Briefly: iPhone dates, iTunes Plus watermarks, Apple updates
The shell game of the iPhone's actual release date continued on its erratic course this week. Meanwhile, Apple's newly-unlocked music files appear to be keeping users honest through fingerprints. And, earlier this week, the company issued a pair of important fixes.
iPhone release date fixed at last?
The real release date for the iPhone may be a pragmatic one, AppleInsider has been told.
A contact who has filed accurate reports in the past notes that Friday, June 29th is the date being passed around at some Apple retail stores this week.
The initial date of availability for the inaugural Apple handset has been the subject of feverish speculation in recent weeks. A June 29th launch, while largely considered a rumor at this time, would corresponds the company's recent practice (1, 2) of holding some of its high-profile consumer product launches at the end of the week. It would also conform to Apple's official "late June" launch window and recent comments by company chief executive Steve Jobs.
Previous predictions have often fallen short of the mark. Many had initially suggested that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would use his June 11th keynote for the Worldwide Developer Conference to announce the device, a claim which has since been shot down after Apple http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2655">narrowed down the release to the end of the month.
Others have attempted unsuccessfully to extract a release date from AT&T's retail outlets. News network CNBC had used this method in May to claim a June 20th launch but has since been contradicted by other chains, which reported release dates as early as the now discredited June 11th and no later than the 22nd.
iTunes Plus may contain watermarks
Apple's introduction of iTunes Plus this week has made songs easier to transfer between devices but may include its own subtle means of discouraging open piracy, according to an investigation.
A test in which two separate iTunes accounts bought the same iTunes Plus song has revealed that the files are different despite otherwise identical data, suggesting that Apple has embedded account names into the files that ultimately reach customer computers. Such information could reportedly be used to track the origins of songs that appear on peer-to-peer networks.
Since the files can be readily copied and produce identical files when converted to different formats, the report determines that Apple's changes appear to be a simple matter of embedding non-obvious text, rather than actively encrypting content.
Apple issues Xserve fix, revised security update
Rounding out the week were two Apple hotfixes, primarily aimed at sorting out security issues.
The company's Xserve Lights-Out Management Firmware Update 1.0 (760KB download) repairs a security vulnerability in the remote management hardware for its Intel-based Xserve computers. It also improves the overall reliability of the management and monitoring tools, Apple says.
The update can be applied through Mac OS X on the host machine or remotely through a command line shell.
Finally, Apple has also delivered version 1.1 of its Security Update 2007-005 released early this week.
The download (15.7MB for PowerPC, 29.2MB for Intel) removes a configuration file that stopped the BIND service from automatically launching after the patch is installed. The update chiefly affects Mac OS X Server systems, which are most likely to enable BIND. Neither Client nor Server versions of the OS enable BIND by default.
iPhone release date fixed at last?
The real release date for the iPhone may be a pragmatic one, AppleInsider has been told.
A contact who has filed accurate reports in the past notes that Friday, June 29th is the date being passed around at some Apple retail stores this week.
The initial date of availability for the inaugural Apple handset has been the subject of feverish speculation in recent weeks. A June 29th launch, while largely considered a rumor at this time, would corresponds the company's recent practice (1, 2) of holding some of its high-profile consumer product launches at the end of the week. It would also conform to Apple's official "late June" launch window and recent comments by company chief executive Steve Jobs.
Previous predictions have often fallen short of the mark. Many had initially suggested that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would use his June 11th keynote for the Worldwide Developer Conference to announce the device, a claim which has since been shot down after Apple http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2655">narrowed down the release to the end of the month.
Others have attempted unsuccessfully to extract a release date from AT&T's retail outlets. News network CNBC had used this method in May to claim a June 20th launch but has since been contradicted by other chains, which reported release dates as early as the now discredited June 11th and no later than the 22nd.
iTunes Plus may contain watermarks
Apple's introduction of iTunes Plus this week has made songs easier to transfer between devices but may include its own subtle means of discouraging open piracy, according to an investigation.
A test in which two separate iTunes accounts bought the same iTunes Plus song has revealed that the files are different despite otherwise identical data, suggesting that Apple has embedded account names into the files that ultimately reach customer computers. Such information could reportedly be used to track the origins of songs that appear on peer-to-peer networks.
Since the files can be readily copied and produce identical files when converted to different formats, the report determines that Apple's changes appear to be a simple matter of embedding non-obvious text, rather than actively encrypting content.
Apple issues Xserve fix, revised security update
Rounding out the week were two Apple hotfixes, primarily aimed at sorting out security issues.
The company's Xserve Lights-Out Management Firmware Update 1.0 (760KB download) repairs a security vulnerability in the remote management hardware for its Intel-based Xserve computers. It also improves the overall reliability of the management and monitoring tools, Apple says.
The update can be applied through Mac OS X on the host machine or remotely through a command line shell.
Finally, Apple has also delivered version 1.1 of its Security Update 2007-005 released early this week.
The download (15.7MB for PowerPC, 29.2MB for Intel) removes a configuration file that stopped the BIND service from automatically launching after the patch is installed. The update chiefly affects Mac OS X Server systems, which are most likely to enable BIND. Neither Client nor Server versions of the OS enable BIND by default.
Comments
... "late June" launch window and recent comments by company chief executive Steve Jobs.
Jobs' comments were said strictly in jest, and I don't think they can be used to pin down any specific release date for the iPhone. June 11th, June 6th, June 29th....the real news is that nobody knows. Enough with the useless speculation.
Jobs' comments were said strictly in jest, and I don't think they can be used to pin down any specific release date for the iPhonel. June 11th, June 6th, June 29th....the real news is that nobody knows. Enough with the useless speculation.
For the record: AppleInsider has not speculated previously on the iPhone date. We may have covered other publication's speculation, but none of our own.
Best,
K
We may have covered other publication's speculation, but none of our own.
Best,
K
Sorry, but this is what I was referring to. I did not mean to imply that Appleinsider suggested the dates I listed.
A test in which two separate iTunes accounts bought the same iTunes Plus song has revealed that the files are different despite otherwise identical data, suggesting that Apple has embedded account names into the files that ultimately reach customer computers. Such information could reportedly be used to track the origins of songs that appear on peer-to-peer networks.
And that was just one test. I don't think anyone else has performed said comparison.
Since the files can be readily copied and produce identical files when converted to different formats, the report determines that Apple's changes appear to be a simple matter of embedding non-obvious text, rather than actively encrypting content.
Single byte values scattered throughout the file? That's not much for text.
Sorry, but this is what I was referring to. I did not mean to imply that Appleinsider suggested the dates I listed.
No -- I hear what you're saying. It is annoying. I agree with you. But my point is: just because other outlets have beat the issue to death, it shouldn't preclude us from at least taking one stab at it ourselves
Enjoy your weekend,
K
No -- I hear what you're saying. It is annoying. I agree with you. But my point is: just because other outlets have beat the issue to death, it shouldn't preclude us from at least taking one stab at it ourselves
Enjoy your weekend,
K
June 22nd or 29th always made the most sense to me. Apple will most likely hold special events at all the Apple Retail stores the night of the first availability, just as they did with Tiger and Panther. And those events are always on Friday nights. The store usually closes at 5, then reopens at 6 with special deals, etc. Usually goes on past midnight. (At least it did in Palo Alto.) Microsoft tried to copy this idea with Vista, and it was just sad.
The only reason why the 29th might not be the best date is that it's the opening night for Pixar's new Ratatouille film. Not that it matters too much, but a lot of Apple fans are Pixar fans, too. Wouldn't want those two events to conflict and cut into Disney's profits.
So I'm hoping for the 22nd, but the 29th is probably the night.
coincidence?...
They rolled their eyes when the iPhone was mentioned and volunteered that the Blackberry was much better. I then asked why It was taking three of them to get it to work? I left.
Since the files can be readily copied and produce identical files when converted to different formats, the report determines that Apple's changes appear to be a simple matter of embedding non-obvious text, rather than actively encrypting content.
I wouldn't say it's "non-obvious" when you can click "Get Info" and clearly see the "Purchased By" and "Account Name" tags containing my name and account respectively.
As for the iPhone release date, I think Apple will want to launch earlier in the week than Friday. Sure there will be plenty of demand, but the issue would be supply carrying over till Monday. Smart move would be to launch on a Monday, and re-supply later in the week. Then again, who knows what demand will truly be. To draw a parallel, which system's launch will the iPhone end up emulating... the PS3 or the Wii?
that's good news though, now all i want to hear is a date for Canada.
And MacRumors has tentatively retracted the watermarking story. The current theory seems to be simply that the modification dates on the two song files was different. Running the audio portion through editing apps reveals it to be identical, bit for bit, when bought by two different accounts. Thus, no watermark/fingerprint. There is, however, non-hidden metadata you can see just with Get Info. That's different from a watermark.
First fact: it's there, in the middle of the raw song data.
I then tried to remove my name using a text editor but after that operation the AAC file won't play anymore in any of the audio player I have (iTunes, Quicktime, VLC, AudioFinder, etc.)
Second fact: it is not trivial to remove.
Conclusion: I'd say that there is indeed some kind of watermark in there.
It might not be very sophisticated - real watermarks go well beyond adding a name somewhere in a file and are rather interwoven with the actual data - but you should be careful, as your name might also be there in some encoded format (or in a "real" interwoven watermark). In any case, if you simply give away your DRM-free songs, it is easy for Apple/EMI to track it back to you, unless you know how to remove the name/watermark properly.
One can see watermarking as an optimistic DRM scheme: Apple/EMI assume that most people who buy music are honest and they deal with the exceptions a posteriori, possibly via some legal action. The protected AAC approach on the other hand is a pessimistic DRM scheme: it assumes that most people are cheaters and tries to prevent dishonest behaviors a priori.
Personally, I very much prefer the optimistic approach, as it avoids annoying honest people with artificial restrictions. In my view, trying to protect content is not a problem but preventing people who paid for it to use it is. As usual, Apple seems to push a kind of "fair play" approach, where the user experience is the priority rather than having a 100% bullet-proof DRM scheme (which is known to be impossible anyway). I believe this is the right approach.
--
Benoît
I just updated my EMI purchased songs to DRM-free versions. I then copied one of them to the desktop, opened it in a plain text editor and searched for my name.
First fact: it's there, in the middle of the raw song data.
The name is there in so called 'atoms'. These can exist at the beginning of the file or at the end. They are nothing special and are like the ID3 tags of MP4 files.
Moreover, tests have shown that the audio data is identical between files bought under different accounts so the only place where this is stored is in meta-data.
I then tried to remove my name using a text editor but after that operation the AAC file won't play anymore in any of the audio player I have (iTunes, Quicktime, VLC, AudioFinder, etc.)
Second fact: it is not trivial to remove.
Benoît
The reason they won't play is because you screwed up the file by writing a binary file with a text editor. This data exists only in meta-data. Get a decent meta-data editor and you can easily remove it. Try AtomicParsley for instance.
The suggestion that all players have been changed to support 'Apple's watermarking' is ludicrous.
I wouldn't say it's "non-obvious" when you can click "Get Info" and clearly see the "Purchased By" and "Account Name" tags containing my name and account respectively.
My impression was that Apple was embedding the purchaser's information somewhere hard to find *in addition* to the easily seen fields you are referring to.
Steve
June 22nd or 29th always made the most sense to me. Apple will most likely hold special events at all the Apple Retail stores the night of the first availability, just as they did with Tiger and Panther. And those events are always on Friday nights. The store usually closes at 5, then reopens at 6 with special deals, etc. Usually goes on past midnight. (At least it did in Palo Alto.) Microsoft tried to copy this idea with Vista, and it was just sad.
The only reason why the 29th might not be the best date is that it's the opening night for Pixar's new Ratatouille film. Not that it matters too much, but a lot of Apple fans are Pixar fans, too. Wouldn't want those two events to conflict and cut into Disney's profits.
So I'm hoping for the 22nd, but the 29th is probably the night.
There is a major difference here; the iPhone will also be sold at AT&T stores. I'm guessing that it will be sold at both stores at the same time.
I agree with your assessment of June 29th as a bad day for a release. Personally, I'm leaning toward the 22nd as a release date. I do expect to see an iPhone commercial during the previews for Ratatouille. My only question is whether it's the same one shown at the Academy Awards or a new one.
PS: I'm actually postponing my trip out of the States a day to the 22nd to help make sure I can get an iPhone right away. I'd wait until July if I could, but unfortunately I can't.
My impression was that Apple was embedding the purchaser's information somewhere hard to find *in addition* to the easily seen fields you are referring to.
That appears to be have been dismissed. Still it won't keep the complainers from bitching about easily removed meta data that has been in all iTunes Store purchases since day one.
I'm pretty sure the idea of watermarking would have been discussed, especially by EMI, but eventually dismissed when it was discovered that watermarking would be easily removed within days or even hours of the iTunes Plus launch.