Real Music Store is now iPod compatible

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfiler



    Also, there wasn't any reverse engineering going on here. What real has done is figure out how to make the iPod play an additional format of music. They haven't duplicated functionality, they've added functionality. Nearly every closed platform market on the planet has third party accessories... Everything from cars to game console systems.




    it doesn't look like that's true to me. if so, they would have had to change the iPod's firmware. to me it looks like they are dropping their AAC files into a Fairplay container.
  • Reply 22 of 46
    macsrgood4umacsrgood4u Posts: 3,007member
    Pay attention. Apple IS making money off of iTMS. They have stated such the past two analyst meetings. The notion that they were only in the business to sell iPods is bogus and something of a red herring. The quote was taken out of context when the service was first introduced. At the time iTMS was indeed not making any money. They are now. (The same could be said of the brick and mortar Apple Stores. There were those who stated that Apple probably won't make money but it was a good way to get people to see their products. Oy.).
  • Reply 23 of 46
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    I wouldn't be surprised to find out if Real as part of the negotiation to support fairplay got a hold of some source code and found a clever way around Apple. Right now Lawyers for apple are busy sharpening their knives.



    Expect first a motion to enjoin Real from distribution of it's service or its implementation of Fairplay.



    Then comes the suit for damages...



    Steve learned his lesson From Bill Gates when M$ ripped off the early mac OS.



    Itunes makes money and is key to apple's future both as a hardware manufacturer and a software vendor.



    I would venture now that in 10 years itms or its successor will generate more revenue than apples hardware sales...
  • Reply 24 of 46
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    <another school of thought, not as close to the apple kool-aid bowl>



    I say apple should let it go, apple has admitted that ITMS makes no money, the iPods themselves, however, make a huge profit for apple. Let real work eith it, then all 12 of the Real users can enjoy ipods too.

    </another school of thought, not as close to the apple kool-aid bowl>





    No doubt that real sucks, but this is nothing like the ms thing, this is like yellowdog makeing linux for the G5, they make a little money off of it, but apple doesnt loose money.



    And as for the DMCA violation, If I am the judge, I toss it out if all PPC linux distros arent also named. for linux to work on the PPC, they have to work with the propriatery ROMs, right?
  • Reply 25 of 46
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by applenut

    it doesn't look like that's true to me. if so, they would have had to change the iPod's firmware. to me it looks like they are dropping their AAC files into a Fairplay container.



    Ah, that makes sense. I recant my not reverse-engineering statements.



    In the case of a reverse engineered file format, these stories seem to be focusing too much on the iPod. This has far less to do with the iPod then it does a file format used mostly on PCs. But... the iPod is more hip, so throw it in the story too.
  • Reply 26 of 46
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    <another school of thought, not as close to the apple kool-aid bowl>



    I say apple should let it go, apple has admitted that ITMS makes no money,




    Earth to Inability To Read Boy... the iTMS has been profitable the past two quarters, and it is accelerating.



    Quote:

    the iPods themselves, however, make a huge profit for apple. Let real work eith it, then all 12 of the Real users can enjoy ipods too.

    </another school of thought, not as close to the apple kool-aid bowl>





    No doubt that real sucks, but this is nothing like the ms thing, this is like yellowdog makeing linux for the G5, they make a little money off of it, but apple doesnt loose money.




    Apple doesn't make money off of Darwin, so YellowDog Linux is fine - it's nowhere near the capability of OS X.



    Apple *does* make money off the iTMS, and Real is directly impinging on that. Expect a fight.



    Quote:

    And as for the DMCA violation, If I am the judge, I toss it out if all PPC linux distros arent also named. for linux to work on the PPC, they have to work with the propriatery ROMs, right?



    Wrong. And would you toss out a burglary charge against a defendant (who was boasting about it) because the DA's office didn't also charge seven other random people with jaywalking?? Silly.
  • Reply 27 of 46
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Just curious, any legal eagels out there, Could this little "hack" upset the boys at the RIAA, you know damn well that if some kid in his basement had done the same thing...





    <after thought>

    If the song, as stated above, is stripped of DRM before being copied to the ipod, then real is in the clear, just the same as copying any self ripped (from a legaly owned CD) aac file.
  • Reply 28 of 46
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Earth to Inability To Read Boy... the iTMS has been profitable the past two quarters, and it is accelerating.



    Deep breath. Deep breath.

    Hopefully we all agree on its profitability.



    At the same time, the iTMS really isn't that profitable. It offers a rather poor return on investment until you figure in iPod sales. Kind of a continuation of the old adage, Apple makes it money on hardware rather than software.
  • Reply 29 of 46
    chris cuillachris cuilla Posts: 4,825member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfiler

    Deep breath. Deep breath.

    Hopefully we all agree on its profitability.



    At the same time, the iTMS really isn't that profitable. It offers a rather poor return on investment until you figure in iPod sales. Kind of a continuation of the old adage, Apple makes it money on hardware rather than software.




    Yes. iTMS is profitable...but not in the sense that iPod is. Apple is (and has been) very clear on this point. They are giving away the razors to sell the blades (or vice verse, I guess, in this case). This non (or limited) profitability is important. Note, it shouldn't LOSE money...but it needn't really make (much) money. It is a driver for iPod sales...which is why Apple is NOT going to sell those at a loss in order to gain market share (as some early critics suggested they do). The non-profitability is also important to hold off store competitors. Who would want to (can) be in a money losing business for very long. This is Real's problem.
  • Reply 30 of 46
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    <another school of thought, not as close to the apple kool-aid bowl>



    I say apple should let it go, apple has admitted that ITMS makes no money, the iPods themselves, however, make a huge profit for apple. Let real work eith it, then all 12 of the Real users can enjoy ipods too.

    </another school of thought, not as close to the apple kool-aid bowl>





    if they let it go they open the door for others to do the same. when you dont protect your property, your patents/copyrights mean shit.
  • Reply 31 of 46
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Apple currently has a 70% market share of online music.



    They have an infrastructure in place that is perhaps the *only* one that isn't actually losing money.



    And that market is expected to hit three *BILLION* dollars in less than five years.



    Lessee... 70% of 3G$ is...







    This is not about short term iPod sales, this is about long term beaucoup moolah. Flithy lucre.
  • Reply 32 of 46
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    Yeah, this is completely about potentially huge long-term profits, and control of an emerging market.



    I'm not a big fan of Real (who is?), but in this case... hey, more power to them.



    If Apple refuses to license FairPlay (or does so on an incredibly selective basis), is it really such a surprise that companies resort to hacks, reverse-engineering, and wrappers to attempt compatible solutions for their devices and music formats...?



    This one will definitely be worth keeping an eye on. It's a little saddening, though, seeing people here rallying in support of Apple to use the double-edged DMCA to prevent iPod owners to use whatever format they want.
  • Reply 33 of 46
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hobbes

    Yeah, this is completely about potentially huge long-term profits, and control of an emerging market.



    I'm not a big fan of Real (who is?), but in this case... hey, more power to them.



    If Apple refuses to license FairPlay (or does so on an incredibly selective basis), is it really such a surprise that companies resort to hacks, reverse-engineering, and wrappers to attempt compatible solutions for their devices and music formats...?



    This one will definitely be worth keeping an eye on. It's a little saddening, though, seeing people here rallying in support of Apple to use the double-edged DMCA to prevent iPod owners to use whatever format they want.




    It isn't so much that we don't want ipod owners to use whatever format they wish, it is however, that if apple lets this one get away, We all will be locked into a future where other formats with less freedom for the user will dominate.



    Apple has struck a bargain with the RIAA which allows us a fair degree of freedom for our purchased online music (5 computers 7 burns of playlists unlimited ipods)



    A REAL future might be only 1 computer and no burns. And songs $3.00 albums $20.00



    I am rooting for the dog in this race that is providing the best service and the most value for the end user. For once, and happily, this is apple.



    If M$ had its way, we would pay a monthly fee to access our music and if we stopped paying...POOF! no music.



    The REAL ipod compatibility feint is to try to crowbar their way into that 70% market share and as such force the users into their marketing scheme.



    Now let's all sit back and watch our favorite underdog kick some ass!
  • Reply 34 of 46
    welderwelder Posts: 10member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Dave K.

    How is any kind of reverse engineering not illegal?



    MacOS X supports Windows Networking/Filesharing through Samba, a product created through reverse engineering. Have you informed Microsoft of this?



    Quote:

    Apple went after PlayFair over DMCA, how is this different?



    The DMCA outlaws circumvention (removing) of DRM. PlayFair removes DRM. Harmony is doing the opposite: adding DRM.



    RealNetworks most likely did not waste their time reverse engineering FairPlay, since someone already did that over 6 months ago:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01...ked_wide_open/



    (PlayFair/Hymn uses the VideoLAN code).



    Apple doesn't have any patents on FairPlay and RealNetworks is not using the word "FairPlay" in their marketing. Doesn't mean Apple won't sue though, since you can sue anyone over anything in this country.
  • Reply 35 of 46
    welderwelder Posts: 10member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TednDi

    Apple has struck a bargain with the RIAA which allows us a fair degree of freedom for our purchased online music (5 computers 7 burns of playlists unlimited ipods)



    A REAL future might be only 1 computer and no burns. And songs $3.00 albums $20.00




    Yes, because the RIAA offered Real the same terms as they offered Apple, but Real responded "That's not acceptable. We want to offer our customers less freedom".



    Apple has already changed the usage rules once AT THE REQUEST OF THE RIAA.



    Don't be naive. The "REAL future" could just as well be the "iTMS future".



    For the record, Real currently sells 192Kbit/s AAC tracks for the same price that Apple sells 128Kbit/s AAC tracks.
  • Reply 36 of 46
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, so no-one can accuse me of barratry. Nyah.



    Well, this is a real tangle. Pun intended.



    It used to be that reverse engineering was 100% legal, even protected, as a pro-competition, anti-monopoly measure. It worked in tandem with patent law, which requires you to publish your method if you want it protected.



    But many of the traditional checks against IP monopolies have been overthrown, mooted or severely compromised, and I don't really know what the landscape looks like anymore. It's much more ambiguous than it was, and much more legalistic.



    The complicating issues are:



    1) I'm not aware that Apple patented FairPlay. If it's not protected by patent, reverse engineering should still be legally possible.



    2) As has been discovered and published, FairPlay is a combination of two standard technologies, although I'm spacing on which two they are right now (MD5 and... CRC?). Duplicating FairPlay might involve little to no reverse engineering at all, since Apple's original contribution to the technology would be minimal, and since the technology's standard you can either borrow off-the-shelf implementations or roll your own with no fear of repercussions (modulo any licensing).



    3) Whether or not Apple profits from iTMS will determine how badly they want to try to defeat this effort, but from a legal standpoint it's irrelevant. The law has &mdash; again, pre-DMCA &mdash; always favored restrictions on any form of monopoly in the name of fostering competition and preventing price gouging or stagnation.



    4) Yes, Apple has a license that says you can't do this, that and the other thing. The legal validity of shrink-wrap licenses and their ilk is dubious at best, in part because judges and IP lawyers haven't particularly liked licenses as a means to unilaterally circumvent the restrictions imposed by IP law and write your own legislation. On the other hand, the DMCA and successor bills give their blessing to this practice, in effect conflating IP law and contract law completely.



    5) If Real's store sucks, or if nobody really knows about it, who cares? Eugene, any comment there? Really, in this case, Apple might just wait to see what happens, because if they didn't lift a finger and Real's effort failed on the merits, that would send a much more powerful message about the strength of Apple's design and implementation.



    6) If Real has managed to translate the particular terms of use (I really hate the use of the word "rights" in this context) encoded into any given DRM scheme, then they'll be proofed against another legal vulnerability: If some publisher sells a song with relatively restrictive terms of use and Real translates it to a FairPlay-compatible scheme with iTMS' terms of use, then the publisher can sue them under the DMCA and they'll have a pretty strong case.



    7) If Real has managed to translate the particular terms of use encoded into any given DRM scheme, and the stuff they sell at their store has inconsistent terms of use, or terms of use that are substantially different than iTMS', they'll end up confusing and angering users when some of their songs behave differently than others. That could backfire, and dilute the quality of the iPod/iTunes/iTMS experience overall. Apple will doubtless be concerned about that, but that's not a problem that can be addressed through legal means AFAIK.



    It's hard to say one way or another without knowing more about exactly what's going on (and spelunking through the deliberately arcane and largely untested DMCA). But I can see Real getting away with this. It's possible.
  • Reply 37 of 46
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    5) If Real's store sucks, or if nobody really knows about it, who cares? Eugene, any comment there? Really, in this case, Apple might just wait to see what happens, because if they didn't lift a finger and Real's effort failed on the merits, that would send a much more powerful message about the strength of Apple's design and implementation.



    RealPlayer for Windows is awful. When you load the app, the first thing you see is a video advertisement (I got one for the US Army.) All the main features are divided into separate tabs. It makes each feature seem detached from the others. If I want to use my iPod, I have to go to the Burn/Transfer tab and "add device" before using it.



    The music store itself is poorly designed. When you browse an album, songs are listed one way. When you browse a groups "Top Tracks" songs are listed another way. It's different still when you search for tracks. The good thing about the store is that the songs are 192 kbps AAC (.rax files), and the difference is noticeable. You can also redownload music, but the feature was broken when I tried.



    I wasn't able to get a 2G iPod working with Harmony. The files transfer fine, but they don't play. My 3G iPod works. iTunes "Get Info" reports back 193 kbps AAC, FairPlay v1, Owner = RN_ProtectediPodUser.



    Hymn can grab the keys off your iPod and strip the DRM just fine.



    Listening test:

    http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ceugene...aminglips1.mov

    http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ceugene...aminglips2.mov



    Bring down the volume a teeny bit on the first file and then use QuickTime Player's "Play All Movies" and "Play sound in frontmost player only" features to listen to them. QuickTime Pro needed.
  • Reply 38 of 46
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    I'll have to burn those to disc and play them back through a proper audio system. For one thing, the high pitched and steady fan noise from my computer masks tons of detail. Probably even more than road noise during my commute. Also, the DA converters in my receiver are infinitely better.



    Should be an interesting test. Thanks for the clips!
  • Reply 39 of 46
    macsrgood4umacsrgood4u Posts: 3,007member
    From Apple 7/29/04:



    "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." _
  • Reply 40 of 46
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Welder

    Yes, because the RIAA offered Real the same terms as they offered Apple, but Real responded "That's not acceptable. We want to offer our customers less freedom".



    Apple has already changed the usage rules once AT THE REQUEST OF THE RIAA.



    Don't be naive. The "REAL future" could just as well be the "iTMS future".



    For the record, Real currently sells 192Kbit/s AAC tracks for the same price that Apple sells 128Kbit/s AAC tracks.






    My point is that right now and as part of its success ITMS offers consumers the freedom to OWN the music. Yes, I know apple has changed the license once for purchased tracks. I am not being an apple apologist here. The Jobs/Apple philosophy as I understand it is based upon:



    ease of use

    protection of intellectual property

    owning the music while balancing the unfair (illegal) music distribution.





    Real will disable your purchased music if you don't fork over your monthly fee. As a consumer I would rather choose a lower bit rate over a lifetime of locked in music.



    On another note, (pun intended) If apple significantly changed the DRM away from the consumer's "owning" of the music to a consumer "licenses" the music, then I predict Apple will face a significant Class action lawsuit and perhaps a deceptive trade practice action. Steve and Apple have made it a large selling point that the consumer ownes their downloaded music from itms.
Sign In or Register to comment.