Real Responds to Apple's Hacking Claims 620
ack154 writes "An article on VNUNet gives a sharp response from Real regarding Apple's recent claims of Real using "hacker tactics" to allow music from the Real store to play on the iPod. Real states: 'Compatibility, choice and quality are critically important to consumers and Harmony provides all of these to users of the iPod and over 70 other music devices including those from Creative, Rio, iRiver and others.' The article goes on to outline what they say is a 'clear precedent' for what they have done. And in case you were under a rock it all seemed to start here earlier this week."
I keep waiting for Real... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I keep waiting for Real... (Score:4, Insightful)
seriously though, if it's ok for Real to reverse engineer to create interoperability, how was it not ok for John DeCSS to reverse engineer to make linux interoperable with the DVD format?
Re:I keep waiting for Real... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I keep waiting for Real... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hacker tactics? (Score:5, Insightful)
So?
That doesn't make it illegal. Rather it is specifically allowed by law.
(Yes that even means the DMCA, for interoperability purposes.)
What a stupid attempt at guilt-by-association.
Re:Hacker tactics? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because big business and their bed fellows in government want to protect their profits doesn't mean we should take their regressive nonsense any more seriously. I don't remember any of the originators of programming, whether it be hardware or software, attempting to impede progress.
Re:Hacker tactics? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hacker tactics? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hacker tactics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bull. It's not that hard. "Hmm... this cookie tastes like it's a standard cookie recipes with chocolate chips and a hint of something else. What could that be... AH HA! A touch of Molasses!"
Then you go to the kitchen and tinker with the recipe until it works out the way you want it.
Looking under the hood of a modern
Re:Hacker tactics? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hacker tactics? (Score:4, Funny)
So I kept going, and then this other window popped up saying, "We have deleted all your .jpg's and if you continue your attempts to circumvent our EULA we're going to delete your paris hilton video as well."
Moral of the story: Don't try to reverse engineer the OS that stores your valuable data.
It certainly can be illegal. (Score:3, Interesting)
common misconception (Score:5, Insightful)
The judge in the SCC/Lexmark case read this very narrowly [maushammer.com] and said that since the algorithm came on a chip, it was non-exempt hardware instead of software. This case isn't allowing software/software interoperability (like Wine [winehq.com] offers), but it's data/software interoperability. Big difference; if the DMCA allowed that, then DVD-playing would be legal (same interoperability, except in reverse)
Gift horse / mouth (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hacker tactics? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hacker tactics? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not a "loophole", it's an explicit exception.
European law has a similar provision.
It's there for good reason: To promote competition and not allow DRM to be used for vendor lock-in.
(Current attempts notwithstanding)
What the DMCA does is prohibit circumvention of copyright-protection devices (e.g. "cracking"), unless it's done for interoperability purposes.
However, the EULA might prohibit reverse engineering no matter what. The enforcability of them are questionable, though. The UCITA [ucita.com] act passed by some states is thought to make such clauses enforceable.
But I'm a bit sceptical, since a federal court found [harvard.edu] such a clause to be unenforcable in 1988 despite a Louisiana state law which allowed such clauses. I can't see why Federal law would not pre-empt the UCITA as well.
There is no "cracking" going on. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hacker tactics? (Score:4, Insightful)
Real talking? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about opening the
Re:Real talking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
"Hello, pot? This is kettle." (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Hello, pot? This is kettle." (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Real talking? (Score:4, Funny)
You must have missed the asterisk.
Don't think that applies to
Anyhow, I don't see what Apple is making a fuss about. Anything that drives more Ipod sales is good for them. Sure they may lose some money in music sales to Real, but so what. The real money is in the Ipod sales anyway, especially with the margins they are getting due to the demand for them.
The same can't be said for companies stuck in the music-only or player-only side of the market, who are operating on thin margins to begin with.
Re:Real talking? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, the iTMS will eventually grow to become a nice contributor to Apple's bottom line. But it isn't quite there yet, which is why Apple's keeping the iPod + iTMS killer combination going. Right now they feed off of each other. Apple doesn't want some punk-ass like Real coming in and reverse-engineering their stuff to take sales away from iTMS because they want iTMS to grow. When it's grown up and making good money, then they will probably start talking about licensing. But the market's too young at this point. Apple is waiting for its bazillion or so competitors to die out before they talk about strategic alliances.
Everybody who's willing to defend Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Everybody who's willing to defend Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
If Real was soooo hung up on offering you *choice*, why wouldn't their product simply strip ALL kinds of DRM data and place a happy *choice enabling* MP3 onto the iPod?
How would Real react if a third-party created software that took their audio files and did this? I bet they wouldn't be talking about *choice* then.
Re:Everybody who's willing to defend Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
They'd be limited to indy and public domain stuff, which despite what slashbots will tell you, won't make them a dime.
Which is what Apple is after. If you have an iPod, and want to legally download songs for it (without jumping through lame assed burn to cd and rerip hoops), they want iTunes to be the only way possible to do so.
I'm 100% behind real. Imagine if the only way to get movies for your Sony DVD player w
Re:Everybody who's willing to defend Apple (Score:4, Informative)
yeah. apple's SO closed. that's why they use ppc, an open architecture (unlike x86) openfirmware (an open bios implementation), standard component protocls and connections like pci, pci-x, agp, usb, firewire, ide, sata and more. that's why they've now switched completely to DVI monitors instead of ADP. that's why their filesystem, hfs+, has a fully working read/write implementation in linux.. because you know they CLOSED the format of course! (yeah right) more like they opened the documentation on it. that preferences system they use.. it's also know as xml, not some binary registry file. i'm sorry, but apple's only form of lock-in is that no other major manufacturers make ppc mobos and ppc chips besides apple and ibm on a wide enough scale to get high enough performance for os x.
lockin. yeah right.
Off-Topic: Commodore's Self-Destruction (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry to wander off-topic, but I watched Commodore's demise from rather closer that would be considered prudent, and I see very little similarity between Apple's business practices and Commodore's.
Commodore died due to non-existent marketing and aggressively incompetent management. They were used to "fire-and-forget" products that required no end-user support or continuing R&D. The Commodore-128 (and arguably the C-64) was t
Re:Everybody who's willing to defend Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
They sued. They got injunctions. That's how.
(A long while ago, there was a little program called StreamBox that did nothing but download Real rtsp streams onto your hard drive. It was later modified to download streaming WMA as well. And this isn't some crappy faux soundcard - nor a proxy server. It acted like the client, and downloaded the file. As such, it only worked in real time (since the servers only streamed audio at that rate).)
And the Streambox guys did it by reverse-engineering the protocol. Heck, I remember an even older program (XFileGet) that did a similar thing, but broke when Real changed protocols. Funny now that the shoe's on the other foot.
Re:Everybody who's willing to defend Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean reverse-engineering a public [sourceforge.net] RFC standard [ietf.org] RTSP [rtsp.org] protocol [dmoz.org]? Anybody from Programming 101 can write a small app that catches a stream and writes data to a file, especially when the protocol to request the stream from the server is a public standard. Now, that does not mean the codec is a public standard, nor does it have to be, for you to simply capture the stream to a file.
It's sad how everything pro-Apple gets modded up +5 insightful; I am pretty sure if the story was about Microsoft/HP/Lexmark/[insert standard "evil" corporation] products or DRM, the +5/+4 range comments would all be "OMG, how could they do this to us... DMCA/evil corp must be stopped... write to your reps... etc. etc."
And no, the (alleged) fact that Real is "evil" with their software, or that their software sucks, has little or nothing to do with the principle of this matter. Real is not defended here, but a principle of reverse-engineering is a bigger issue. I could care less about Real! If it was not Real but it was some "angel" corporation that descended from heaven last week, what difference would it make in what Apple is doing (well, they technically haven't done anything yet, but what pro-Apple posts keep justifying anyway)? Nothing, the principle of the matter would be exactly the same - either you can reverse-engineer, or you cannot.
Why does Apple have a problem with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why does Apple have a problem with this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Apple DOES make a profit on iTMS, albeit a small one. It's all about economy of scale. Right now they have a big share of a small market. In 10 years, it's going to be a huge market, and they do not want to be marginalized in it. 70% of 150 million songs is not a lot of profit, but in 10 years
Re:Why does Apple have a problem with this? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Everybody who's willing to defend Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would Apple care that the DRM has been "hijacked"? The iPod ships with a bona fide DRM that works as designed, so there's no negligence on Apple's part. The DRM still exists, the Fairplay DRM'ed songs are still DRM'ed and there's a limit on where those songs can be played. So there's no threat of iTunes songs being pirated (directly, since there are ways to get around it).
So, why is Apple concerned? Because exaclty like the Lexmark case, A
Re:Everybody who's willing to defend Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Not up to Real to decide what iPod supports (Score:3, Insightful)
If they have reverse engineered the Fairplay DRM, or used the PlayFair code to somehow encode their files as legit FairPlay DRM'd files then there's probably(most definately) something wrong(legally) with what they have done.
Re:Not up to Real to decide what iPod supports (Score:3, Informative)
I could see Apple being pissed about Real trying to sell a service based on using Apple's Fairplay DRM. If Real figured out a way to store MP3's on the iPod (as in no DRM), I couldn't see them getting mad at all.
Ford car hacked to run on alcohol, ford complains (Score:5, Insightful)
Similiar Apple has no business controlling what others do with their hardware. If people want to replace the software on it so it can be used with another service then that is their right. Just like ford can't say anything about you converting a petrol powered car to a gas powered car apple should keep it mouth shut. Anyone defending apple is a sucker for advertising. Just because Apple had that 1985 ad doesn't mean it is really a freedom company. Carefully read Mac owners posts and you will see that Apple is just an MS without the money but a "cooler" image.
Just replace apple with MS and see if you think the same about the story.
Compatibility, choice and quality (Score:4, Informative)
Compatibility, choice and quality are critically important to consumers...
In regards to real player these attributes are best defined as:
Compatibility: Real files only play in real player
Choice: Choose between real player basic (spyware laden) or real player premium (less spyware laden)
Quality: Only the highest quality spyware included in RealPlayer
Re:Compatibility, choice and quality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Compatibility, choice and quality (Score:5, Interesting)
Eh, just blowing off steam, I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one.
Re:Compatibility, choice and quality (Score:5, Informative)
If you're using a windows box you can get Real Alternative.
Download Here [free-codecs.com]
If you're using Linux there are w32 codec packages floating around for you to install which will allow you to play almost any media format. I'm not sure what is available for Macs since I don't own one.
Also, in this case shouldn't it be Apple bad, Real bad?
Bottom line... (Score:5, Interesting)
Choice? Quality? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they need to examine their own products before they accuse Apple of denying choice and quality to the customer, in so many words.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Hypocrisy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey let's all see how Real would react (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hey let's all see how Real would react (Score:4, Insightful)
what the fuck are you talking about?
That reminds me ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't really care about the choice anyways, they can always do what they want, I will never use anything from Real... but if they get away with it, it will be yet another proof that there are two levels of laws.
DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
This is very different than DeCSS, where there was obvious infringing uses.
Re:DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
>was obvious infringing uses.
What infringing uses? To watch a DVD you own?
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, it does not matter because Real is not circumventing copyprotection. In fact, Real is adding the DRM copyprotection to their own AAC files.
Real is not installing firmware on your iPod (Score:5, Interesting)
Does the mean... (Score:4, Interesting)
Does this mean that if Real wins their case, we have a HUGE loophole in the DMCA, whereby we'd be allowed to reverse engineer DRM, if the content is re-encoded with your own DRM ? - I wonder how the RIAA and MPAA will feel about this. Sucks to be them I guess!
Re:Does the mean... (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, it sucks to have billions of dollars and own the majority of the content that people pump into their brains every day. I mean, how do these people sleep at night?
Oh yeah, I forgot. Very comfortably, on a large pile of money. With many beautiful ladies.
OHHH SNAP (Score:3, Interesting)
seriously though. Real makes a good point: they aren't disabling apple's copyright protection of the music. If anything, they are adding newly protectable content.
booya!
Too bad they were singing a different tune... (Score:5, Informative)
Choice? (Score:3, Informative)
Hit them with DMCA - see how they like it ;- (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people don't seem to understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it's "competition" Apple is all that concerned about since Real wont steal too many customers on their own. It's bundling. What do you think Microsoft will pressure PC companies into shipping instead of iTunes? Yeah, something that claims "compatibility" with all systems.
Apple wants everyone to experience the elegance of the integration with iTunes and the iPod. They want you to synch your music with iTunes, and buy your music with iTunes. Then being so impressed with how nice and impressed how everything works go out and buy a Mac. Think Trojan Horse, only it's a mid-to-long term strategy for Apple.
Apple is also undoubtedly concerned about having to support Real's song delivery system since people having trouble getting music onto their iPods will blame Apple. Real's notoriously secretive UI-unfriendly software will undoubtedly
I agree with Apple opening up the iPod. But I also believe the style in which Real did this was totally disgusting. I had little respect for Real before this, and even less afterwards. No matter how much they claim the moral ground this is an act of desperation. An act that while is a movement in the right direction for the industry was riddled with pettiness and beligerence. And is clearly being done to save a company that created it's own destruction with it's inferior software and horrible policies towards it's users.
Holy ad hominem attacks, Batman ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Real has done a lot of crappy things over the years. Apple has done plenty of good things over the years. That does not mean that Apple is automagically right, and Real is wrong. I've come to expect a pretty significant bias in regards to the average SlashDotter, but this is waaaay beyond that.
--LordPixie
Compatibility, choice and quality (Score:4, Insightful)
Cue [Buffering...] jokes.
Do you know what Real is doing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Real took publically accessible information or did a clean room reverse engineering of the iTunes authentication and DRM. That is 100% legal under all laws because they did it 1) to allow for interoperability and 2) they are not circumventing the Fairplay copyprotection, they are actually adding it to the Real files.
Apple can complain all they want, but unless Real violated a patent on the Fairplay DRM software or actually stole copyrighted code to implement their version of the Fairplay DRM, Apple can go fuck itself.
Just to be clear, I have 2 iPods (a 3G and a 4G) and am a periodic customer of iTunes. Anything I buy, I immediately remove the DRM using Playfair. I will never comply with any law which seeks to restrict my fair use rights, especially the DMCA. Yep. I'm a violater. In more ways than one. But I buy all my copyrighted stuff. Once.
However, do you really think any iTunes customers give a crap if people can also use other, non iTunes, music stores? If you wanna use Real's service on your iPod, enjoy!
I feel so dirty... (Score:3, Interesting)
e.
From a support standpoint (Score:5, Insightful)
Arguably, since Real isn't licensing FairPlay, I would point the finger at them.
Let's play hypothetical: Apple comes out with iPod mini 2.0 with a 6 GB drive and loads of new touches and features in the firmware. Joe Windows-User has bought more than few albums on Real's store and is interested in upgrading from his old Rio player. He knows his songs from Real are "compatible" with the iPod, so he goes and buys himself a mini 2.0. He goes home, hooks up the iPod and goes to install his songs - and they don't work.
Where does he go for support? Apple never worked with Real to make those songs work, thus Apple won't care. Will Real just sit and point the finger at Apple for "disabling" the iPod, even though Apple may not have purposefully done anything to disable Real's music? Will they change Harmony to work with the new iPod and then allow their users to download new copies of the songs with the new Harmony code in them to make sure they work?
It strikes me that Real has to count on their buyers never upgrading their iPods, or using them with anything other than Real's jukebox app, for this to work with no issues.
As a support professional, I would be telling my boss to stop this before things get too messy. I'm not pro-DRM, and I don't agree with Apple's "hacker" statement or invocation of the DMCA, but I can see some practical issues here that always arise from making a machine do something the vendor didn't intend and I wouldn't want to take the phone calls on the support lines once the fit hits the shan...
The REAL issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what the fuss is really about is that Real wanted and alliance with Apple [slashdot.org], without being very friendly about it by threatening to seek to team up with Microsoft if Apple refused, and Apple refused them anyway [slashdot.org]. Now Real has forced the issue. It seems that the CEO of Real Networks, Rob Glaser, is being very abrasive in his business dealings. Real has already been criticised [slashdot.org] for some of their questionable practices by consumers and doesn't seem to be a reputable company to be involved with.
If Real can crack the iPod, then someone should be able to make tools for converting unprotected .rm formats to .mp3 because that doesn't circumvent any copy protection and shouldn't be subject to the DMCA according to Real's argument. Does anybody know of any?
Qucktime (Score:5, Interesting)
The QT team has created or written a tremendous number of codecs now, think: animation, video, cimepak, DV, Pixlet, etc. They have, or with $4.5B in the bank, can hire the best of the best in the fields to reverse engineer and recode. I'd say two weeks to a working internal prototype, one month until they have a rev 1.0 product.
If Real tried to sue, they and Apple could just come to a mutual agreement to stop cloning each other's technology. If not, Apple could certainly argue in court that Real themselves publicly stated that such actions were vital to the marketplace: case closed.
Real's primary (only) source of income is the Real encoder and the Real player. If Real really wants to play this "compatibility" and "open" game, they had best look under their feet to check what ground they are standing on before they walk too much farther down this path. Turnabout is fair play, and it would only be fair for Apple to put Real in their own position.
Yea... I think in this case Apple shouldn't use the courts, they should definitely fight fire with fire.
Isn't this GOOD for Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad it's not Mac Compatible (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad Harmony is only compatible with Windows.
Real should get real! (Score:4, Insightful)
Some say that it is all about money...you are correct, Real is stealing from Apple and undermining Apples deal with the record companies....this can only help real in the long run. It is too bad if Real were a little more patient and waited till Microsoft came out with their music store they would have had a good shot at a legal fairplay license with Apple. Apple is beginning to license it to other companies and those that "play fair" with Apple will get a slice of the pie. Real did not and will lose because of that....If they record companies pull their support from Apple the only one to win from that happing is Microsoft and that won't be good for anyone!
Here is why compatible DRM is interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can create a DRM system that is compatible with someone else's, then you can muddy the issue of whether or not a tool that bypasses that DRM, is primarily intended for "circumvention."
Here's how it works. "Circumvention" is defined as bypassing a tech measure that limits access, without authorization from the copyright holder. For example, if you bypass CSS on a DVD whose copyright is held by Disney, and you don't have Disney's permission, then you have "circumvented" CSS. Likewise, if you bypass the DRM on a Metallica song that you bought from iTMS, without getting permission from Metallica's record label, then you have "circumvented" Apple's DRM system.
The catch is this: look at who you're having to get permission from. It's not the party who invented or implemented the DRM system; it's the party who holds the copyright on the content. If you hold the copyright, then you can give yourself permission.
For example, if you hold the copyright on a movie, and somehow get that movie onto a CSS-scrambled DVD, then when you DeCSS it, you are not circumventing CSS. You are bypassing it, but since you're doing it with authorization, it is not circumvention.
If such bypassing is something that you often do, then it makes perfect sense for you to somehow obtain a tool to help you do it. In fact, if you're a hacker, then you're going to write a computer program to do it, the very first time. The use of this tool by you, is not prohibited by DMCA. Is trafficking in this tool prohibited by DMCA? Hmm... not so simple to say.
It is assumed that all music sold by iTMS has its copyright held by parties who do not grant authorization to anyone, to bypass the DRM. But if anyone can implement that DRM, not just parties who have contractual agreements to have their music sold through iTMS (I'm talking about the "bad guys" in Slashdot groupthink here -- you know, the RIAA), then the assumption breaks down. To put it in layman terms: Cracking tools would not clearly be intended for copyright violation. They would have substantial non-infringing use.
Well, how substantial it is, depends on the market sizes, I guess. If just a few hackers are DRMing their own music, judges are going to laugh at how substantial that is. But if it gets into the mainstream... holy crap. Is Real a mainstream player? DUH!!!
Having the capacity to create DRMed content that is compatible with someone else's DRM system, has the potention to neuter DMCA's ability to apply to that DRM system. Real's action here, is a direct (though possibly unintended) threat to FairPlay. Apple now has to pay close attention to just what this Real software does. Does it just preserve DRM on files whose copyright is held by RIAA-members? Or might it do something else? Whatever the case may be, it's out of Apple's control, thus pretty scary. FairPlay is at risk of losing the DMCA protections that prohibit cracks.
Re:It's about the music..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about the music..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple/Steve Jobs is about making money and their entire history shows this. Their entire PR campaign is just that, a PR campaign. It isn't the way the company really does things.
If it was they wouldn't even be publicy thinking about using the DMCA on real nor would they be such hard asses when it came to people copying 'their' look and feel.
Re:It's about the music..... (Score:3, Insightful)
DMCA rattling aside, I totally understand Apple's position on 'their' look and feel, even if I don't necessarily agree with it entirely.
Microsoft copying Apple's efforts is generally considered one of the biggest rip-offs of all time, so I think I'd be a little sensitive about it too. That shit takes work, as anyone who's tried to come up
Re:It's about the music..... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not.
If we're going to make sweeping statements: the computer industry is based on hard work and innovation, and to a lesser extent improving upon accepted conventions. Trotting out some prehistoric BIOS lawsuit proves nothing - those were formative years for the industry and hardly apply to today's situation.
Besides, hardware and software = apples and oranges.
Re:It's about the music..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's about the music..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, please. Apple is a publicly-traded business. They've always been about making money.
I love Apple dearly, but let's face it: the whole reason they've locked down their FairPlay DRM exclusively to iTunes and iPod is because they control both. If people only buy music from iTMS, they're more likely to buy iPods; similarly, if other companies licensed FairPlay for their music stores, they could use it in other portable music players so people could use iTMS and play those songs on non-iPod players.
Apple exists to make profits, and the iPod is currently their key profitmaker. They want to lock as many people into it as they can. Since they're not a monopoly, they're legally allowed to do so, and since they do it so darned well, nobody really complains. But it's lock-in nonetheless.
Leveraging two good products... (Score:3, Interesting)
And, if you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit that there would not be a Real music store today if there hadn't been a (successful) iTMS.
Re:It's about the music..... (Score:5, Interesting)
How this got modded up is beyond me... I guess it's just apple fanboyism, which really scares me in this case. First of all, you didn't stay on topic. The topic is not "Is Apple supportive of musicians?" or "Let's list all the things we love about Apple". Second, rather than focusing on the fact that Apple is going after Real for doing the same things that many slashdotters do on a daily basis, you try to make Apple look better by pointing out how bad you think Real is.
Anyway, let us focus on the real issue here, which is Apple accusing Real of using hacker tactics and going ape over the whole thing. Now, many of the Apple fanboys are going to say "Ohhh noooo, but Apple is not in the wrong because they should be able to determine what files can play on their products and what files can't!!!11!" I absolutely agree. When the iPod leaves the factory, Apple should (and does) have complete control over what music files it can play. When the iPod gets from the store into my house, however, it is my turn to have control. If Real offers me a way to put music on my iPod that I couldn't put otherwise, then it is my *right* as the full owner of the product to do with it as I please. I could throw it in the garbage if I want to, piss on it, or simply load some music from Real's network. It's mine.
And lastly, Apple does not really care about the music. I'm sorry to crush your dreams that Apple is a loving, caring corporation. It is in the business to make money. It does the things it does in order to get people like you to cheer it on and praise it and buy its products. So no, apple never really cared about the music, it just looked like it cared so that you (and others) would support it financially by buying Apple products.
Re:It's about the music..... (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I'm concerned, online Music stores are simply not worth it, exactly because of all this. When I pay for music, then I want the music. I want to play it on my computer, and on any player I buy, and be able to copy it to my new computer or laptop, and burn CDs of it forever, especially since CD-Rs don't last more than a couple of years.
The idea of paying for something and then KNOWING you have to pay for it again if you want to continue using it annoys me, and that's not how I'll spend my money. This is exactly like the MPAA tactic of changing formats every decade or so, making it very tempting to re-purchase your video collection. One of the beauties of digital music is that it DOES last, and I only have to buy it ONCE. For now, I'll stick to allofmp3.com and my CDs.
Why does my opinion matter? Well, because its people like me that Real is trying to cater to, and they're only helping the iPod market (though they may be hurting iTunes...but hey, competition is good.)
Re:It's about the music..... (Score:4, Insightful)
How, exactly, did you come to that conclusion? Just because Real can sell music with "simulated" FairPlay DRM doesn't mean they don't have to license the music first. They'll have to enter into contracts with those record companies before they can sell any of their music, same as Apple did.
Re:It's about the music..... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the "Great Lie" of the pro-iTunes crowd. There's no substantial difference between iTunes and services like Real, and the RIAA has been very clear they aren't playing favorites. (And if they did give anyone a special deal, they could be anti-trust trouble.)
This effort by Real undermines this process and will only serve to make record labels more unwilling to participate in electronic delivery and dissemination of media
Why would the record companies care if a song is sold through Apple or through Real? It's all the same money to them.
what the fuck is your point? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the same ridiculous bullshit you dumb Apple fanboys are always spouting. Everything Apple does is good, everything anyone else does is suspect.
Apple products are generally pretty good; I like them. Apple as a company is ethically neutral, ie. amoral, or possibly even immoral as it seems many companies are. In fact, that is probably an apt description, as they are doing something wrong and probably just don't care. It's
Doesn't even make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
First, that would only make sense the other way around - it would undermine the process if Real found a way to get Apple's media easily working on a non-locked-down player (not to mention which this is possible anyway). Getting more music to work on the ipod doesn't undermine anything from a DRM standpoint.
And competition is a good thing. If this undercuts apple from a market share standpoint 1) that's good, because it means Real brought something to the table to compete with apple, and 2) it means that customers are still getting record-company-approved music from Real. Note this isn't about piracy, as one can encode pirated music and play that on your ipod anyway. This is about getting another DRM'd format working on the ipod, which record companies can't but love. In other words, this is in no way bad for the industry OR consumers. It's only bad for apple's monopoly.
I know the pro-apple crowd here thinks that only Apple can bring music to the masses, but their (admittedly very good) first foray into music only buys them time. Expecting all other companies to hand them a permanant monopoly is absolutely mindless. Expecting all content to be explicitly tied to a specific hardware platform is pretty dumb; expecting the opposite (as you and Apple do) is indefensible.
Disclaimer: I'm an apple owner. But it doesn't mean I have to rubber-stamp everything the company does.
Real is also all about the profit... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh and BTW, everyone on
Great business plan guys! Give Robby G a raise.
Re:It's about the music..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps you can explain to me how Real's plan is going to be detrimental to Apple selling more iPods. For the users who want the consistent licensing scheme (and Lord knows consumers have been clamoring for this - it's the single-most-requested-feature-ever - eyeroll) they can do this by simply ignoring Real and going with the out of the box solution. Big deal. If Real's plan goes off like they hope, it will INCREASE iPod sales, not decrease them. Apple already sacrificed profit from iTunes in favour for profit from the iPod by capitulating to the record companies.
No, the real issue here isn't about sales money - it's about percieved quality and development money. Apple doesn't want the burden of having to test both their solution AND Real's before each update to the iPod, iTunes or OSX.
Well, that and a healthy dose of 'screw you, Real!' thrown in by Jobs.
Re:Buisness model (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple makes a lot more money selling iPods than they do selling songs on the iTMS.
-Tom
Re:Buisness model RIIIIIIIGHT (Score:5, Informative)
I thought this had been reported often enough by now.
Re:Interesting summery... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Its just the way they said hacker (Score:3, Informative)
Secondly, if Apple can claim either trade secret or copyright, then Real is in the wrong even without the benefit of bad law.
Re:Its just the way they said hacker (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Do something important with your life, Jobs (Score:3)
Here's a quarter, buy a clue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, Apple makes a pittance from iTMS sales. iPod sales are where the money is. "But wait," you say, "Then wouldn't Apple be all f
Re:Real codec for exclusive Real only apps? (Score:3, Informative)
All this software does is take RealDRM and replace it with equivalent AppleDRM.
Re:The iPod is not a right!! (Score:3, Interesting)
That has nothing to do with the legality of you playing whatever music you like on a device.
I'm amazed that *anyone*, even the most ardent Apple apologist, is defending Apple on this point. Yes, Apple made a GUI for a POSIX environment that idiots can use, and Real made a lousy media player. That doesn't mean Apple has a halo and Real carries a pitchfork. Apple's trying to wedge themselves into a monopoly, and Real is telling them "Nope, this here is a f
Re:The iPod is not a right!! (Score:3, Informative)
Each iPod is the possesion of an individual (Score:3, Interesting)
Cracking the iPod open and extending the playback options for Real's downloadable music store is what this is all about. It's called backing the w
Dude... (Score:3, Informative)
Where does everyone get this idea that you can only play DRM'd files bought from iTMS on the iPod?
You can buy an iPod and just rip your own stuff. That's what I do and it works great. I'm in Canada, so no iTMS for me, but it really hasn't bothered my music listening habits. I buy the CDs I want, then keep 'em in a wallet as high-res backups, and use the iPod for