New iPod Firmware Locks Out RealNetworks Music 718
rishimathew writes "Apple Computer has quietly updated its iPod software so that songs purchased from RealNetworks' online music store will no longer play on some of the Mac maker's popular MP3 players." You may remember the backstory: Real found a way to allow their DRM-restricted music to play on iPods, Apple protested, and there was a little back-and-forth. You asked Rob Glaser about the situation, and he said Real had a "comprehensive plan", whatever that means.
Thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
Number two, Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE else's DRM, period.
Unprotected AAC, WAV, AIFF, MP3, etc., files from ANY source will play fine on ANY iPod. This is ONLY about Real reverse engineering FairPlay (more power to them) in order to allow their "Harmony" DRM-protected files to play on an iPod. They succeeded. And Apple is under NO obligation of any kind to allow it to continue. The iPod DOES NOT SUPPORT DRM files from ANY other source, so this isn't a matter of "doing what you want with something you bought". If you can personally get Real's songs to play on your iPod again, go for it. If Real re-engineers it such that the files work, great. Further, you are not forced to update the firmware. What's that? You'll eventually have to to get new features and bug fixes? Tough. Don't like it? Don't buy another iPod.
Apple is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong.
Additionally, Apple does play with other vendors, such as Audible.com content [apple.com], and Macrovision will have to be a FairPlay licensor [arstechnica.com] to support some of its product claims (though more details aren't known), and Motorola phones will run a version of iTunes [motorola.com] and support Apple's protected music. Apple can do whatever it wishes with its own products, and consumers may decide whether or not they would like to purchase them.
I am pro-reverse engineering. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know the popular opinion here is typically pro-Apple/iTMS/iPod but honestly I just don't see why we can be pro-reverse engineering on everything else and not this.
I applaud Real for working to give their customers the most choice and I really don't approve of Apple *refusing* to support their customers the best way that they can.
Big Surprsie... (Score:3, Insightful)
Meh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Real is only continuing the war with different means. They don't do anything remotely original or radical like just dropping the DRM alltoghether for RIAA-influenced music. Honestly, I can't see the point of having DRM on ANY recoring that is also out on CD, it's just retarded.
iTunes has absolutely zero to do with this (Score:3, Insightful)
So take your "I hate iTunes" troll elsewhere.
And yet again, consumers lose (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, don't use iTunes (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:5, Insightful)
How many people remember:
DOS isn't done 'till Lotus won't run.
I told you so... (Score:1, Insightful)
A business is a business and that's just it.
Re:Well, don't use iTunes (Score:2, Insightful)
Pyramid schemes always do, for those that make it to the top of the pyramid. That's what makes them so insidious, and evil.
KFG
Apple takes careful aim.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Or maybe I am just a dreamer...
Of course... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is not bad for consumers in the short run.
And where do I (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean how many minutes will it be before a mod is available? Probably well under an hour when the right person gets the upgrade and loses a substattial part of their library!
Re:Well, don't use iTunes (Score:3, Insightful)
Good for you! (Not being sarcastic) If you don't like something don't buy it. That's the right attitude.
I, for example, love Apple products but bought a VAIO instead of an iBook because Apple caps the video out of the iBook at 1024x768 and the equivalent PowerBook was far too expensive. If Apple wants me to buy their hardware they'll have to do something about the price/feature match-up with their competition.
I will continue to use iTunes because I think it rocks. I think it's the best software of its kind.
Apple took a huge risk with their iTunes/iPod strategy -- lots of people I know laughed their heads off at the idea that people would *pay* to download music, and pay hundreds for an "mp3" player.
Apple has created a huge industry for itself, and if Real doesn't like it they should try and make a better product.
Someone may come along tomorrow with a product or service that will put Apple's music business in the toilet. It's way too soon for people like Real to be crying about monopolistic tactics. Apple's created their market and they're doing a great job nuturing it.
Sam
Re:I am pro-reverse engineering. (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly you wouldn't hold Apple responsible for the quality of Real's code would you? It's certainly not their fault if they recompile an executable and stuff doesn't work anymore.
It might not have deliberately broken a damn thing, other than shifted memory offsets, which will cause Real to have to disassemble the code and try to relocate.
Don't get me wrong, if Apple did it on purpose, then yeah, it's kind of shitty... but we have no way of knowing that they did.
-9mm-
Re:Thoughts (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple doesn't own those iPods, therefore they have exactly zero right to make any sort of modifications to them whatsoever.
It would be exactly the same thing if Apple modified that Sony NW-blahbX42fnordwhatever portable MP3 player to not be able to playback Real's tracks.
It's anti-competitive and pseudo-monopolistic (since iPods are more or less ubiquitous in the portable player market).
Don't be an Apple-apologist just because you're a rabid Apple fanboy.
brand loyalty (Score:3, Insightful)
i think this can be better phrased as: "nobody can stop them". sorry, but if our friends in redmond did something like this the
apple is using it's monopoly in the digital audio player market to maintain it's monopoly in the online digital music market. what if microsoft used it's monopoly in the OS business to maintain it's monopoly in the browser business? oh! wait that already happend.
the only difference here is that
Re:Fantasy world (Score:2, Insightful)
This is where I have the problem, not Apple wanting to sell more music. You can play any music you buy on it as long as you buy it from Apple. That would be like buying a Ford and having to buy gas only from a Ford authorized station, and if you go to a Chevy authorized station your car stops running.
Re:Thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like it, don't buy it.
If you buy something that works with WMA only, why should you expect them to allow you to play Real files or Fairplay AAC files?
This is Apple's platform (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think there's anyone out their who naively bought Real songs to put on their iPod. Anyone who's savvy enough to know it could be done had to know that eventually Apple was going to pull the plug.
Re:Great? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is their business model.
It is their choice.
You like it or you lump it.
Re:What about Hymn? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and about 80% of all the music on all iPods around the world instantly stops working (hint: mp3). Great business plan.
If you mean strictly AAC files, well, that wouldn't make much sense either, because any CD's you rip with iTunes are encoded by default as non-protected AAC files. So Apple'd be screwing their own customers with that strategy. (And of course iTunes is not the only AAC ripper, so even if they locked down iTunes and just decided to ignore everybody who ripped non-protected files with it to this point, they'd still have problems.)
They realistically cannot lock out non-protected content, unless they want their player to be rendered absolutely useless. What do you think happened to Sony all this time? It'd be even worse for Apple, because there's already so much non-protected content on iPods throughout the world - they'd have an outright revolt on their hands.
This, kids, is why DRM sucks, and no DRM is good. Honestly, why do people put up with this crap? Use MP3 and play it back on whatever the hell player you want. That's the way it should work, and that's the way it does work for those of us who refuse to host any DRM'd files on their PC's or music players.
Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:5, Insightful)
Obligated to refrain from taking antocompetitive [sic] measures in a market in which they are the dominant supplier
Umm, they have a good percentage of both the mp3 player and digital audio markets, but no monopoly in either. In any case, since when has it been illegal for a company to provide non-mandatory updates to the firmware of a device they create that prevents people from hacking around their DRM? If they refused to play non-protected files, I could see an argument. If they refused to play a competitors DRM, that they had at one time included I could see it as arguable. But refusing to play files masquerading as authenticated files from their own licensed system, well that does not bother me at all. Especially when that competitor is as shady as Real Networks.
Re:Of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the issue here is that people spend in excess of $250 on an ipod. Granted, Apple wants to make money selling songs, but first and foremost, it sells the hardware. When I buy hardware, I look for something I can use as I wish. I know there are millions who don't. That's sad. But I shouldn't have to buy a special music player for each different service in the world. I should be able to buy a single piece of hardware that will play music from all of them.
Here is how Apple is being evil - they are intentionally crippling their hardware to be incompatable with other services. For a hardware company, that's just wrong. Unfortunately, Apple is not solely a hardware company. But that can also be a weakness. Someday, a device will be made that looks nice and can connect to everything. I would think Ipods would lose their luster at that point and become cute little paperweights.
Re:Apple takes careful aim.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple's iPod plays all ITMS songs, as well as regular MP3s and can convert WMVs. If Real's site distributed music in a widely understandable format, then they wouldn't have had to worry about Apple updating firmware and breaking Harmony.
Further, we have no way of knowing that Apple intentionally broke Real's encoding. It is far more likely that they simply fixed another bug, or added some completely unrelated feature, and that just happened to break Real's hack. For all we know, the reason that Apple didn't want Real's hack to exist was for this very reason... if they break it, accidentally or not, they're held to blame for it. It might have been bad coding on Real's part that causes it to no longer work, but we certainly don't know, and I'm not holding Apple accountable for supporting Real's proprietary encoded DRM method.
-9mm-
Once again, completely wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The firmware updates will only stay within the specified operating parameters of the device. There is no parameter that requires supporting reverse-engineered DRM content from other sources.
Now if Apple removed the ability, for example, to play MP3s, then you might have a point.
But they didn't, and Apple isn't forcing anyone to update firmware, therefore you're completely wrong, whether I'm "fanboy" or not.
Thanks for playing.
Re:Thoughts (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee so Apple has the right to make you use there store if you BUY an IPOD! I can get the legally wrong comment but how is this so different from Microsoft making Windows 3.11 not work under DR-DOS?
Why you may make the argument that it is legal I do not feel that it is moral or ethical. It is called LOCK IN and that is never good for the end user. As to not buying another IPOD. This will pretty much make me not buy the first one.
online music store isn't really the issue (Score:4, Insightful)
the barrier to entry for consumers into the world of portable digital music is the music player, NOT the online music store. most people don't care how they might save 10 cents per track when they are faced with the decision of dropping $200+ on a digital player. they will decide which player is the best and if they want to buy music for it online, they will not complain that the said player only works with a limited number of online stores. (because all of them have about the same price, same songs, etc.) (proof: in the article, real says they sold 3 million tracks in 3 weeks they had "49 cent" half price sale. iTMS sells that much in a week and a half at 99 cents.)
iPod is the most popular/profittable player out there - and that is an open market. everyone is free to buy whatever the player they want. they will all work with standard electric outlets, most computers and most popular music formats. real is doing nothing but leeching off of iPod's success while giving not much in tangible benefit to the consumers, not to mention apple. if they really wanted to help the cause for the consumers, instead of hacking iPod DRM, they should be talking to music industry executives so that they can offer music without DRM.
Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Number one, this is old, since Microsoft Word was released eons ago.
Number two, Microsoft is under no obligation to support ANYONE else's DRM, period.
Unprotected
Microsoft is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong.
Re:Thoughts (Score:2, Insightful)
So? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm really curious why this is such a big deal. Apple made the device and the firmware (for a profit), Real reverse-engineered things to get their songs to play (for a profit), then Apple changes the iPod firmware not to play Real's songs (again, for a profit). If this is such a travesty and people are so upset, perhaps they should help Real reverse-engineer things again (so Real can make a profit). This just seems like a p*****g match between two competing companies, which in-and-of-itself isn't overly earth-shattering.
Then you're not going to be buying anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything, it _does_ show Apple's true color. Which is that they are just as any other big corporation and will resort to crippling one product to increase the sales of another product, and/or lock out a competitor. (don't be fooled, they deliberately removed the functionality, being perfectly aware of it)
So long as they are not a monopoly that's probably legal.
Have you considered anything else? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple may or may not have deliberately disabled Real's reverse engineering, but what if, for the sake of argument, some third party reverse engineered service became popular in some circles, and then was inadvertently broken due to updates in Apple's products, or because the parties responsible for reverse engineering aren't aware of Apple product and firmware roadmaps, etc.?
Then your answer is, well, they should just license to anyone, and make SDKs and whitepapers available regarding their implementation. Why? Who are you to say? It's their product. Furthermore, the tight iTunes(-only) and iPod integration - and the associated ridiculous ease of use - is one of Apple's biggest selling points for the combo. Why would they want to support anything that dilutes that?
If you don't want to support Apple because of it, fine. And their refusal to license may ultimately doom iPod to the same "fate" as Macintosh in the marketplace. But Apple isn't doing anything legally or morally wrong here; the only question is whether or not you want to support Apple for their decisions.
Re:Thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
People on slashdot conviently forget everything that Apple does that doesn't fit inside their small, incredibly inconsistent world view. I want people to take this story, mentally replace all occurances of Apple to MS, then tell me if this is even remotely consistent with slashdot posts. There are comments rated 5 saying that Apple has the right to do this. Hey guys and moderaters giving these posts points: where were you in the discussions about the dangers of a proprietary
The truth is that if MS did this with Word to mess up Staroffice, you'd all be up in arms for weeks complaining. And I wouldn't blame you at all - it would be a stupid, petty move from a company that is abusing its captive market. But when it comes from Apple, the wonderful word right appears, and you've saved yourselves from cognitive dissonance (as if having a right to do something made it desirable in any way, or somehow an acceptable path of action). Sure they can do this: are they assholes for doing so? Would you feel the same if another company did this? Apple has a history of acting like a business, which it is. Don't trick yourself into thinking that they're on your side against the big, bad, proprietary, stupid, plain, and evil PC orthodoxy. They're there to sell you computers.
I'd kill to see more posts where products were graded on one critera only: functionality as a computer. If you'd ask the people here, you'd think Windows 2000 or XP still crashed frequently (my brother and I leave our cpus on for months) and was prone to driver and software conflicts with nearly everything. Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux are all tools. Do you use a hammer when you need a screwdriver? No. Do you screws all the time, cursing those nails which are so damned hard to remove? No. You use them when you need them and the price is acceptable for the use. Computers are no different. Let's stop treating these products like absolutes and get more of those shades of grey back that are required for rational discussion.
Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to
(I will get modded as a troll for this by Apple zealots -you watch)
Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Not really. This is not Microsoft. Apple has not been declared a monopoly in any market (even if they were, it would only restrict how they enter NEW markets). There are no laws (at least in the US) against selling proprietary software/hardware. Just because they are the market leader doesn't mean they have to 'play nice'.
You CAN use any song from another service (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Once again, completely wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not unethical, either. You should know the risks involved with updating your firmware, whether it removes functionality or not.
Incidentally, the new features on most iPods aren't really worth downloading in any case. (And they usually stop updating the firmware of iPods that aren't the current generation. My 3G iPod no longer gets useful firmware updates.)
Good news, everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
What could possibly be sweeter to the anti-DRM market to have the DRM providers snipping at each others heels like dogs fighting over turf?
No amount of "waah, DRM bad!" whining is as effective as pointing to two DRM providers that are pissing on each other, saying "that's what you get with DRM -- companies that can't even figure it out amongst themselves." Even an RIAA toadie would have a hard time putting a positive spin on a move like this.
I, for one, welcome our new DRM turf-fighting warlords. (As long as they keep fighting...)
Re:I am pro-reverse engineering. (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't? Apple came out in July and said flat out that future upgrades to the ipod firmware will break Real's stuff.
And what's this about moving a memory offset? Apple didn't break Real's tools, they made the ipod recognize the minor differences between fairplay encoded AACs created by Apple and fairplay encoded AACs created by Real.
We're talking about changing code that previously said "yes, I've checked this file and it is a valid fairplay encoded AAC" to saying "nope.. this isn't valid". You don't do that on accident.
We don't know what specifically the ipod is using to differentiate between the two, but I'm sure that someone will reverse engineer the firmware update and find that it looks specifically for "Real" in the AAC headers or something similar.
The ipod isn't done until Real wont run.
Re:Screw Real (Score:3, Insightful)
That's only if you don't consider windows XP "a bunch of other crap"
Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:5, Insightful)
We bitched profusely when Yahoo blocked Trillian. We praise Apple for doing the exact same thing Yahoo did.
Re:brand loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's didn't target the hack, exactly. (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I think they looked at what Real did, realized that it was the result of a bug in the DRM code, and fixed.
Re:Thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, don't use iTunes (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, have to agree with parent (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll give you that the firmware update probably isn't as necessary to install as service packs. But usually firmware upgrades makes whatever device you apply them to run (significantly) better.
If Apple had choosen to make a seperate "don't-play-real-networks-mp3s-on-Ipod" upgrade, that did nothing else, then the situation would be different. But I bet you they bundled it with some significant gain of functionality, speed, etc. Thus the users are forced to apply the update to gain these benefits. As a side-effect one of Apple's competitors are locked out of the Ipods.
BTW the broken compatibility might just be a coincidence (In which case it is hard to blame Apple), but given the history of the whole affair, I don't think it is.
Apple has not done anything wrong, Real has. (Score:1, Insightful)
And seriously, could one single person give me a valid reason why they would want to buy a song from Real's music store, and not the iTunes Music Store? Now that the 49 cent promotion is over, I don't see a reason to stoop to such a level. The iTMS is clearly among the top music stores (many people insist it is the best), whereas the Real store can't even compete with Apple even when they are losing money on each sale. They boast selling 3 million songs during their promotion, but who cares? They took a million dollar debt or so for that, and did not even meet Apple's output with such competition.
Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, by that measure Microsoft was not Microsoft until they were declared a monopoly a couple of years ago in court. Ticketmaster hasn't been declared a monopoly; do you doubt that it is one?
Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:4, Insightful)
Look again.
Re:Thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of music players on the market, and plenty of options for buying music. Real could have every single one of its songs working on every iPod in the planet very easily if they simply dumped their DRM scheme. Problem solved. But they're trying to hack a competitor's proprietary system so that they can get their own proprietary system to work with it. That's bound to fail. Systems change, software gets updated, and eventual incompatibilities are almost guaranteed.
I own an iPod. And it's still just as functional as it was the day I got it. Near as I can tell, Apple is no closer to having an "Apple-approved-music-only" device than it was when it launched the iPod.
Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sure it's just as easy to break Real's hack on accident as on purpose (very easy most likely). As I saw in another post This update doesn't apply to all iPods. If Apple wanted to break this intentionally wouldn't they have come up with a reason for new updates for all the iPods out there?
Why can't anybody see the truth? (Score:5, Insightful)
The iPod is the single most open digital music device on the market today. It supports the playback of more audio formats than any other device like it. It supports AAC, MP3, Apple Lossless, AIFF, MP3 VBR, WAV and Audible. It also supports the DRM from the iTMS.
It does not support any other form of DRM, which is really what has Rob Glaser's panties in a bunch, as it won't support the Real DRM. So, he tries to convince everybody that his little stunt will "open up the iPod" when all it did was allow his DRM to be supported. He didn't introduce OGG, there's no WMA on there. It's a smoke screen that he's created to get everybody back onto his failing format. The only thing that Real has done is create a bunch of hoopla for every Apple hater out there to jump onto the bandwagon. He's opened up the iPod to his proprietary DRM and nothing else. Real fooled a lot of people into believing their hype in order to keep their company alive. They sell their AAC encoded, Real DRM'd files at a loss and get a bunch of naive people into their camp.
Now when Apple comes back and stops their product from breaking their licensing agreements that they set up with the labels, as they said they would, those naive people that thought they were getting a great deal are going to cry foul.
Re:Thoughts (Score:2, Insightful)
A more realistic analogy would have OO.org creating a way to falsify digital signatures used by a theoretical MS-owned .doc file authentication system, and then charging people for documents "secured" using these false signatures.
I don't think either of the two companies in the Apple/Real AAC dispute is doing anything legally or technically wrong but that doesn't make Real any less slimy. They're profiting from the exploitation of something they didn't create, don't own and haven't been granted permission to use. If Apple had released a GPL'd implementation of their AAC+DRM encoding system and Real was making money selling a closed-source application that incorporated that code, it's clear that many of the people supporting Real in this argument would be firmly on the other side. I don't see a substantive difference from an IP perspective between that theoretical case and the one at issue between Apple and Real today -- using someone's work without their permission is either okay or it isn't. If it isn't, then Real are out of line.
Lies, all Lies!! (Score:3, Insightful)
If they're MP3 Players they'd play all MP3 files since there's no DRM on MP3 files.
How quickly they forget. (Score:5, Insightful)
Think way back, a scant two years ago. The RIAA was basically dead set against any form of on-line selling of high quality music. The best that peope were doing legally was providing clips of songs to sell realspace media. Some companies were monkeying around with ideas like space shifting and library locking, but they were all at odds with the recording industry. That is, until Apple came along as a trusted partner and managed to seduce the recording industry into a compromise that everybody could live with.
What Apple did was to go to the music labels and say, "Look. We control the software on the PC, we control the store, and we control the iPod. We can make it safe for you to sell inexpensively on-line by putting modest limits on what users can do, but making it difficult to leave the reservation with high quality recording. You sell recordings, we sell iPods, and you don't even have to ship CDs. We all win, because people want to buy if prices are reasonable, and we can do that while making sure that you don't have to worry about getting ripped off on a massive scale."
What Real does by selling music into Apple's scheme, without entering into a licensing agreement with Apple, is suddenly endanger the whole position that Apple has with the record companies. Suddenly another unconnected corporation is pissing in Apple's pond - and worse, they're themselves engaging in anticompetitive practices (the $0.49 song dumping they tried to use to undercut Apple), trying to splice their own proprietary system into Apple's infrastructure!
In Apple's place, I'd be pissed too. They went to a lot of trouble to reassure the RIAA and find a balance that would profit everybody, in an arena in which the recording industry wasn't at all sure they could prosper in the first place. Real is coming along and trying to disrupt that as much as possible - of course Apple's going to fight back.
Refusing to raise Real's cuckoo's eggs isn't even close to unreasonable.
Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:2, Insightful)
The REAL naughty thing Apple did... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody needs DRM to sell music on their store. Remember that the people going to the online stores are paying for something they know they can get for free. DRM hasn't made anybody go to the store, the customers' sense of ethics and moral standing did. The recording companies know that the DRM being used in stores is easily circumvented. So not only are the DRM schemes used in stores unnecessary, the people pushing for them know they don't work.
There is absolutely NO reason to use DRM in media files, from the point of view of all stakeholders. It doesn't even put a dent in piracy. So why bother?
Eventually the entertainment industry will realize that DRM is pointless. When all the negotiating was underway, it was a concession Apple made to launch the store. And now that the store is in place, it would cost more money for them to rip out the DRM then it would be to just leave it be.
Really, what do you want Apple to do, support MORE DRM? I actually am GLAD Apple broke Real's scheme for getting DRM on the iPod. Less DRM is better. 1 DRM format working instead of 2 is better. Ultimately 0 is best, but that will take the entertainment industry swallowing their pride enough to take off the blinders and let DRM die; and Apple deciding it's worth developer time and money to rip out the DRM code.
So until that time we have HYMN and tools like it to liberate the data and Apple keeping all the other DRM formats at bay. At least on their turf. It's not ideal but it's better than what would happen if DRM had even the teeniest bit more traction.
Extremely nothing to see here, come on! (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple updated its iPod firmware and Real got locked out again. Big deal, they've been told. I might not think this very nice, but that's the way it is.
BUT IT TOOK PEOPLE ONE MONTH AND A HALF TO FIND OUT!
So get real here, where are the victims of Apple's anti-social behaviour, where are the duped customers??????
The real news - if any - is that apparently Real has at least one (1) iPod customer, the person who found out a 50 days after the fact that his song(s?) is locked out.
His Jobsness has told everybody who wants to hear it that if there are compelling reasons to do so, he'd open up his DRM scheme. Well, that may seem very anti-social, but not more than every other company does or tries to do and when all is said and done, I guess at the Real side of things, there aren't that much compelling reasons to be found.
But go ahead and "don't ever buy Apple". Say no to Monopolists. Shees, which high definition DVD format are you going to boycot? Are you faithful to Betamax still? How's your 8-track doing?