Without meaning to sound like an Apple apologist, I think this story (and particularly the headline) is written upside down. Shultz *actually* testified that (quoting your own article) his project and others "were designed to protect the iPod-iTunes ecosystem from poor user experiences resulting from numerous file formats and unsecured media devices." He said in court, under oath, that this was WHY his team were blocking third-party DRM sources (Apple never attempted to block music ripped from CDs, or purchased without DRM, or encoded in WAV, AIFF or MP3).
The headline and slant on what he said under questioning from the prosecution is a summary of disconnected statements without the context, that you didn't put them into until way down deep in the story. I expect that kind of bias from a Murdoch-owned publication, but fail to see why you just parroted their slant rather than digest and present the story more even-handedly.
It's a sloppy comment on my part. I guess I was trying to say Apple didn't try to force Microsoft, Creative, SanDisk or Sony to use their specific DRM.
Actually, Apple would have probablly loved to sell their DRM music to other companies MP3 player but at the time there was very little money to be made selling digital downloaded music. About 90% of the music sold was still in the form of a CD. And the cost of maintaining their DRM across all devices, as requred by the record labels, would have wiped out what little profit they made selling music from the iTunes Store. Apple made nearly all of their money in music by selling iPods, not DRM restricted music. Just look up how fast Microsoft bailed out of licensing their DRM to other companies MP3 players.
If you look now, iTunes still have a commanding lead in downloaded digital music (legal ones) from their iTunes Store, even though the iPod is no longer the MP3 player leader. That's because nearly all smartphones are MP3 players and they can now play music bought from the iTunes Store because it's now DRM free. All they got to do is plug in their non iPod device into their computer and drag the songs out of iTunes and into their device. Just like dragging any DRM free iTunes song into a thumb drive. Plus, iTunes music plays on both Macs and PC's. It was the record labels required DRM that locked the iTunes Store music into an iPod, not the iTunes software by itself.
Is the iPod a Walkman tape player, that we can make our own compilations for and play on, or is it an extension of the music industry trying to protect the money it has invested, and the artists who deserve to be paid for their work? And does any company, including Apple, have the right to manage their own devices and operating systems and user experiences?
I'd say the iPod is half-way between a tape player and a completely closed system, as the music companies and artists do place limits on open source, and copyright exists. Copyright is there to ensure both do not have their works stolen, like blatantly copying someone else's designs. And I'm not sure how ensuring copyright protection equates with creating a monopoly. If there is logic in that leap, I cannot see it.
The loophole for RealNetworks is ensuring that the music of their service has complied with copyright law. And they really should ask Apple if they can put their service on Apple's products, and be satisfied with whatever response they get.
I'm trying to figure out how a person who has nearly a decade working with Cisco is disclosing NDA DRM work he worked on:
[B][SIZE=4]Senior Software Engineer, iTunes FairPlay[/SIZE][/B] Apple Inc. [COLOR=gray]January 2006 – March 2008 (2 years 3 months)[/COLOR] [QUOTE]Worked in a small team designing and architecting DRM, content integrity, and device security solutions for iTunes, Apple TV, iPhone, iPod, and the iTunes Store:
Architected Apple's HDCP device infrastructure for High Definition Content protection on AppleTV.
Worked with multiple teams to architect and develop a patent-pending solution to distribute DRM content keys to Apple TVs.
Designed and implemented a security association protocol to provide authentication and secure key derivation between two iTunes devices for trust establishment. This protocol is used for Apple's AirPlay Mirroring.
[B]Developed specification for third-party devices to authenticate to iTunes to enable streaming of shared music. This required working with external companies to aid in the secure implementation of the protocol.[/B]
Implemented secure key storage architecture for iTunes running on Windows and Mac.
Developed tools to add and remove DRM to music, movies, iOS applications, and video content sold on the iTunes Store.[/QUOTE]
I note the bold part because it seems he wasn't building an Apple only ecosystem, but a system that works with third party OEMs.
Without meaning to sound like an Apple apologist, I think this story (and particularly the headline) is written upside down. Shultz *actually* testified that (quoting your own article) his project and others "were designed to protect the iPod-iTunes ecosystem from poor user experiences resulting from numerous file formats and unsecured media devices." He said in court, under oath, that this was WHY his team were blocking third-party DRM sources (Apple never attempted to block music ripped from CDs, or purchased without DRM, or encoded in WAV, AIFF or MP3).
The headline and slant on what he said under questioning from the prosecution is a summary of disconnected statements without the context, that you didn't put them into until way down deep in the story. I expect that kind of bias from a Murdoch-owned publication, but fail to see why you just parroted their slant rather than digest and present the story more even-handedly.
You're right. The snippets we get are those designed to garner attention for the WSJ and are in no way even handed. Kasper's Automated Slave does the rest, without adding editorial commentary.
It's weird how court cases proceed. At many points I usually want to jump up with "But, but...", I wonder why common sense statements like "Real took down the sidewall to our store and funnelled our customers into their extension" went missing - it was a commonplace argument back in the day. I wonder when Apple will point to an exact clause in their RIAA agreements where it says DRM must be applied. I wonder when someone will point out in court that to refer to all music in general is wrong because Universal were not on board at the start and that not All music has, is or ever will be offered through iTunes alone, but you can still put it on an iPod by various means...that sort of thing.
I guess the details are in there(the court) somewhere but don't get aired. At least I hope it's so.
cornchip 12/12/2014 08:55 PM How is this $350,000,000 worth of damage? I don't get it. Doesn't make sense. Is everyone who owned an iPod from these years going to get $4 or something? What am I missing?
What are we missing? What we should really be curious about is who has standing in this case. Though Apple very likely has engaged in some non-competitive practices, why is the justice department rather than plaintiffs attorneys bringing the lawsuit? Accordingly, who will really benefit from this lawsuit? Probably, only the lawyers ...
The testimony isn't that significant. Large companies including Apple have 'just in case' projects. I worked on one for Boeing. They're intended for certain scenarios. If those situations don't develop, they don't see the light of day. There was a DRM battle going on at this time. Apple may have intended this software to retaliate against some other music vendors use of DRM.
That would have sucked if Apple has blocked out all music services.
Being closed can easily hurt a company as people turn to other devices.
As it stands, I don't use any Apple services (that I can think of) because other services are much better.
Apple email used to blow (maybe it still does), so stopped using that. No cloud storage, so went elsewhere. Music: there are much better options out there as well. And so on.
Yoke's on you -- nothing's stoppimg you from using iTunes music on any device you want.
As for open vs closed -- being closed can also help a company, like Apple being the most successful tech firm in history of mankind. Or Google and its closed search, etc.
I'm trying to figure out how a person who has nearly a decade working with Cisco is disclosing NDA DRM work he worked on:
Senior Software Engineer, iTunes FairPlay
Apple Inc.
January 2006 – March 2008 (2 years 3 months)
I note the bold part because it seems he wasn't building an Apple only ecosystem, but a system that works with third party OEMs.
Developed specification for third-party devices to authenticate to iTunes to enable streaming of shared music. This required working with external companies to aid in the secure implementation of the protocol.
This sounds like AirPlay to me, especially for speakers and things like that. Also AppleTV. I don't see it as being part of any iPod project, if that was what you were inferring.
As for NDA material, most of what he wrote looks like it's already in released products. He's using technical terms but that doesn't necessarily mean he's using NDA-covered descriptions. As for Apple and NDA, they really opened up after last year's WWDC when just about everything was available to the public. So much for NDA agreements. I need to re-read an updated ADC NDA to see what's still covered.
This sounds like AirPlay to me, especially for speakers and things like that. Also AppleTV. I don't see it as being part of any iPod project, if that was what you were inferring.
As for NDA material, most of what he wrote looks like it's already in released products. He's using technical terms but that doesn't necessarily mean he's using NDA-covered descriptions. As for Apple and NDA, they really opened up after last year's WWDC when just about everything was available to the public. So much for NDA agreements. I need to re-read an updated ADC NDA to see what's still covered.
Touch? It's still considered an iPod, right? Even though it has more in common with the iPhone.
This sounds like AirPlay to me, especially for speakers and things like that. Also AppleTV. I don't see it as being part of any iPod project, if that was what you were inferring.
As for NDA material, most of what he wrote looks like it's already in released products. He's using technical terms but that doesn't necessarily mean he's using NDA-covered descriptions. As for Apple and NDA, they really opened up after last year's WWDC when just about everything was available to the public. So much for NDA agreements. I need to re-read an updated ADC NDA to see what's still covered.
I'm speaking as a former Apple engineer who signed an NDA and honored that specific document. It's completely different than the NDA for tech docs to the general public.
I'm curious as to Apple's defense to this whole thing. Are they arguing they had to do it for this reason or that?
Wouldn't it be more convincing to say they they had no obligation to support other systems' or services' DRM and that they could do whatever they wanted to their own product and service because it's their own?
The anti-trust discussion doesn't seem to hold up regardless of why Apple did what they did. They DIDN'T have a monopoly. They WEREN'T the only music service, etc. etc.
The whole basis of the lawsuit (antitrust) doesn't seem to be addressed based on what I've read in all the articles. Or am I completely off base?
Comments
The headline and slant on what he said under questioning from the prosecution is a summary of disconnected statements without the context, that you didn't put them into until way down deep in the story. I expect that kind of bias from a Murdoch-owned publication, but fail to see why you just parroted their slant rather than digest and present the story more even-handedly.
It's a sloppy comment on my part. I guess I was trying to say Apple didn't try to force Microsoft, Creative, SanDisk or Sony to use their specific DRM.
Actually, Apple would have probablly loved to sell their DRM music to other companies MP3 player but at the time there was very little money to be made selling digital downloaded music. About 90% of the music sold was still in the form of a CD. And the cost of maintaining their DRM across all devices, as requred by the record labels, would have wiped out what little profit they made selling music from the iTunes Store. Apple made nearly all of their money in music by selling iPods, not DRM restricted music. Just look up how fast Microsoft bailed out of licensing their DRM to other companies MP3 players.
If you look now, iTunes still have a commanding lead in downloaded digital music (legal ones) from their iTunes Store, even though the iPod is no longer the MP3 player leader. That's because nearly all smartphones are MP3 players and they can now play music bought from the iTunes Store because it's now DRM free. All they got to do is plug in their non iPod device into their computer and drag the songs out of iTunes and into their device. Just like dragging any DRM free iTunes song into a thumb drive. Plus, iTunes music plays on both Macs and PC's. It was the record labels required DRM that locked the iTunes Store music into an iPod, not the iTunes software by itself.
Is the iPod a Walkman tape player, that we can make our own compilations for and play on, or is it an extension of the music industry trying to protect the money it has invested, and the artists who deserve to be paid for their work? And does any company, including Apple, have the right to manage their own devices and operating systems and user experiences?
I'd say the iPod is half-way between a tape player and a completely closed system, as the music companies and artists do place limits on open source, and copyright exists. Copyright is there to ensure both do not have their works stolen, like blatantly copying someone else's designs. And I'm not sure how ensuring copyright protection equates with creating a monopoly. If there is logic in that leap, I cannot see it.
The loophole for RealNetworks is ensuring that the music of their service has complied with copyright law. And they really should ask Apple if they can put their service on Apple's products, and be satisfied with whatever response they get.
And the people of North Korea believe they are free because they are not in a North Korean prison cell.
http://m.imore.com/until-drm-dies-itunes-no-worse-lock-in-amazin-google-anyone-else
I'm trying to figure out how a person who has nearly a decade working with Cisco is disclosing NDA DRM work he worked on:
[B][SIZE=4]Senior Software Engineer, iTunes FairPlay[/SIZE][/B]
Apple Inc.
[COLOR=gray]January 2006 – March 2008 (2 years 3 months)[/COLOR]
[QUOTE]Worked in a small team designing and architecting DRM, content integrity, and device security solutions for iTunes, Apple TV, iPhone, iPod, and the iTunes Store:
Architected Apple's HDCP device infrastructure for High Definition Content protection on AppleTV.
Worked with multiple teams to architect and develop a patent-pending solution to distribute DRM content keys to Apple TVs.
Designed and implemented a security association protocol to provide authentication and secure key derivation between two iTunes devices for trust establishment. This protocol is used for Apple's AirPlay Mirroring.
[B]Developed specification for third-party devices to authenticate to iTunes to enable streaming of shared music. This required working with external companies to aid in the secure implementation of the protocol.[/B]
Implemented secure key storage architecture for iTunes running on Windows and Mac.
Developed tools to add and remove DRM to music, movies, iOS applications, and video content sold on the iTunes Store.[/QUOTE]
I note the bold part because it seems he wasn't building an Apple only ecosystem, but a system that works with third party OEMs.
You're right. The snippets we get are those designed to garner attention for the WSJ and are in no way even handed. Kasper's Automated Slave does the rest, without adding editorial commentary.
It's weird how court cases proceed. At many points I usually want to jump up with "But, but...", I wonder why common sense statements like "Real took down the sidewall to our store and funnelled our customers into their extension" went missing - it was a commonplace argument back in the day. I wonder when Apple will point to an exact clause in their RIAA agreements where it says DRM must be applied. I wonder when someone will point out in court that to refer to all music in general is wrong because Universal were not on board at the start and that not All music has, is or ever will be offered through iTunes alone, but you can still put it on an iPod by various means...that sort of thing.
I guess the details are in there(the court) somewhere but don't get aired. At least I hope it's so.
hey ... you got a prize for the first comment.... ....endless ridicule
K
After waiting 11 years for your 4th post I was expecting something with a bit more pizzaz.
How is this $350,000,000 worth of damage? I don't get it. Doesn't make sense. Is everyone who owned an iPod from these years going to get $4 or something? What am I missing?
What are we missing? What we should really be curious about is who has standing in this case. Though Apple very likely has engaged in some non-competitive practices, why is the justice department rather than plaintiffs attorneys bringing the lawsuit? Accordingly, who will really benefit from this lawsuit? Probably, only the lawyers ...
Yoke's on you -- nothing's stoppimg you from using iTunes music on any device you want.
As for open vs closed -- being closed can also help a company, like Apple being the most successful tech firm in history of mankind. Or Google and its closed search, etc.
Why? What he said was clear...they intentionally moved to block other DRM providers from using their device because they had contracts in place.
This is Rod: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6829977
I'm trying to figure out how a person who has nearly a decade working with Cisco is disclosing NDA DRM work he worked on:
Senior Software Engineer, iTunes FairPlay
Apple Inc.
January 2006 – March 2008 (2 years 3 months)
I note the bold part because it seems he wasn't building an Apple only ecosystem, but a system that works with third party OEMs.
This sounds like AirPlay to me, especially for speakers and things like that. Also AppleTV. I don't see it as being part of any iPod project, if that was what you were inferring.
As for NDA material, most of what he wrote looks like it's already in released products. He's using technical terms but that doesn't necessarily mean he's using NDA-covered descriptions. As for Apple and NDA, they really opened up after last year's WWDC when just about everything was available to the public. So much for NDA agreements. I need to re-read an updated ADC NDA to see what's still covered.
This sounds like AirPlay to me, especially for speakers and things like that. Also AppleTV. I don't see it as being part of any iPod project, if that was what you were inferring.
As for NDA material, most of what he wrote looks like it's already in released products. He's using technical terms but that doesn't necessarily mean he's using NDA-covered descriptions. As for Apple and NDA, they really opened up after last year's WWDC when just about everything was available to the public. So much for NDA agreements. I need to re-read an updated ADC NDA to see what's still covered.
Touch? It's still considered an iPod, right? Even though it has more in common with the iPhone.
Your comment is more clear than the article.
I'm speaking as a former Apple engineer who signed an NDA and honored that specific document. It's completely different than the NDA for tech docs to the general public.
I don't follow. Why would Apple be forced to support Google's version of Java so that Android apps could run on iOS?
I'm curious as to Apple's defense to this whole thing. Are they arguing they had to do it for this reason or that?
Wouldn't it be more convincing to say they they had no obligation to support other systems' or services' DRM and that they could do whatever they wanted to their own product and service because it's their own?
The anti-trust discussion doesn't seem to hold up regardless of why Apple did what they did. They DIDN'T have a monopoly. They WEREN'T the only music service, etc. etc.
The whole basis of the lawsuit (antitrust) doesn't seem to be addressed based on what I've read in all the articles. Or am I completely off base?