Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Consumer Hardware & Components > Apple threatens Real with DMCA

Apple threatens Real with DMCA
Thread Tools
Chinasaur
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Out West Somewhere....
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 10:22 AM
 
This is sad. I guess Apple figures it must retain control so it can always control the iPod ala M$ and Windows. I think Apple _could_ allow others to use the iPod to sell their services and still retain tight control but I guess Apple doesn't think so.

This trend of manufacturers controlling the HW AFTER the purchase and allowing no one to play in your own backyard is disheartening.

So much for all the hard fought legal rights consumers used to have.
iMac - Late 2015 iMac, 32GB RAM
MacBook - 2010 MacBook, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM
     
Gee4orce
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 10:38 AM
 
Originally posted by Chinasaur:
This is sad. I guess Apple figures it must retain control so it can always control the iPod ala M$ and Windows. I think Apple _could_ allow others to use the iPod to sell their services and still retain tight control but I guess Apple doesn't think so.

This trend of manufacturers controlling the HW AFTER the purchase and allowing no one to play in your own backyard is disheartening.

So much for all the hard fought legal rights consumers used to have.
No.

You want to talk about choice, how about Apple's choice to licence their DRM technology (developed at considerable $$ expense, and possibly the only DRM system that is useable) to whoever they choose whenever they choose.

If Real went unchallenged, they would be able to licence Harmony themselves, thereby not only denying Apple revenue from it's own product development, but actually creating revenue for themselves.

Shee-it. They used to fly the Jolly Roger at Apple, but I think Real should be the ones running it up the flagpole.

The iPod/iTMS works so well because of the tight integration, the 'whole widget' approach. If Apple starts supporting 3rd party download sites, that goes out of the window. Apple has a right to choose if and when they do that.

Not an Apple apologist - just someone who gets pissed off at below the belt tactics like this. As someone put it so eloquently - Real have been sleeping on Apple's doorstep begging to be allowed to join the party, and now they've just decided to break in an burgle the place.
     
Chinasaur  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Out West Somewhere....
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 10:41 AM
 
Well, that's a point of view. But don't you think Apple would sell more iPods if more services worked with it and still be able to maintain control the DRM issues and the firmware?

Or maybe they don't wany any other music services eating iTunes portion of market share pie??
iMac - Late 2015 iMac, 32GB RAM
MacBook - 2010 MacBook, 1TB SSD, 16GB RAM
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 10:44 AM
 
(dupe)
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 10:46 AM
 
apple is selling as many ipods as they can currently make right now. Real's hacking of apple's IP will not make hard drive plants in asia spew out mini HDs any faster.

>Or maybe they don't wany any other music services eating iTunes portion of market share pie??

Or maybe they don't want a bunch of pissed off ipod users complaining that their Real purchased songs stopped playing after the latest ipod firmware upgrade.
     
azdude
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 10:48 AM
 
Originally posted by Chinasaur:
This is sad. I guess Apple figures it must retain control so it can always control the iPod ala M$ and Windows. I think Apple _could_ allow others to use the iPod to sell their services and still retain tight control but I guess Apple doesn't think so.

This trend of manufacturers controlling the HW AFTER the purchase and allowing no one to play in your own backyard is disheartening.

So much for all the hard fought legal rights consumers used to have.
Huh?

We paid for the ability to play MP3, AIFF, AAC, and Protected AAC files. *Those* are the rights we agreed to when we paid the cash. If we want to burn and rip songs from another music service into the above format, we can do that... fine.

However, one company cracking another company's DRM features is unacceptable, and Apple is correct to protect their investment in the "total package" of iPod + iTMS.

Imagine the following:

You buy a DirectTV dish and a DirectTV plan.

Later down the line, Dish Network comes out with a hack (software? Mod Chip?) that lets you use DirectTV's dish on their network, and sell you a lower rate for it. Sure, it's great for you, but is Dish network justified in hacking their way onto someone else's CLOSED system? No!! Is DirectTV justified in going after Dish Network legally? I'd think so.

In the example, and in the case of Apple vs. Real, it's not a question of consumer rights, consumer freedom, or even business. It's about protecting your proprietary technology from unauthorized hacking-- in this case, DRM.

They'd do the same for say... PlayFair?

Fairplay is a technology that, if Apple so chooses, will be *licensed,* not hacked. In my opinion, Apple shouldn't even need DCMA to prosecute Real.
( Last edited by azdude; Jul 29, 2004 at 11:10 AM. )
17" 2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pro / 320GB / 2GB
     
dreilly1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 11:08 AM
 
Originally posted by azdude:
Imagine the following:

You buy a DirectTV dish and a DirectTV plan.

Later down the line, Dish Network comes out with a hack (software? Mod Chip?) that lets you use DirectTV's dish on their network, and sell you a lower rate for it. Is DirectTV justified in going after Dish Network? I'd think so.

In the example, and in the case of Apple vs. Real, it's not a question of consumer rights, consumer freedom, or even business. It's about protecting your proprietary technology from unauthorized hacking-- in this case, DRM.

They'd do the same for say... PlayFair?
I don't get your sattelite analogy. If you actually bought the Direct TV Dish (i.e. didn't rent or lease it), then the dish is yours, right? You have the right to let your dog chew on it, to bury it, and to do whatever you want with the physical object. If you then cancel your Direct TV service and are no longer a subscriber, then why shouldn't you be able to modify it to recieve other signals? More specifically, why shouldn't another company be able to sell you something that modifies the hardware you already own? It would be different if you were trying to access Direct TV content without paying for it, but that's not what you said. It's about what you should be able to do with things that you bought, and that should belong to you.
Show me what rights are being violated in your analogy, or what agreement is broken, and I might reconsider my position.

I fail to see how the DMCA can be invoked here, since Real isn't really "circumventing" an access control mechanism here. They're not decrypting any iTMS files, they're formatting their own files so the iPod can read them. Perhaps they reverse-engineered the Portal Player software and there's some access-control mechanisms in there, but if there's one case where the "interoperability" clause of the DMCA should apply I think it's here.

Member of the the Stupid Brigade! (If you see Sponsored Links in any of my posts, please PM me!)
     
azdude
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 11:37 AM
 
Originally posted by dreilly1:
I don't get your sattelite analogy. If you actually bought the Direct TV Dish (i.e. didn't rent or lease it), then the dish is yours, right? You have the right to let your dog chew on it, to bury it, and to do whatever you want with the physical object. If you then cancel your Direct TV service and are no longer a subscriber, then why shouldn't you be able to modify it to recieve other signals? More specifically, why shouldn't another company be able to sell you something that modifies the hardware you already own? It would be different if you were trying to access Direct TV content without paying for it, but that's not what you said. It's about what you should be able to do with things that you bought, and that should belong to you.
Show me what rights are being violated in your analogy, or what agreement is broken, and I might reconsider my position.


Admittedly, I'm not that experienced in satellite TV, and it was a poorly-thought out analogy. Looking back, my above analogy is more akin to using a cell phone on another network (except that it shouldn't be the *new carrier* that does the unlocking of the phone). Ahh, darn. Here I go on another analogy--- forget it all. Rebuttal accepted.


I fail to see how the DMCA can be invoked here, since Real isn't really "circumventing" an access control mechanism here. They're not decrypting any iTMS files, they're formatting their own files so the iPod can read them. Perhaps they reverse-engineered the Portal Player software and there's some access-control mechanisms in there, but if there's one case where the "interoperability" clause of the DMCA should apply I think it's here.
So do I. (See above... I think our editing/posting are chronologically messed up). It's not a DRM issue, it's the reverse engineering of Fairplay. Harmony files are treated as Fairplay files on an iPod, so apparently there's at least *some* shady work going on there. I'm not a lawyer, and won't pretend to be, but I agree that this sounds like it should be less like DRM/DCMA to me and more like an IP lawsuit.
17" 2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pro / 320GB / 2GB
     
CambAngst
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Portsmouth, NH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 01:34 PM
 
As I turn this problem around in my head, I think that Apple's beef with Real actually revolves more around the supply side of the equation than the consumer side of the equation. If all that was at issue here was whether Real has a right to create content that will play on the Ipod, there would be no issue. MP3 files already play on the iPod and you can get those anywhere.

The rub on this situation is that Apple didn't create Protected AAC strictly as a means to distribute content to the iPod. Apple engineered Protected AAC in order to make their content-distribution system acceptable to RIAA and the other content suppliers. That is the real value of the Protected AAC format. That is what Apple owns that is worth protecting. For Real to say that they're going to not only reverse-engineer the technology and use it to sell their own downloads, but also license the reverse-engineered product to others is just plain theft.

To co-opt the DirecTV/Dish Network analogy a bit, I think this is more like Dish Network offering to distribute programming to people who own DirecTV receivers via DirecTV's own satellites. It's not about the end-use device and it's not about the content, it's about the medium.
     
SplijinX
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Blacksburg, Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 01:44 PM
 
I think a video game console analogy would work better in this case. M$ sells their XBOX below production cost and then go on to create their own games and/or license their developer's software to other companies to develop their own games to make a profit. Now if a group of hackers throw together a mod chip to allow users to play "burned" games then ultimately the game developers and M$ will suffer because they are not making as much as they could be.

While I don't think Apple is losing any money selling iPods, it's only a one time deal and perhaps not as lucrative as selling music over iTMS (note how they are allowing HP branded iPods to expand into the Windows market to sell more music). If car dealers strictly sold cars and did not provide maintenance/services, they would not be as profitable, thus it's probably in Apple's best interest to keep as much as the pie as possible.

While I don't think it's completely fair to block Real's initiative, I'm sure they knew they were gambling when they tried developing this software before getting consent from Apple first. While Apple can justify their actions in the sense that customers get better experience through a seamless integration between their music and iPods, competition is what drives down the cost.

That's why PCs generally cost less, and also probably why things don't always "plug and play", rather you end up having a chess match with your computer to get the darn thing to work. While I think Apple's offerings are generally high quality, it's always nice to have some extra options. In the end, Apple just wants a solid foothold in this business and will whatever is advantageous to them to stay as the top dog, wouldn't you when you've invested so much?

Maybe I want to have a 15" plastic clad laptop that can run OS X and be able to pay a little less for it (a widescreen 15" iBook anyone?), but without any other hardware competitiors, we're limited to only what Apple wants to produce.

Just my thoughts on the matter, and please correct me if I'm off.
Are those free-ranged animal crackers?
     
kcmac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Kansas City, Mo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 02:25 PM
 
Originally posted by CambAngst:
The rub on this situation is that Apple didn't create Protected AAC strictly as a means to distribute content to the iPod. Apple engineered Protected AAC in order to make their content-distribution system acceptable to RIAA and the other content suppliers. That is the real value of the Protected AAC format. That is what Apple owns that is worth protecting. For Real to say that they're going to not only reverse-engineer the technology and use it to sell their own downloads, but also license the reverse-engineered product to others is just plain theft.
"Zactly.
     
Zoom
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: RTP, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 03:00 PM
 
Originally posted by CambAngst:
Apple engineered Protected AAC in order to make their content-distribution system acceptable to RIAA and the other content suppliers.
Exactly. Apple absolutely has to fight this or the record companies will probably pull out of their contracts with Apple. The DRM agreements Apple made with them are broken by Harmony and Apple has to protect them.

Obviously, it works in Apple's favor, too. This is a classic Microsoft/AIM case. When you own the market, you have zero reason to open stuff to third parties. Why would you? When you're the little guy, you're all about open standards because it's the only way you can win. More later, gotta go...
     
EMC
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 03:28 PM
 
This forum is full of a bunch of people that have no idea what Real networks is actually doing. They aren't "hacking" an iPod.

Everyone agrees here that an iPod can play WAV files, MP3 files, and unencrypted AAC files from any original source. If I burn a CD I own as an mp3 using real's media player it will play on my iPod.

Now, the iPod also supports a another format. It is an encrypted version of AAC using fairplay technology. What exactly is fairplay technology? Nothing very technological. Simply an encryption method that also keeps count of how many times the song is copied. Fairplay is not the only DRM algorithm, but it is the only one that an iPod supports.

To appease their music suppliers, Real networks also has a DRM, but they cannot license the fairplay DRM from Apple. Now, Real networks was forced to reverse-engineer the DRM. Before you get all huffy-puffy, remember that Apple pulled the same sh*t with Adobe PDF technology. Rather than license the technology from Adobe, they reverse-engineered it, build Quartz, which uses the reverse-engineered code and preview which opens PDF files. You don't see Adobe threatening action because this is not illegal. If I use open office, it can save files in Microsoft Word format. Also not illegal.

All that real networks does it converts an encrypted file in their format to a new encrypted file format that is compatable with the fairplay DRM engine. They copied no code, but simply messed with the inputs and outputs of an AAC file.

So what? Apple now has a a competitor to the iTunes music store that can run on an iPod. This is a good thing. Rather than 99cents a song, competition might bring this down to 89cents. Apple has a huge monopoly (read 60% market share) on hard-drive based music players. It is ridiculous that they be allowed to sue Real networks for creeping in on the legal digital music market.


The only thing you should take notice of is that Real networks software tends to suck @ss. They install spyware type programs on your computer and have always proven inferior to other online content providers. Chances are few people will want to use their service anyway. But give them a break, Apple is in the wrong here.
     
Mac Zealot
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Vallejo, Ca.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 03:48 PM
 
I think you people are looking at this in the wrong way, well some of you. The ipod is a mini computer, not a closed device. You as the owners of this device have any and every right to install, uninstall, or reinstall whatever you want and change HOW it's installed if you wish.

Pretty much all ipods allocate roughly 32mb for the operating system. IIRC, the iPod OS only takes up 8mb. Apple has absolutely no right to limit what can be installed on these devices, as long as the companies or individuals making such things DO NOT MODIFY APPLE'S PROPERTY WHILE DOING SO.

If Real released an ipod installer that imaged your ipod and extracted the firmware, then put it back on the ipod with a bootloader and real's OS.. that would be on perfectly clean turf since it requires no decompiling, modifying, or stealing of apple's OS. The trick is that Real's installer cannot include apple's property in it.

As for the directv vs dish thing.. you can actually use dish network hardware on directv's network and so on and so fourth Whether it's supported or works that well is pretty much grey turf though.

I think apple is being stupid in this case. It's like say, SBC saying that the modem you just paid $100 for can't be used with any other company and they sue sprint for sending ads to SBC customers saying they can use their old DSL modem with sprint's dsl.

If apple continues to do stupid **** like this, including going after individual work like ipod linux, it will be a sad day indeed.
In a realm beyond site, the sky shines gold, not blue, there the Triforce's might makes mortal dreams come true.
     
EMC
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 04:59 PM
 
Even if you believe that you have the right to modify the operating system on your iPod, it has nothing to do with the harmony software.

All it does is convert a music file from one format to another. The iPod plays the file like any of the other formats it supports.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 05:55 PM
 
As far as I can tell, EMC is right, and I fail to see what gives Apple the right to complain apart from the fact that they don't want the competition. Unless Real copied Apple's code, Real is within its rights, just as Adobe is within its rights to make software for the Mac, with or without Apple's consent.
     
anoetic
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 06:41 PM
 
I think what point people are missing is the not the fact that real has reverse engineered aac but that they are touting it as ipod compatible. Using the direct tv example. If I have direct tv with the encoder card and I cancel direct tv because company A with a larger set of channels offers me a better deal and says "come to us, you don't have to change equipment. We will send you our card and you just put it in your old receiver" So now I have my new channels with my old equipment. Seems fine, but if the firmware in my receiver should change I don't get my channels anymore.

So it's possible for Real to have a legal right to their new format. But it's in Apple's interest to update the ipods firmware so that the new format won't work. Then Real will update again so it works under the newer format. Real's example of IBM is what Apple is looking at. I don't see IBMs name on the list of top PC makers. They got tossed out of the market because they didn't control their product enough. Compaq used IBM reputation and userbase to launch their own product. What's next an iPod like MP3 player ripoff that can play AAC's. Then Apple will be competing in the music and mp3 player market. Part of the huge appeal of the iPod is how simply and unified all its different parts are. That is what Apple needs to protect. It's similiar to the model they have with computers. They want to control the users experience. And before someone say "And that's why they only have x market share now. Try to name how many of the original pc makers are thriving these days in the pc market -- Tandy, IBM, Xerox, Digital

Simply, Apple can't let Real take advantage of Apple's largest commodity right now -- the base of ipod users.
     
TailsToo
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Westside Island
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 08:11 PM
 
Originally posted by SplijinX:
While I don't think Apple is losing any money selling iPods, it's only a one time deal and perhaps not as lucrative as selling music over iTMS (note how they are allowing HP branded iPods to expand into the Windows market to sell more music). If car dealers strictly sold cars and did not provide maintenance/services, they would not be as profitable, thus it's probably in Apple's best interest to keep as much as the pie as possible.
Apple makes money selling iPods, not music, This is why I don't understand why they won't licence fairplay. Not only do they get money for the iPod, but each song sold from OTHER stores as well!
     
Zoom
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: RTP, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 09:21 PM
 
If Apple licensed Fairplay, then non-Apple devices could be used with iTMS. Since Apple makes money off the devices and not the music, why on Earth would they license Fairplay? If your goal is to make money, then you have zero reason to do this - unless you felt you could actually make more more on the licensing than you'd lose by giving up the "monopoly". Given the immense popularity of the proprietary combination, I doubt you could make that work.

Personally, I think the iPod should stand on its own and should be completely independent of the music. As much as I like Apple, I'd rather let the free market drive the price of the iPod and also drive the price of the music at the various stores. Coupling them with proprietary, restricted technology like Fairplay completely ruins the normal market dynamics that usually benefit the consumer - just like Microsoft's OS and applications. The DOJ should have split them up.

In the end, though, I think Apple's strategy will still win out. They're selling the content AND the player. Real and the others can't possibly compete just be selling music, or at least that's what Apple's betting on. The RIAA gets $.69 on every $.99 iTMS song, and according to Apple, they're breaking even when you figure in the costs of running the music store. How can Real compete if they don't have the player sales to cover their store costs? Advertising? Maybe, but I doubt it. At this point, Apple probably could license Fairplay and still win.

This is all crazy, though. The RIAA is evil and no matter what happens (and how much they claim otherwise), they're the ones who'll be laughing all the way to the bank... again.
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 10:06 PM
 
>Not only do they get money for the iPod, but each song sold from OTHER stores as well!

Please do the math on the 100million songs sold.

Now do the math on the 3 million ipods sold.
     
veryniceguy2002
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2004, 11:30 PM
 
Originally posted by TailsToo:
Apple makes money selling iPods, not music, This is why I don't understand why they won't licence fairplay. Not only do they get money for the iPod, but each song sold from OTHER stores as well!
True! Apple makes money from the iPod, not music.

However, it is for Apple's strategic reason not to license FairPlay out. Apple would like to use the combined iPod/iTMS package to negotiate music companies for the music licensing (something like "If you don't deal with us then you are missing out all the iPod users altogether!").

If Apple licence FairPlay to Real, then it would open up an additional channel for music company to distribute music to iPod users. This would inturn reduce Apple's ability to bargain a better deals with the music company. (e.g. Apple would have a harder time to deal with the indie labels licensing in Europe with Real had licensed FairPlay). It would be even harder for Apple to get exclusive tracks from artists, and that could mean indirect revenue loss.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Real be able to license FairPlay...
     
fiesta cat
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2004, 11:47 AM
 
Originally posted by Chinasaur:
Well, that's a point of view. But don't you think Apple would sell more iPods if more services worked with it and still be able to maintain control the DRM issues and the firmware?

Or maybe they don't wany any other music services eating iTunes portion of market share pie??
Maybe, just maybe, Apple doesn't want to be responsible if something they do or change with the iPods, either through firmware or newer models, breaks REAL's software or music files that people buy.

If Apple puts out an update, and all of the sudden REAL's software or music purchased through them stops working, who do you think will get yelled at?. It's not Apples responsibility to make sure everything plays nice with third parties.

Look, I hate REAL, I always have because they have produced some of the most bloated and intrusive software around and I even avoid viewing content that uses their formats/streams. I also hate companies invoking the DMCA, however I think Apple is in the right. Not because I hate REAL, but it's a matter of support/cost. If Apple has to make sure everything works for everybody, the price we pay for Apple hardware/software would have to go up.
     
kcmac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Kansas City, Mo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2004, 12:35 PM
 
I saw a post on another site that suggested that Apple and Real come to an agreement so that Apple can have a Real plug in for Quicktime and Real licenses fairplay.

Then we wouldn't have to use Real at all. What do you think of that? QT is a big factor in some of this angst with Real.

Flame away. hehehehe.
     
azdude
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2004, 01:29 PM
 
Originally posted by kcmac:
I saw a post on another site that suggested that Apple and Real come to an agreement so that Apple can have a Real plug in for Quicktime and Real licenses fairplay.

Then we wouldn't have to use Real at all. What do you think of that? QT is a big factor in some of this angst with Real.

Flame away. hehehehe.
Now why would Real agree to that?!

Apple gets more functionality for QT.
Apple gets money for FairPlay

Real supplies their online streaming competitor with further dominance.
Real pays for something they've already found out how to do for free (?)

Unless there really is grounds for a lawsuit, and Real is getting slapped around to avoid having to go to court w/ Apple, this sounds bogus to me.
17" 2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pro / 320GB / 2GB
     
fiesta cat
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2004, 01:45 PM
 
From real

2. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS.
a) You may not: (i) permit other individuals to use the Software except under the terms listed above; (ii) modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble (except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by law) or create derivative works based upon the Software or Documentation; (iii) copy the Software or Documentation (except for back-up or archival purposes); (iv) rent, lease, transfer, or otherwise transfer rights to the Software or Documentation; (v) remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Software or Documentation; or (vi) use the MP3 encoder in real time broadcasting (terrestrial, satellite, cable or other media) or broadcasting via the internet or other networks, such as, but not limited to, intranets. You also may not use the RealJukebox MP3 encoder in pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications. Any such forbidden use shall immediately terminate your license to the Software. The recording, playback and download features of the Software are intended only for use with public domain or properly licensed content and content creation tools. You may require a patent, copyright, or other license from a third party to create, copy, download, record or save content files for playback by this Software or to serve or distribute such files to be played back by the Software.
b) You agree that you shall only use the Software and Documentation in a manner that complies with all applicable laws in the jurisdictions in which you use the Software and Documentation, including, but not limited to, applicable restrictions concerning copyright and other intellectual property rights.
c) You may only use the Software for your private, non-commercial use. You may not use the Software in any way to provide, or as part of, any commercial service or application. Copies of content files, including, but not limited to songs and other audio recordings, which are downloaded or copied using the Software, and which are protected by the copyright laws or related laws of any jurisdiction, are for your own personal use only and may not be distributed to third parties or performed outside your normal circle of family and social acquaintances.
d) You may not use the Software in an attempt to, or in conjunction with, any device, program or service designed to circumvent technological measures employed to control access to, or the rights in, a content file or other work protected by the copyright laws of any jurisdiction.
e) The Software embodies a serial copying management system required by the laws of the United States. You may not circumvent or attempt to circumvent this system by any means.
     
koolkid1976
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Meriden, CT
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2004, 02:58 PM
 
Originally posted by azdude:
Now why would Real agree to that?!

Real pays for something they've already found out how to do for free (?)
All it would take is a firmware update to render it useless.
     
Feathers
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: South Pole
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2004, 03:06 PM
 
FiestaCat has made the the point most profoundly. It's clear that Real don't want anybody doing to them what they are now trying to do to Apple. Now that's real hypocrisy!
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2004, 07:16 PM
 
Originally posted by Feathers:
FiestaCat has made the the point most profoundly. It's clear that Real don't want anybody doing to them what they are now trying to do to Apple. Now that's real hypocrisy!
I don't think he made any point, much less a profound one. The fact that Real uses licensing agreements - as does Apple and every other company - proves nothing. Based on the facts I've seen, unless Real stole something from Apple, Real is within its rights and Apple is playing the spoiled child.
     
gunnar
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2004, 08:02 PM
 
Whether the DMCA legal stuff pans out or not it really makes no difference. They're forcing Apple to open up the iPod. Now that it can be done through brute force and since Real has said they WILL sell the technology, the whole market can wallop Apple at once. The big wallop of course will come from Microsoft. How can Apple stem the tide when MS starts throwing millions of dollars into free songs that play on the iPod? Of course, Real isn't going to beat Microsoft either so their just pre-emptively selling out to make a quick buck off Apple's back. And to all the people saying that Real has made a positive step towards open standards, it just means that the "open" standard will be Microsoft WMA. Apple's only real hope was to keep the system closed for long enough to make their DRM and AAC the standard but that's like not going to be happening now.
     
MrForgetable
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York City, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2004, 09:02 PM
 
There are both bad and good things that can stem out of either decision, now Apple needs to figure out which one would be best for them.
iamwhor3hay
     
hldan
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2004, 11:43 PM
 
This is a bit OT but sort of inline. Due to the nature of this deal of Apple's rebuttle about Real's hack and Real attacking back at Apple's rebuttle, could this mean that Real could pull away support for the Macintosh for RealOne Player? Does anyone think that Real may do this or is it legal to just stop support out of malicious intent?
iMac 24" 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Extreme
500GB HDD
4GB Ram
Proud new Owner!
     
srrojo
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Far away
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2004, 10:34 AM
 
Read on.

This is about 'brain damaged marketing' on all sides of the fence. Just so we're clear: BD = Brain Damaged. And BDM = Brain Damaged Marketing. Okay, with that clear, let's go!

Apple's BDM sells a story to the BD attorneys and principals of the RIAA, that Fairplay will cut down on music piracy. We all know that this is BS, but the BD RIAA racketeers think that's good enough for them. So, Apple gets to launch this thing called the iTMS. It doesn't even turn a profit! Nevermind. iPods flly off the shelves.

Real, a company on the edge of solvency, after being trounced by MS with Windows Media and 'pitiful little Apple' with Quicktime, gets edged out of the webspace. So, they need some other reason to exist. So they go to rival Apple and and their delusional BDM's threaten: 'if you don't pair with us, we'll go to MS.' Apple, in a move that doesn't even need braincells to predict, laughs them off. Real lays off xxxx number of people and appears in f*ckedcompany.com.

So, now, 'getting even more desperate' Real decides to make their own AAC DRM. Whatever. BUT in raising all this hissy about the iPod, they are attempting to make good on previous blackmail attempt and (more importantly) dillute Apple's brand. BAD MOVE.

So, now this joke of a company that tried to foist adware laden Realplayer duh Gold, and RealONE on us is now 'for the user' and 'for choice'? Fine. I chose 320k/s mp3, a standard that was genius when it came out and holds up to whatever three letter acronym whoever's BDM comes up with next. I don't NEED AAC, duh 'Lossless', or ANY DRM. I'm sure Real will try and use my personal information for something else, because that's what they're REALLY all about.

Getting back to the so-called 'compelling content' (fav term of all BDMs). None of the content that I own from the MPAA or RIAA is 'business critical', nor is it likely to be re-used, remixed or broadcast. So, I say to Real, Qualcomm, and other failed format/compression pimps, WTF?

Apple should come down on ANYTHING that threatens the current relationship with the recording industry. The RIAA needs to live with the delusion that the iPod won't be used for 'music piracy' (note the quotes) while the rest of the world 'constantly evolves' their used CD collections to high bitrate mp3.

Don't believe me? If Apple disabled mp3 in the next firmware, would you buy an iPod?

-When- Apple disables Real's joke of a hack file standard in order to improve its own specs, will you cry?
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2004, 12:13 PM
 
Originally posted by srrojo:
-When- Apple disables Real's joke of a hack file standard in order to improve its own specs, will you cry?
I couldn't give a flying f*ck about Real. I just think that too many people confuse legality with strategy. Real's strategy might be stupid but as far as I can tell it's perfectly legal.
     
fiesta cat
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: US
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2004, 03:12 PM
 
Originally posted by hldan:
This is a bit OT but sort of inline. Due to the nature of this deal of Apple's rebuttle about Real's hack and Real attacking back at Apple's rebuttle, could this mean that Real could pull away support for the Macintosh for RealOne Player? Does anyone think that Real may do this or is it legal to just stop support out of malicious intent?
If Real stops supporting Mac, then Real loses business (i.e. money), because Mac users will bug whatever sites are streaming Real only, and said sites would have to keep Real and risk losing whatever Mac users they have, or switch to MS or Apple solutions.

I understand why Real did this - they are desperately trying to stay alive and relevant. I just think they went about it the wrong way, or expected Apple to do nothing.

Not directed towards you, but it's very amusing how Real has been such a bastard to so many people/companies in the past, and yet I find people all of the sudden forgetting all of that.

I think Apple is still doing the right thing, because they can't afford to have other companies introduce software/media into the iPod, because like I said earlier, if Apple does something and said software/media/music breaks, then people are going to bitch at Apple.
     
King Bob On The Cob
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2004, 05:34 PM
 
Here's the thing... Real's licensing things that they don't own. They do not have a right to sell Apple's DRM. If I were Apple, I'd be pissed too.
     
Fellow2000
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 02:43 AM
 
Originally posted by EMC:
This forum is full of a bunch of people that have no idea what Real networks is actually doing. They aren't "hacking" an iPod.

Everyone agrees here that an iPod can play WAV files, MP3 files, and unencrypted AAC files from any original source. If I burn a CD I own as an mp3 using real's media player it will play on my iPod.

Now, the iPod also supports a another format. It is an encrypted version of AAC using fairplay technology. What exactly is fairplay technology? Nothing very technological. Simply an encryption method that also keeps count of how many times the song is copied. Fairplay is not the only DRM algorithm, but it is the only one that an iPod supports.

To appease their music suppliers, Real networks also has a DRM, but they cannot license the fairplay DRM from Apple. Now, Real networks was forced to reverse-engineer the DRM. Before you get all huffy-puffy, remember that Apple pulled the same sh*t with Adobe PDF technology. Rather than license the technology from Adobe, they reverse-engineered it, build Quartz, which uses the reverse-engineered code and preview which opens PDF files. You don't see Adobe threatening action because this is not illegal. If I use open office, it can save files in Microsoft Word format. Also not illegal.

All that real networks does it converts an encrypted file in their format to a new encrypted file format that is compatable with the fairplay DRM engine. They copied no code, but simply messed with the inputs and outputs of an AAC file.

So what? Apple now has a a competitor to the iTunes music store that can run on an iPod. This is a good thing. Rather than 99cents a song, competition might bring this down to 89cents. Apple has a huge monopoly (read 60% market share) on hard-drive based music players. It is ridiculous that they be allowed to sue Real networks for creeping in on the legal digital music market.


The only thing you should take notice of is that Real networks software tends to suck @ss. They install spyware type programs on your computer and have always proven inferior to other online content providers. Chances are few people will want to use their service anyway. But give them a break, Apple is in the wrong here.
EMC,

I completely agree with you but I think you are forgetting one thing. Apple makes the iPod. Not only do they make the iPod hardware, but they also make the iPod software itself. In general, as you see it, this can be good because it will drive prices lower, but why would Apple let that happen when they can get away with charging more for it? All they have to do is modify the DRM to block out REAL, modify iPod's software to detect the REAL one and block it and then release it as a security iPod software update that everyone will download and install.

If Apple had the DRM technology and some other company made the hardware, then of course they are screwed and there is nothing they can do. But that is not the case, they own it and can do whatever they want. I honestly don't understand why Adobe has not files suit with Apple and why Microsoft has not filed suit with OpenOffice, it would seem to make sense from a business standpoint, to keep control over the technology.

It is an interesting issue, and props go to REAL for trying, but it is a desperate cry for help. Whether it was wrong of them to do in the first place or not, did they really think that Apple was just going to sit back an allow it? If you were a company, which would you rather buy? The liscence of Apple's technology, from the very company that makes the music player that has the majority market share, or buy REAL's liscence technology which they cannot gaurantee in any way will work on the iPod tomorrow. I know Apple is not liscencing the technology, but still, buying Harmony from REAL to have you music work on the iPod is like throwing your money in the trash.

I can just see the signs on their music stores.. "Will work on iPod.... for at least another couple of days.... in which case we will try to figure out how to get it to work again, but we have no idea how long that will take and we ask that you have patience."

PS - sorry for all the spelling mistakes, I am on a windows box right now and too tired to proofread and fix in MS Word. Damn Windows.
     
Fellow2000
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 03:00 AM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
As far as I can tell, EMC is right, and I fail to see what gives Apple the right to complain apart from the fact that they don't want the competition. Unless Real copied Apple's code, Real is within its rights, just as Adobe is within its rights to make software for the Mac, with or without Apple's consent.
Yep, REAL is within their rights I believe, but here is how it goes...

REAL: Steve, will you please open the iPod to support other DRM software like ours, so we can sell iPod compatible music?

APPLE: No. That really doesn't make sense for us. We would rather spend money on making our own better than spend money on supporting someone else's. But thanks for asking...

REAL: Pretty please? I'll sleep with you.

APPLE: Tempting, but no.

REAL: Fine then, we'll just make our songs work on the iPod anyway, without your help.

APPLE: Okay, have fun. As soon as you do it, we will release a software update for the iPod that will block it.

REAL: And we'll figure out a way to go around you and make it work again.

APPLE: Its your money you are wasting. No matter how many times you figure it out, we will block it again, providing an inconsistant experience for your users, who will come crying back to ITMS to get stuff that will just work.

REAL: ****.

And then to follow Mac Zealot's story...

REAL: Fine then, we will just develop our own OS for the iPod that will support our system. Ha. And we may just block your DRM out with it, just to spite you.

Apple: Again, have fun wasting your money. If you do, we will just change the hardware. Your not getting it Mr. REAL. We own it all, we can change it all. And you will be left catching up while your customers are waiting around with a 400 dollar music device and hundreds of dollars in purchased music that simply does not work.

This is Apple's great strategy. Get it? Got it? Good.

In the real non-geek world, consumers do not care about bit rates and file types, they just want something that works. If a company can provide a flawless working experience with great support, they have a buy. Since Apple owns both the hardware and the software, they can do this far better than any computer company out there.

With REAL having no stock in hardware that supports their own system, they are left always one step behind catching up. Combine this with their poor business strategy and tactics, REAL can not possible be around much longer the way I see it without some HUGE changes.
     
Fellow2000
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 03:05 AM
 
Originally posted by azdude:
Now why would Real agree to that?!

Apple gets more functionality for QT.
Apple gets money for FairPlay

Real supplies their online streaming competitor with further dominance.
Real pays for something they've already found out how to do for free (?)

Unless there really is grounds for a lawsuit, and Real is getting slapped around to avoid having to go to court w/ Apple, this sounds bogus to me.
But they haven't figured out how to do it. And definetly not for free they haven't. They have have figured out how to do it FOR NOW, but not for the week after and the week after that. They will have to re engineer the software every time Apple changes something. And REAL will recieve the blame for that from the companies that buy Harmony. Giving companies a promise they can't follow through with of providing a DRM technology that will work on the iPod is not very smart.

Make no mistake, even though REAL has figured it out for now, they would still kill to have Apple's liscence or have the iPod opened up to work with theirs.
     
Fellow2000
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 03:09 AM
 
Originally posted by gunnar:
Whether the DMCA legal stuff pans out or not it really makes no difference. They're forcing Apple to open up the iPod. Now that it can be done through brute force and since Real has said they WILL sell the technology, the whole market can wallop Apple at once. The big wallop of course will come from Microsoft. How can Apple stem the tide when MS starts throwing millions of dollars into free songs that play on the iPod? Of course, Real isn't going to beat Microsoft either so their just pre-emptively selling out to make a quick buck off Apple's back. And to all the people saying that Real has made a positive step towards open standards, it just means that the "open" standard will be Microsoft WMA. Apple's only real hope was to keep the system closed for long enough to make their DRM and AAC the standard but that's like not going to be happening now.
REAL has forced Apple to do nothing but put more dollars into closing it again. You forget that the iPod is under constant development. Its like a computer that needs software updates all the time. All Apple has to do is provide a new cool feature that people want or declare it a security update and most iPod owners will have upgraded software that will block out wma's and REAL's harmony.

You people are just not getting it. The ball is still in Apple's court. They still have the control.
     
Fellow2000
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 03:17 AM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
I couldn't give a flying f*ck about Real. I just think that too many people confuse legality with strategy. Real's strategy might be stupid but as far as I can tell it's perfectly legal.
Perfectly legal and perfectly stupid. The REAL thing for Apple is not a threat, it is an annoyance. They are threatening legal action because they are hoping they can just get rid of REAL instead of having to deal with them from now on. They are now going to have to spend lots of money to block REAL's hack, and everytime REAL releases a new version they will have to do it again, and keep constant development of their own DRM up so this doesn't happen with another company.

There is no chance that Apple will allow REAL's Harmony to work on the iPod consistantly, but it will cost them money to insure it doesn't happen; money they have, but money none-the-less.

Sorrojo - Awesome post!
     
Fellow2000
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 03:19 AM
 
Originally posted by King Bob On The Cob:
Here's the thing... Real's licensing things that they don't own. They do not have a right to sell Apple's DRM. If I were Apple, I'd be pissed too.
No, they do own it. Its their own DRM, not Apple's. It just happens to be very similar to Apple's (read: the exact same) and work on the iPod. However, if Apple changes theirs, REAL's will remain the same, unless they are able to hack it again and change it.

What they are doing is liscensing a promise they can't keep of iPod compatibility.... nice try REAL.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 11:55 AM
 
Originally posted by Fellow2000:
Perfectly legal and perfectly stupid. The REAL thing for Apple is not a threat, it is an annoyance. They are threatening legal action because they are hoping they can just get rid of REAL instead of having to deal with them from now on. They are now going to have to spend lots of money to block REAL's hack, and everytime REAL releases a new version they will have to do it again, and keep constant development of their own DRM up so this doesn't happen with another company.

There is no chance that Apple will allow REAL's Harmony to work on the iPod consistantly, but it will cost them money to insure it doesn't happen; money they have, but money none-the-less.
The problem is that if Apple keeps blocking Real's software, it runs the risk of (a) a restraint-of-trade lawsuit, and (b) a lot of negative publicity. Real's strategy might not lead to commercial success but it could become much more than an annoyance, and I think the tone of Apple's response suggests that it's more than an annoyance.
     
Fellow2000
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 12:42 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
The problem is that if Apple keeps blocking Real's software, it runs the risk of (a) a restraint-of-trade lawsuit, and (b) a lot of negative publicity. Real's strategy might not lead to commercial success but it could become much more than an annoyance, and I think the tone of Apple's response suggests that it's more than an annoyance.
(a) That would hold up in court all of 2 days. The iPod is incredibly open from consumer standpoint. REAL is free to sell mp3 or unencrypted AAC files that will work on the iPod. The labels would never agree to that, but that's REAL's problem, not Apple's. I can't run windows XP on my power mac, that doesn't mean Apple can get suied for it.

(b) Yes, it is an annoyance. A quite large one. Apple will now have to dirrect hundreds and thousands of dollars and resources to keeping the DRM up to date and blocking out REAL. So yeah, of course they are annoyed, anyone would be. I think REAL knows this too and its almost their form of punishment for not opening up the iPod when the asked (read: when the begged).

REAL is starting to receive the ill effects of being a corporation that completely ignores the consumers. They are nothing but a profit turing robot, and that has got them far down in the **** hole. Like I said before, if something doesn't change soon, the company is on its way out the door.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 01:10 PM
 
Originally posted by Fellow2000:
I can't run windows XP on my power mac, that doesn't mean Apple can get suied for it.
That's not analogous. Microsoft hasn't tried to make XP run on a Mac. If it did, and Apple deliberately blocked it, Apple would probably be vulnerable to a restraint-of-trade claim.

I can't say how far this will go - I don't have all the facts. What I'm trying to address is the naive idea that Apple is always right and is entitled to some sort of special protection just because we admire its products and don't like Real's. It isn't.
     
blilford
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 01:40 PM
 
I agree with EMC on this.......real has done nothing wrong. Revers engineering has beena round for ages and only benifits us(the consumer) AMD, Adobe, etc...the list goes on.

The second point of using the Ipod compatable marketing.......pc manufaturers did this for years with IBM....remember you had to buy software that was IBM compatable.......still dont see anything wrong with what real is doing.






Originally posted by EMC:
This forum is full of a bunch of people that have no idea what Real networks is actually doing. They aren't "hacking" an iPod.

Everyone agrees here that an iPod can play WAV files, MP3 files, and unencrypted AAC files from any original source. If I burn a CD I own as an mp3 using real's media player it will play on my iPod.

Now, the iPod also supports a another format. It is an encrypted version of AAC using fairplay technology. What exactly is fairplay technology? Nothing very technological. Simply an encryption method that also keeps count of how many times the song is copied. Fairplay is not the only DRM algorithm, but it is the only one that an iPod supports.

To appease their music suppliers, Real networks also has a DRM, but they cannot license the fairplay DRM from Apple. Now, Real networks was forced to reverse-engineer the DRM. Before you get all huffy-puffy, remember that Apple pulled the same sh*t with Adobe PDF technology. Rather than license the technology from Adobe, they reverse-engineered it, build Quartz, which uses the reverse-engineered code and preview which opens PDF files. You don't see Adobe threatening action because this is not illegal. If I use open office, it can save files in Microsoft Word format. Also not illegal.

All that real networks does it converts an encrypted file in their format to a new encrypted file format that is compatable with the fairplay DRM engine. They copied no code, but simply messed with the inputs and outputs of an AAC file.

So what? Apple now has a a competitor to the iTunes music store that can run on an iPod. This is a good thing. Rather than 99cents a song, competition might bring this down to 89cents. Apple has a huge monopoly (read 60% market share) on hard-drive based music players. It is ridiculous that they be allowed to sue Real networks for creeping in on the legal digital music market.


The only thing you should take notice of is that Real networks software tends to suck @ss. They install spyware type programs on your computer and have always proven inferior to other online content providers. Chances are few people will want to use their service anyway. But give them a break, Apple is in the wrong here.
     
blilford
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 01:44 PM
 
So far there has been no demand for MS windows to run on an apple......thats the only reason why it hasnt been done.....who cares about the less that 10% market share apple has...i wouldn't if I was Bill Gates. But if MS chose to they could and apple couldnt do a thing


Originally posted by Fellow2000:
(a) That would hold up in court all of 2 days. The iPod is incredibly open from consumer standpoint. REAL is free to sell mp3 or unencrypted AAC files that will work on the iPod. The labels would never agree to that, but that's REAL's problem, not Apple's. I can't run windows XP on my power mac, that doesn't mean Apple can get suied for it.

(b) Yes, it is an annoyance. A quite large one. Apple will now have to dirrect hundreds and thousands of dollars and resources to keeping the DRM up to date and blocking out REAL. So yeah, of course they are annoyed, anyone would be. I think REAL knows this too and its almost their form of punishment for not opening up the iPod when the asked (read: when the begged).

REAL is starting to receive the ill effects of being a corporation that completely ignores the consumers. They are nothing but a profit turing robot, and that has got them far down in the **** hole. Like I said before, if something doesn't change soon, the company is on its way out the door.
     
blilford
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 01:49 PM
 
Lastly I think that it is appple who may need to be concerned....if they push this to far and enough media gets it they may find them selves being charged by real for the bad publicity they are creating for real.


Originally posted by blilford:
I agree with EMC on this.......real has done nothing wrong. Revers engineering has beena round for ages and only benifits us(the consumer) AMD, Adobe, etc...the list goes on.

The second point of using the Ipod compatable marketing.......pc manufaturers did this for years with IBM....remember you had to buy software that was IBM compatable.......still dont see anything wrong with what real is doing.
     
blilford
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 02:03 PM
 
when was the last time you upgraded your firmware on your PC or cell phone, etc.......even if they brought out a patch to block real.....do you think that everyone will install it....especially if they now what it does (block real). As a consumer I also have the choice to install the patch or not......so the ball isnt completly in apples court. I don't know about you but I like having the choice.




Originally posted by Fellow2000:
EMC,

I completely agree with you but I think you are forgetting one thing. Apple makes the iPod. Not only do they make the iPod hardware, but they also make the iPod software itself. In general, as you see it, this can be good because it will drive prices lower, but why would Apple let that happen when they can get away with charging more for it? All they have to do is modify the DRM to block out REAL, modify iPod's software to detect the REAL one and block it and then release it as a security iPod software update that everyone will download and install.

If Apple had the DRM technology and some other company made the hardware, then of course they are screwed and there is nothing they can do. But that is not the case, they own it and can do whatever they want. I honestly don't understand why Adobe has not files suit with Apple and why Microsoft has not filed suit with OpenOffice, it would seem to make sense from a business standpoint, to keep control over the technology.

It is an interesting issue, and props go to REAL for trying, but it is a desperate cry for help. Whether it was wrong of them to do in the first place or not, did they really think that Apple was just going to sit back an allow it? If you were a company, which would you rather buy? The liscence of Apple's technology, from the very company that makes the music player that has the majority market share, or buy REAL's liscence technology which they cannot gaurantee in any way will work on the iPod tomorrow. I know Apple is not liscencing the technology, but still, buying Harmony from REAL to have you music work on the iPod is like throwing your money in the trash.

I can just see the signs on their music stores.. "Will work on iPod.... for at least another couple of days.... in which case we will try to figure out how to get it to work again, but we have no idea how long that will take and we ask that you have patience."

PS - sorry for all the spelling mistakes, I am on a windows box right now and too tired to proofread and fix in MS Word. Damn Windows.
     
Stogieman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 02:51 PM
 
Originally posted by blilford:
when was the last time you upgraded your firmware on your PC or cell phone, etc.......
even if they brought out a patch to block real.....do you think that everyone will install it....especially if they now what it does (block real). As a consumer I also have the choice to install the patch or not......so the ball isnt completly in apples court. I don't know about you but I like having the choice.



What if Apple gave some incentive to upgrade the iPod's firmware? What if the software update contains features that the current 4G ipods have? (longer battery life, shuffle menu, maybe some more games) I know I wouldn't hold off on an upgrade just so I can play Real's music.
( Last edited by Stogieman; Aug 1, 2004 at 02:57 PM. )

Slick shoes?! Are you crazy?!
     
Fellow2000
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2004, 05:06 PM
 
Originally posted by blilford:
when was the last time you upgraded your firmware on your PC or cell phone, etc.......even if they brought out a patch to block real.....do you think that everyone will install it....especially if they now what it does (block real). As a consumer I also have the choice to install the patch or not......so the ball isnt completly in apples court. I don't know about you but I like having the choice.
The last time someone told me I would be getting a cool feature or fixing a security hole if I did. And yes, I think almost everyone would install it.

Plug iPod in, message box appears... "Please update iPod now by clicking this button to patch security hole that could allow your music to get accidentally deleted." Press update button. Done.

Cell phone is a little different story. When was the last time someone hooked their cell phone up to their computer?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:57 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,