Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Apple is SERIOUSLY pissed at RealNetworks


Recommended Posts

We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA and other laws.

 

We strongly caution Real and their customers that when we update our iPod software from time to time it is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future iPods.

 

OUCH!

 

- Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

NYT story

 

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- Apple Computer Inc. on Thursday responded to RealNetworks' creation of iPod-compatible software by calling it the technological equivalent of breaking and entering.

 

"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the (legal) implications of their actions," Apple said.

 

Seattle-based RealNetworks Inc. announced over the weekend that it had developed software that allows songs purchased from its online music store to transfer to Apple's iPod.

 

The new system gets around internal copy-protection armor of the iPod that limits the popular portable music player to songs downloaded directly from Apple's iTunes Music Store or songs converted into the generic MP3 music format.

 

I can't say I'm surprised by Apple's reaction.

 

- Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it wasn't so much that Real just developed its "Harmony" product (apparently by reverse engineering iPod/iTunes products), but that they also threatened to make Harmony freely available to anyone that wants to crack into the iPod.

 

It'll be interesting to watch this fight, as the DMCA gives Apple some teeth that it wouldn't otherwise have if Real did a clean reverse engineering job. Besides, AppleInsider reports that Apple has already assembled a team of programmers whose job will be to come up with a quick iPod update that will trash Real's crack-job.

 

Given that the iPod is Apple's hottest product (and the basic reason for the existence of the iTunes Music Store), it's a pretty understandable reaction.

"I don't know anything about music. In my line, you don't have to."

-Elvis Presley (1935-1977)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be missing something. So Real has come up with a way to get their songs into an iPod. I don't think this is something that iPod owners have been begging for. Rather, it lets Real's customers put the tunes they download into a piece of hardware. Looks to me like it's a way for Apple to sell more hardware. Like I said...I think I'm missing something. If I were Apple, I'd say "Sure, we'll make iPod accept your tunes, but you need to make us the exclusive source for hardware players for your content."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Anderton:

I must be missing something. So Real has come up with a way to get their songs into an iPod. I don't think this is something that iPod owners have been begging for. Rather, it lets Real's customers put the tunes they download into a piece of hardware. Looks to me like it's a way for Apple to sell more hardware. Like I said...I think I'm missing something. If I were Apple, I'd say "Sure, we'll make iPod accept your tunes, but you need to make us the exclusive source for hardware players for your content."

Sounds like they're protecting their brand. With Real's history of dodgy software, I don't blame them.
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." - Banky Edwards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that this is all strategic bluster on Real's part.

 

Generally speaking, Harmony supports any device that uses the Apple FairPlay DRM, The Microsoft Windows Media Audio DRM, or the RealNetworks Helix DRM, giving RealPlayer Music Store support for more secure devices than any other music store on the Internet.

 

The Digital Rights Management business could generate ongoing licensing revenues for Real that would make them more attractive as an acquisition target. Real is kind of played out. In the same way that Philips generated revenue over time with the compact cassette, And Sony / Philips did with the CD, Real would like their logo on every portable listening device and their hand in the pocket of every record company. They have nothing to lose. Apple mods their software to thwart this attempt. Real says that is so wrong, but we give up and dumps their codebase into Helix just to irritate Apple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Darkon the Incandescent:

Real would have been better off approaching Apple with this idea than going ahead and marketing it.

RealNetworks was rebuffed months ago when it asked Apple to open up the iPod to support its online music services.

 

Oops.

 

- Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real's response to Apples statement:

 

There is ample and clear precedent for this activity, for instance the first IBM compatible PCs from Compaq. Harmony creates a way to lock content from Real's music store in a way that is compatible with the iPod, Windows Media DRM devices, and Helix DRM devices. Harmony technology does not remove or disable any digital rights management system. Apple has suggested that new laws such as the DMCA are relevant to this dispute. In fact, the DMCA is not designed to prevent the creation of new methods of locking content and explicitly allows the creation of interoperable software.

 

More or less true...perhaps a bit of a stretch, though, as the DMCA is directed to methods of unlocking a proprietary encryption format.

 

Sounds like they're protecting their brand. With Real's history of dodgy software, I don't blame them.
I think it's both that, a desire to keep the iTunes Music Store the dominant force in on-line music (hoping that, perhaps one day, it gets to be profitable and not just a source of pushing hardware), and (reading between the lines here) a general dislike of the people running Real. Otherwise, Craig's right in that opening up the iPod to other sources of music downloads just means more people might want to buy iPods.

"I don't know anything about music. In my line, you don't have to."

-Elvis Presley (1935-1977)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im sorry, but I just half to laugh at this. So what if you can use other software to interface with an iPod? People still have to buy an iPod from Apple to use it! Apple has made it clear that they are in the business of selling hardware; otherwise, they would have made their OS available to the x86 platform long ago (which would kick ass). Just for the record, Im not a big fan of Reals software and I find iTunes to be a great media player. BUT, the more applications that can support the iPod just makes it that much stronger of a product. Maybe more media types could be supported and other features could be found if other software developers could interface with it. Think how cool it would be if you could mix down your ProTools, Sonar, Logic, etc., sessions directly to an iPod! But noooooo, Apple has to be a whiny beotch about it :D .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple's history is that of a xenophobic, fascist company. Pretty funny given their biggest contribution to pop culture was the Superbowl Ad parodying the Big Brother concept in the movie, Metropolis. :D

 

They don't want to play with others, regardless of how small that makes their market share.

 

Because of this, they are as fiercely protective of what they DO have as a cornered animal protecting its' young.

 

Don't believe the bull. Apple bought a recording software company and immediately announced they would drop sales and support for the 1/3 of the program's customers who were PC based. I worked with a project studio owner who was using this software since the early 1990's. 10 years of product enjoyment and loyalty meant nothing to Apple. Despite their statements to the contrary, this was NOT a financial decision. It was another way to separate themselves from anything involving the support of PC's. :rolleyes:

 

I don't know if the digital music legislation is relevant, but I think Real's use may be closer to the hardware allowing portable CD players to interface with auto cassette decks than to a licensing crack. I'm no fan of Real, but I hope Apple just has to suck it up and compete for their own customers. Everyone rags on MS for trying to monopolize everything. It's Apple, in this case, that wants to continue to monopolize use of iPods. Now they should be protected from unauthorized manufacturers selling reverse engineered faux iPods, but I don't agree they should be able to dictate content in the form of "acceptable" file types.

 

This should be interesting. ;)

It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

 

Soundclick

fntstcsnd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys have got it a little backwards. What Real did was reverse engineer Apple's "Fairplay" (ha!) DRM technology. This means that you will be able to play the songs you bought from iTunes Music Store on other brands of portable media player - Creative's Nomads, Rio, etc. This is perfectly reasonable, as you've paid for the songs in the first place, and will make a great test of the DMCA.

 

Apple's shrill response is understandable if you remember that iTMS only exists to sell more iPods, and baaarely turns a profit even at the currently ridiculous prices. The iPod on the other hand, is a cash cow. It has 2 to 3 times the profit margin of anything else Apple makes (or any of the competitors). The iPod mini is supposedly even better.

 

So basically, Apple sees this (rightly) as a threat to their (in this case Microsoftian) business model, and is gonna come out will all guns blazing. I don't think Apple can really win in court though. Expect a settlement where Real's product ends up severely crippled, and Apple gets lots of royalties, but there is still some token intercompatibility. /cynicism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Apple and Microsoft have a lot in common when it comes to being Fascist companies. During the "Browser wars" with Netscape Navigator, they even had the balls to tell companies as large as Compaq and Dell that if they shipped their computers with another Browser in additional to Internet Explorer, they wouldn't sell them the Windows OS. Hence the Clinton Administration's Justice Department action against MS for anti trust violations. Back then there was talk that the Judge wanted to break MS up into smaller companies, but that all changed when the Bush Administration came in.

 

It's one thing to try to protect your company and quite another to drive the competition out of business by use of intimidation and breaking the law. If Microsoft's Browser was better than Netscape, they wouldn't have had to worry about it.

 

Mike T.

Yamaha Motif ES8, Alesis Ion, Prophet 5 Rev 3.2, 1979 Rhodes Mark 1 Suitcase 73 Piano, Arp Odyssey Md III, Roland R-70 Drum Machine, Digitech Vocalist Live Pro. Roland Boss Chorus Ensemble CE-1.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dylan PDX:

Im sorry, but I just half to laugh at this. So what if you can use other software to interface with an iPod? People still have to buy an iPod from Apple to use it! Apple has made it clear that they are in the business of selling hardware; otherwise, they would have made their OS available to the x86 platform long ago (which would kick ass). Just for the record, Im not a big fan of Reals software and I find iTunes to be a great media player. BUT, the more applications that can support the iPod just makes it that much stronger of a product. Maybe more media types could be supported and other features could be found if other software developers could interface with it. Think how cool it would be if you could mix down your ProTools, Sonar, Logic, etc., sessions directly to an iPod! But noooooo, Apple has to be a whiny beotch about it :D .

Basically, DRM is there to dictate what exactly we can do with music files we pay for. It has to do with copyrights. I won't get into the argument about what rights we should or should not have once we buy a music file. The reason Apple is upset is because Realplayer's move would take the control of the encoded music away from the seller, them. You can play any iTunes song on any player just by burning it to a cd, but iTunes will control how many times you can do that. If other software will play their encoded songs, they lose that option and it very probably affects the contracts that they have to sell the music. I for one don't mind the restrictions on purchased music be it Media Player or iTunes and I don't applaud Realplayer for the reverse engineer of the iTunes product. I agree with iTunes that it sounds like hacking to me. It's going to get very interesting before it's finished though. This could have some genuine affect on copyright laws and also on the rights of those who pay (purchase) to use copyrighted material.

bbach

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by MikeT156:

Both Apple and Microsoft have a lot in common when it comes to being Fascist companies. During the "Browser wars" with Netscape Navigator, they even had the balls to tell companies as large as Compaq and Dell that if they shipped their computers with another Browser in additional to Internet Explorer, they wouldn't sell them the Windows OS. Hence the Clinton Administration's Justice Department action against MS for anti trust violations. Back then there was talk that the Judge wanted to break MS up into smaller companies, but that all changed when the Bush Administration came in.

 

It's one thing to try to protect your company and quite another to drive the competition out of business by use of intimidation and breaking the law. If Microsoft's Browser was better than Netscape, they wouldn't have had to worry about it.

 

Mike T.

BTW - It was not my point to suggest MS hasn't been a market bully, among other things. Only that there are those who see Apple as the "White Knights" come to slay the dragon that is MS. I only hope people realize Apple is just as much a bully about their products as MS... they're just not as successful at feeding it to the masses.

It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman

 

Soundclick

fntstcsnd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of this, they are as fiercely protective of what they DO have as a cornered animal protecting its' young.
Sounds kind of ironic coming from someone who's music is available in MS WMA format rather than an open and omnipresent mp3. I don't see MS rushing to open up WMA.

 

10 years of product enjoyment and loyalty meant nothing to Apple. Despite their statements to the contrary, this was NOT a financial decision. It was another way to separate themselves from anything involving the support of PC's. [Roll Eyes]
You must have been a politician in a past life. Save the boo hooing for Emagic programmers that busted their arses only to have this "illustrious" one third pirate their cracked versions. That was a costly %33 percent users but Apple extended an offer where they could trade in their PC versions for a Mac version no cost. So much for being fascist.

 

It's one thing to try to protect your company and quite another to drive the competition out of business by use of intimidation and breaking the law. If Microsoft's Browser was better than Netscape, they wouldn't have had to worry about it.

 

Question. Did you happen to fail Logic 101? Apple isn't trying to drive Real out of business. They are simply trying to protect the iPod/iTunes Music Store conection. What Real is doing may not be illegal but it's high unethical to invite yourself to the fruits of someone elses labor.

 

I only hope people realize Apple is just as much a bully about their products as MS... they're just not as successful at feeding it to the masses.
Hey Fantastic. I just downloaded your music and now I plan to incorporte parts of it into my own work for pay. I'm sure you'll give me full clearance since you are so obviously against "Bullying". Thanks man :D

 

Real may have legal basis for their reverse engineering but it is really distasteful and unethical. Please spare me the diatribe about "choice" if Real cared about choice they wouldn't have had a history of pushing their proprietary formats and then hiding their free player on their website. Or worse when I download their program and tell it specifically NOT to take mime types it does so anyways. The company sucks and isn't doing this for benevolent reason. The sooner the company dries up and blows away the better we'll all be. With wmv and quicktime available Real is the weakest link. Goodbye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<>

 

Business practices aside, when I render videos with the same bit stream in Windows Media, QuickTime, and Real, the Real versions look and sound better. If they do dry up and blow away, I hope one of the other two buys their compression technology first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Apple has a valid cause for litigation against Real under the Circumvention of copyright protection systems law. Fortunately they have come to an agreement on this and it won't be going to court, because the consumers would be the ones to suffer for it. Apple does provide a platform for loading any music you own and have stored on your pc or Mac into an iPod, so I don't believe it's a matter of monopoly. I think the truth of the matter is that Real was trying to seduce Apple's customers by illegally analyzing their source code in order to engineer their application to "trick" the iPod into "thinking" it was iTunes. Regardless of which music player is superior, that's just plain unethical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Darkon the Incandescent:

I think the point is that Apple didn't authorize or license this use of their source code. Apple is a very proprietary company in my opinion and Real would have been better off approaching Apple with this idea than going ahead and marketing it.

Real did approach Apple; Apple said no.

 

I know I may just be a cat, but I don't see this as an example of Apple expressing its corporate meglomania.

 

Rather, this is an affront to Apple's underlying business policy: a proprietary link between hardware and software that gives Apple and its customers certain benefits, at the expense of marketshare.

 

It's not morally better or worse than an open business model - it is simply Apple's business model, and allows them to offer integrated solutions and assure user experience. In the case of iTunes and iPods, it allows Apple to leverage one against the other.

 

The legal outcome -- acceptable reverse engineering vs. unacceptable copyright infringement -- is not clear. However, I think the players understand that this will not be resolved in court, but in the technology itself. It will be a technological game of cat and mouse with Apple altering its software to undermine Real's hack, and Real attempting to catch up and re-hack. If Apple can make it sufficiently difficult for Real to offer iPod access to its (Real's) customers, it can potentially move those customers from Real to iTunes. If Apple cannot successfully block Real in the technology, then those customers remain Real's and more important to Apple, the iPod experience is at risk.

 

The thing of it is, I don't believe that Apple is making any money with iTunes itself. Rather, iTunes is a high-profile recruiting campaign to bring customers into Apple's profitable hardware sales. And Apple is afraid that a diluted experience will dilute the campaign, and make a less compelling case for the iPod.

 

And with the success of iTunes, there's just no reason for Apple to consider an outside content provider, a potential degradation of user experience, and the potential loss of iPod sales -- Apple's cash cow.

Dooby Dooby Doo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by philbo_Tangent:

You can play any iTunes song on any player just by burning it to a cd, but iTunes will control how many times you can do that.
This is a major hole in DRM - once on a CD, why not rip the track, then encode it in something more universally usable (like MP3)?
I really haven't played with it enough to know. I would think you could easily do so. I use Amazing Slow Downer and it will not play iTune encoded songs, but once the song is cut to a cd, all ASD functions work on it. I don't know if the song, once on cd, can be coverted to MP3, or any other format.

bbach

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple have spent a lot of time and money on the iPod and iTMS, Steve Jobs was heavily involved in the design as well.

 

So Apple created a product which has rejuvinated the company because it a) looks fantastic and b) works flawlessly so non-techies can rip their libraries and buy music without any hassle.

 

So far so good.

 

Now Real want to stick their greasy little fingers in the pie. What if harmony is a piece of spyware-laden, bloated crap like Realplayer? What if it works but has an ugly interface? What if it makes users jump through more hoops than iTMS to get to the same place?

 

All of the above are very likely outcomes and all of them would tarnish the image Apple have spent lots and time and money perfecting.

"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." - Banky Edwards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Anderton:

I must be missing something. So Real has come up with a way to get their songs into an iPod. I don't think this is something that iPod owners have been begging for. Rather, it lets Real's customers put the tunes they download into a piece of hardware. Looks to me like it's a way for Apple to sell more hardware. Like I said...I think I'm missing something. If I were Apple, I'd say "Sure, we'll make iPod accept your tunes, but you need to make us the exclusive source for hardware players for your content."

I can only speculate as to why Apple did not want to partner with Real. It's probable they either were afraid a partnership with Real would either dillute the iPod brand name, or simply showed no potential return on investment when it appeared Real just wanted a coattail ride.

 

What I do know, is if I approached Chevy to make replacement parts for their cars and requested the part diagrams that are intellectual property of Chevy, was denied, and I decided I could figure it out myself, make the parts independently, then refuse to pay Chevy any licensing fees, I would expect Chevy to drag my ass into court. I can't quite see this as any different.

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform.

Mark Twain (1835-1910)

--------------------

Reporter: "Ah, do you think you could destroy the world?" The Tick: "Ehgad I hope not. That's where I keep all my stuff!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fs, I believe that a copyright violation could potentially be established based on chapter 12, section 1201, subsections 2 and 3 which state:

 

"(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that

 

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

 

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

 

© is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

 

(3) As used in this subsection

 

(A) to circumvent a technological measure means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

 

(B) a technological measure effectively controls access to a work if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by hmurchison:

Sounds kind of ironic coming from someone who's music is available in MS WMA format rather than an open and omnipresent mp3. I don't see MS rushing to open up WMA.

Err...MP3 is not open. It's a patented format.

 

Ogg Vorbis, however, is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...