was a reason they did that... (Score:2)
- iCommune shares the files via Apache (OS X comes with Apache installed). So one could, in theory, share these with anyone, not just with people in Rendezvous range.
- iTunes doesn't share at all right now. iCommune lets it do so. How about if I tell the taco vendor at the corner to shut down now because I'm building a taqueria on that corner three months from now? You want a taco now? Too bad...
As others are saying, this is a license issue, and I haven't yet seen anyone posting details as to what part of the license was violated. Do remember, though, that Apple is even more anticompetitive than Microsoft. It's just that Apple's products tend to work fairly well, and they have a miniscule market share, so nobody notices much.Re:There was a reason they did that... (Score:2)
I'd still call that a bad thing. I like diversity. It allows a much better match between my desires and what's provided.
iYi Yi... (Audio Hijack) (Score:2, Informative)
One wonders why Apple didn't spring this at SFMW03. The cynic in me says that the keynote was so long already, that something had to get shelved.
In the meantime, here's something fun you can do with iTunes, indeed anything that outputs sound on a Mac:
Audio Hijack [rogueamoeba.com] - AH lets you tweak the sound of any app....and it can record streams as well. An awesome app.
Apple, like Microsoft, Remains a Would-be Master (Score:5, Insightful)
You have just expressed a wry gladness that the project was killed, so that your convinience may be better served by having to look in only one place to find a file you are looking for, and with the next breath essentially said "I feel your pain" when you've made it rather clear you do not.
Not only that, but your grand One P2P to Rule Them All and Bind Them will be a propriatary, commercial venture, subject to all the long term instability that implies, such as cut budgests, etc.), inaccessibility (no guarantee it will be compatible with anyone else, limiting your trading to just other mac players, a very small percentage of online file sharers), licensing restrictions (which may or may not be draconian, but either way, where's your choice gone?), possible monitoring capabilities (it is one network, after all, with likely only one approved client), and (seemingly remote at this time, but that will change on a dime if political or economic pressures come to bear) possibly DRM technology built in.
Not to mention it will be a single point of failure. One good lawsuit from the media cartels, a single injunction, and you are out of business with no alternatives to turn to, and your own vendor prohibiting anyone else from offering you one.
Welcome to the world of proprietary software. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple is a much nicer Master than Microsoft, and both their equipment and software are superior in every way, but they remain a master, and you a serf subject to their corporate whims. Furthermore, as occasional actions like this have demonstrated time and time again historically, there is absolutely no guarantee that Apple will remain the kinder Master in the future. At some point, these sorts of restrictions make it clear even to the most subserviant that no amount of convinience is worth this kind of tradeoff, and that freedom actually is something worth a modicum of effort to achieve, maintain, and insure.
It's the license (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its an API. What does one use an API for? (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt this would stand up legaly. (Score:2)
I'm not really familiar with the Apple license agreement for the iTune's API, is it something you need to download separately and sign a contract for? Or is it just something that's 'there' and you just need the right header files (or whatever) like the Windows Media API?
Lots of software companies seem to love proclaiming legal rights they don't have and sending out C&D's based on them, but that doesn't mean they actually have a case.
If it's true that the guy had an actual contract with apple, then they might have a case, but there's no legal way to stop someone from reverse engineering so way of interoperating with iTunes and creating a sharing system.
Re:I doubt this would stand up legaly. (Score:3, Informative)
One thing Apple has learnt is how to legally cover their butts and use the law to their advantage. They were burnt once too often in the past.
File still availible via other channels... (Score:2, Informative)
However, the old download is availible elsewhere, including:
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/10486
htt
Next iTunes Version (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless there's some reason they think we would prefer iCommune to their Rendezvous iTunes...?
Re:Next iTunes Version (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple has a legal right to do this (Score:5, Funny)
Now if Microsoft had done this, with their cold unfriendly pointy user interfaces, that would be a sin worthy of no less than torture and death for Gates and all his ilk.
Those who complain that the Slashdot editors and much of the readership have a double standard where Apple and Microsoft are concerned are clearly missing one extremely important fact:
Need I say more?Re:Apple has a legal right to do this (Score:2)
Re:Apple has a legal right to do this (Score:2, Interesting)
And Rendezvous will succeed where Napster failed. They'll be immune from lawsuits when they launch their own commercial take on P2P. Because Mac users are above the law.
The only way Rendezvous will work will be via DRM technology. And Apple will make sure it's the only game in town, as they do with most everything else about their platform.
Re:Apple has a legal right to do this (Score:3, Interesting)
No. Rendezvous works at a lower layer, so you couldn't tunnel it at the TCP layer. You'd have to find a way to tunnel it at the MAC layer, using L2TP or some such.
Rendezvous works by sending UDP packets to 224.0.0.251 with a TTL of 255. No router ever made, configured for tunnelling or otherwise, will pass those packets, and even it did through misconfiguration or some such the TTL would be decremented, so the clients on the destination segment would simply ignore them.
hmm (Score:2)
Can you blame them? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's good business sense for Apple to cover their asses by squashing something they fear might get the RIAA crawling up their innards.
And with earnings in the red, Apple is sure to be sensitive to the desires of shareholders, who might not be savvy enough to understand that a 3rd party tool should really not be of Apple's concern.
Apple not responsible for protecting YOUR hobby (Score:5, Interesting)
So, Apple decided not to take on the considerable risk of being seen to sponsor music piracy.
Sounds reasonable.
Now, this is a more interesting question: why do some people believe that Apple had a responsibility to risk it's neck so you can download tunez more easily? Why do some people believe that just because Apple sold a certain product, they must have a responsibility to provide other things, such as use of their software for music distribution, too?
I'm not sure about the answer... I expect it's something depressing.
Where's the iTunes SDK license? (Score:2, Informative)
What a lot of folks are overlooking is the fact that Apple smacked iCommune not because it was allowing P2P sharing, but because (supposedly) the development of iCommune violated the license agreement for the iTunes SDK -- which, apparently, has some sort of "you cannot use this SDK to develop apps" clause.
Seems to me the easy solution would be to check the terms of the agreement. If there is such a clause that the iCommune folks broke, then there's nothing to see here. If, however, Apple doesn't have such a clause in the agreement, then we can bring out the packs of rabid Mac-bashers.
Re:Where's the iTunes SDK license? (Score:3, Interesting)
The solution of course is to rewrite it using visual API and leaching the audio. As the Visual SDK has no restrictions mentioned about hardware.
Re:Where's the iTunes SDK license? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure if I'm at liberty to post the license itself (from a copyright standpoint) and anyway it's a PDF, but looking through the terms it seems to me that iCommune is in breach in a number of fairly minor ways. There's no end user license "that is at least as protective of Apple's rights as [the iTunes SDK Agreement] is". The iCommune web site does not show "Mac OS compatible" logos or iTunes logos, as it is required to do. The iCommune code does not appear to display the required iTunes compatibility blurb. On top of this, I do not know if the original application for the SDK stated that it was to be used for a network based plug-in but the license requires you to specify the "device" for which you are writing a driver.
All in all the current iCommune site is in clear breach of the agreement and Apple have every right to ask for the software to be taken down at least until the breaches are rectified.
Restricting uses (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not allowed (Score:2)
So I can reverse engineer ITunes (protocol or whatever) so that I can put a hook into a function to operate with ITunes.
Though I'm not sure why anyone would bother with ITunes given Apples record of friendliness.
The Letter (Score:5, Informative)
Well, for what it's worth, here's the letter that Apple sent me:
---
Subject: Notice of Breach and Termination of License
Dear Mr. Speth,
It has come to our attention that you are distributing a software program
called iCommune that violates the terms of the Apple Computer, Inc. iTunes
Device Plug-In SDK Agreement you executed. The iTunes SDK materials are
licensed only for the purpose of enabling the Licensee's hardware device
identified in the agreement to interoperate with iTunes. The iTunes SDK is
not licensed for use in a software program for sharing of music over a
network. Your distribution of this program is a violation of the license
agreement and of Apple's intellectual property rights.
Due to your breach of the agreement, Apple hereby gives notice of
termination of your license agreement pursuant to Section 7.2 of the
agreement and demands that you cease distribution of the iCommune program
immediately and return the iTunes SDK materials to Apple.
Please contact me as soon as you receive this notice to confirm that you are
taking immediate action to cease violating the agreement, and in particular,
to cease distributing your iCommune software.
Sincerely,
[deleted]
Sr. Director, Products Law
Apple Computer, Inc.
---
and here's some pertinent info from the agreement we entered:
1.5 "Licensee Devices" means Licensee's hardware devices identified in Exhibit A or
in an Addendum to this Agreement signed by Apple.
7.2 If any breach of this Agreement by Licensee continues for more than thirty (30)
days after Licensee's receipt of Apple's written notice, Apple may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Licensee, whereupon this Agreement and all rights
granted to Licensee herein shall immediately cease. Apple may immediately upon
written notice terminate this Agreement if Licensee becomes insolvent, has a receiver
appointed, makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject
of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or debtor's relief law. The
rights of the parties under this clause are in addition to any other rights and
remedies provided by law or under this Agreement.
Exhibit A
Licensee Devices
SECTION BELOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LICENSEE FOR EACH
LICENSEE Device
1. Name and description of Licensee Device(s):
component system mp3 player console
---
Now, my description of the device might be a little vague, but it does describe an application for which I use iCommune. I have a Mac G4 Cube set up as the media center of my living room. It's hooked into my stereo and television. I use iTunes and iCommune on the Cube to turn it into the mp3 player console I was envisioning when I started work on it. I use iCommune on my laptop to control that system. Unlike your typical device which is directly connected to the computer running iTunes, these systems talk over the network to each other.
I think I'm in compliance with the agreement, but they don't. Hopefully we'll be able to work something out. Otherwise, I'm thinking of ways to do this without the Device Plug-in API, so the project might survive.
Jim
Too bad... (Score:2)
Too bad I can't find out more about the iTunes API; all I can find is the iTunes Visual Plugins sdk
Too bad this wasn't implemented as a Quicktime/Broadcaster kind of thing
Too bad Apple didn't like this; For legal reasons? I suspect it's either for that, or because they're gonna unveil something similar for iTunes.
Remember their eMacs+SuperDrive upgrade fiasco? They squashed someone else who had done that because just a month later they released a similar product. In this case I wouldn't be surprised if iTunes 3.1 was released with iLife that had Renedevous enabled broadcasting!
before we all go overboard with ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It occurs to me that Apple may have less-than-evil reasons for terminating the contract, not the least of which is to retain their credibility by not becoming associated with some half-assed Napster clone.
Or, they could just be evil. I guess.
Stupid Computers. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stupid Computers. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's really been bothering me that this was modded as flamebait. That wasn't my intention, at all. I have an iBook, and I'm an Apple fan. I wasn't trying to troll, or cause any flamewars.
It just bugs me when I'm misunderstood, and I wanted to set the record straight.
Easy -- don't agree to the API license (Score:3, Interesting)
In cases like this, just don't agree to the API license. There are tools for digging into Cocoa apps and figuring out the class interfaces. I've already dug into iCal and iChat -- they don't have APIs, but there is some interesting stuff in there. (If I'd been looking, I might have seen some of the unnanouced iLife hooks talked about at Macworld!)
That said, I don't think iTunes is Cocoa. It used to be Soundjam, right? So it's probably Carbon and the obj-c digging tools won't help much. Not sure the best way to figure out Carbon APIs. In the old days, we'd use MacNosy to "decompile" the code. Not sure what the Carbon equivalent would be.
Not About P2P (Score:5, Insightful)
iCommune does not serve MP3s, Apache does. iCommune does not copy MP3s, only an external web client could. This isn't about stopping P2P. It is about Apple using its license to prevent someone from doing something they don't like, probably because, as only a few people mentioned, Apple is going to enable Rendezvous sharing in iTunes (in theory, someday).
They violated the license. Period. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, it's not about Mac OS X being proprietary. It's not about the DMCA. It's not about the RIAA. It's not about Big Corporations squashing innovation. It's about the iCommune folks agreeing to a license when they used the API, and violating the terms of that license, and Apple revoking it. Apple is fully within their rights to do this, and I have no sympathy for iCommune at all. They agreed to the license, and they broke the rules. That's just too damn bad.
And it's not like Apple used the DMCA or something to do this. ALl they did was send a letter saying "Hey, you agreed to this license, and now you violated it. Please stop."
Come on people, it's a LICENSE. Just because you don't like the terms of it doesn't mean it's not real. You know that if someone violated the terms of the GPL and got in trouble for it, we'd all be celebrating. When you support the enforcement of one LICENSE and cry foul when another is enforced, you lose a lot of credibility.
Now, if the license was ambiguous, and what icommune did wasn't specifically prohibited, and then Apple tried to claim it was, then I'd be upset. But this is open and shut.
Frankly, I'm getting a little upset about seeing all these stories on /. designed to trick you into thinking someone is stomping on your rights. Like the one about the student who STOLE documents from a law firm. And this one about a LICENSE VIOLATION. What's next? "Man Arrested for Possession of Linux: Police arrest man for breaking into BestBuy and stealing copies of RedHat Linux"
Re:They violated the license. Period. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite. Certainly, MS licenses are restrictive. Licenses in general are. If they weren't restrictive, there'd be no need for them. Are MS licenses too restrictive? Probably. Does this mean they can be violated? No. If there was an article about Corporation X, which made 500 copies of a Windows 2000 CD, and installed it on all of their computers, and got busted by the BSA or MSFT, I'd be on the side of MS, as much as I'd hate it. Apple licenses do tend to be less restrictive than MS licenses, especially the APSL, which, by nature, is less restrictive.
As for the Xbox mod chip stuff, that's totally different. There was no license involved. That was the DMCA (unless I'm mistaken). That's a whole different issue. If Apple had tried to use the DMCA against iCommune, you're damn right I'd be upset, because the DMCA has no place here. But they didn't. You're comparing Apples and Oranges. (no pun intended)
(Don't bother linking to the articles in which Apple has used the DMCA against people. I don't care. I'm only pointing out they didn't use the DMCA in THIS CASE.)
What kind of Kool-Aid do Apple users like best? (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe there's something to this Apple "cult" thing.
Apple Had To Do This... (Score:3, Insightful)
Basic survival intincts. Blame RIAA, not Apple.
Solution (Score:3, Funny)
wget http://www.xmms.org/xmmstarball.tar.gz
tar zvxf xmmstarball.tar.gz
make
make test
make install
Apple vs. MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple vs. MS vs. GNU vs. whatever (Score:3, Insightful)
If they were as powerful as MS is, I just can't imagine what hell we'd be in...
Before anyone yells fire in the crowded theater (Score:3, Insightful)
So cut them a break and let's not all trample each other in the mad rush to scream Big Brother at them. Sometimes big companies have agreements and connections that force them into this kind of behavior from time to time.
I don't like seeing it happen either, but there is no cause for calling them "evil" like I've seen here. That's overreaction and says more about the person saying it than it says about Apple.
Re:The Problems of the Apple License (Score:4, Insightful)
You may not like the APSL for political reasons, but it's got nothing to do with this.
Problems with APSL don't apply (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Problems of the Apple License: Try Reading (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:iCommunista (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Get it posted on KaZaA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shame on Apple! (Score:2)
I don't think that choosing specific licensing terms violates anti-trust laws.
-BrentRe:What? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Apple is stealing from open source community! (Score:5, Insightful)
--They gave their changes to GCC back to the community
--They gave us Rendevous
--They are giving their changes to KHTML back to the KDE community
--They gave us Darwin to play with
--And quite possibly many many more that I don't know.
I'm feeding the troll, yes i know. But it's got to stop. Moderators, mod him down.
You are so wrong. (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple simply and obviously DOES NOT WANT to have something the RIAA/MPAA/et.al. can piss on. It's being carefull. I say GREAT for Apple. I also think the project is great, but Apple is simpley covering it's tracks for the suit it will surely have one day by the RIAA/MPAA etc.
"Look, Ms. Rosen (you stupid c*nt) we DID try to stop all the file-sharing derivitaive works out there! We were aggressive in stoping piracy. Our iTunes v4 and iPod 80gig w/Rendezvous & Bluetooth STREAM files, they do not allow DOWNLOADING."
Re:Apple is stealing from open source community! (Score:3, Insightful)
Some examples to show that Apple isn't "stealing from the OSS community . . ."
- Darwin [apple.com]
- OpenDarwin.org [opendarwin.org] - "OpenDarwin.org, jointly founded in April 2002 by Internet Software Consortium, Inc. (ISC) and Apple, is an attempt to take cooperative Darwin development to the next level. Membership in the OpenDarwin project and access to its works are open to everyone. The project is also fully independent, with control over its own web site, project news, bug tracking information and CVS repository, as well as any other services that the community owners may wish to provide. Neither Apple nor ISC take any responsibility for, or exercise any editorial control over, the OpenDarwin project."
- Rendezvous [apple.com] - see also http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/02/08/29/2310214.
s html?tid=107
Apple's tactics regarding 3rd party developers, its choice of licences, etc. are open to debate. However, I don't think it's correct to say that all Apple is doing is "stealing". And besides, Open Source software is meant to be copied, looked at, modified, redistributed. (I'll save the discussion about "if you want people to abide by GNU, you have to be willing to abide by other licences" for someone else). Apple is doing just this, and as far as I can tell creating good products. If you don't like them, or their busincess practices, or their licences, cool, get something else. Vive la difference, non?