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.
What about Hymn? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would assume it's broken since I figured Real used some of the code from this app. But the article does not say, and there is no news on the Hymn site (lterally, some kind of server error).
Re:What about Hymn? (Score:5, Informative)
Since there's no DRM in a file that's been run through Hymn, there's no reason they shouldn't still work.
Re:What about Hymn? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What about Hymn? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about Hymn? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about Hymn? (Score:5, Informative)
1. The iPod will play unprotected AAC and MP3 files.
2. Hymn produces unprotected AAC files.
For Apple to disable the ability for the iPod to play files produces with Hymn, they would ostensibly have to either (1) remove unprotected AAC playback or (2) (a) watermark their AAC files prior to encryption and (b) update the iPod firmware to check for such a watermark for unprotected AAC files before playing.
However such a watermark would likely be a prime target for a reverse engineering and removal tool, hey why don't we just build it into Hymn in the first place?
Besides, updating iTunes, Quicktime, FairPlay, and iPod software from Apple doesn't force the end-user to update that software on any or all of their machines. So the most Apple could really hope for with the best possible solution would be to create an un-removable watermark (very, very, very hard), non-trickable FairPlay libraries (somewhat hard but then again it seems they're not really trying at this point), and even then there would be huge gaping holes w.r.t. the million or so songs already downloaded without the watermark technology.
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.
That's another good question... (Score:2)
I can possibly answer my own question myself (if they have the update for the original iPod, which I think they might). But I dislike the thought of paying Real anything even for a test...
More from the standpoint of simply not liking Real, than thinking they are doing anything wrong in this case. I fully support Real's attempt to try and create protected AAC files.
"comprehensive plan" (Score:5, Funny)
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.
The reason why the story is old (Score:5, Funny)
(In related news, that was also the first person to actually use Harmony to buy a song!)
Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:5, Insightful)
How many people remember:
DOS isn't done 'till Lotus won't run.
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:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:5, Interesting)
Your numbers sound suspicious. I was quoting Bloomberg. They claim apple at 80% hardware MP3 players for 2004 and 70% over the last 3 years. Apple does use a closed DRM format, but the DRM can be legally removed, unlike with WMD. The format itself is open, and the player supports a good half dozen open formats. If the firmware update was intended to break Real's hack, why did they not release it for all players, instead of about half of them? Most likely, this is just Real's hack breaking, which is not surprising since it is an unsupported format masquerading as Apple's licensed files. If you sold something and a company renowned for shady business practices and installing spyware started selling products that were similar to your, and claimed you would support them despite your making public statements to the contrary, I'm sure you would not give a rat's ass if their crap broke.
Basically, Apple is not a monopoly, and even if they were, they have not used that to move into any other markets. MS on the other hand is a monopoly, and has used it to both take over other markets, and to force competitors out of business. Some of my favorite software was made by companies MS bought and killed to prevent them from competing with them.
P.S. this release came out a while ago, it's just that no one was stupid enough to buy files from Real, so no one noticed till now that they don't work.
Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:3, Funny)
(sorry)
Re:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:4, Insightful)
Look again.
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 n
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:3, Interesting)
Speaking of them as the "dominant supplier"...
A while back, Apple claimed they made basically no profit on iTMS, and only kept it going to boost sales of iPods.
Having Real support the iPod would only increase sales thereof, while the possibility of decreasing sales at no profit via iTMS should not matter at all ("We lose a penny per sale, but we make it up in volume!"
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:Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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: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 re
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
Re:brand loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:3, Interesting)
I buy tracks from iTMS, and the licensing doesn't get in my way. I don't pay for individual Word documents. I pay for a program to create those docs. I see a hole in your analogy.
Re:Thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
Number two, Apple is under no obligation to support ANYONE else's DRM, period.
I'm all for free business, but that also involves customers being able to freely take their business elsewhere. This basically is a lock-in tactic tieing you to the itms if you have an ipod.
Apple can't have it both ways. If they intend to use the ipod to drive sales of the itunes music store, then yes, drm it all y
Re:Thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)
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 firmwa
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:Thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Then you're not going to be buying anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Once again the user gets screwed. (Score:3, Interesting)
So is Real going to refund the money that was spent on music that was "compatible" with the Ipod?
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.
Re:I am pro-reverse engineering. (Score:2)
Re:I am pro-reverse engineering. (Score:2)
Apple's move isn't about helping their customers. It's about stifling competition from Real. Competition is good for customers and if Apple were really pro-customer they'd modify iTMS to address its disadvantages to Real's offering.
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: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:I am pro-reverse engineering. (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't you be pissed if you had to go to the dealership to get your windshield washer fluid?
They're being protectionist dickheads with a $400 music player, no two ways around it. You can try to placate yourself any way you want but this behavior is exactly what slashdotters rail against every day.
Re:I am pro-reverse engineering. (Score:2)
I don't see why people keep targeting Apple's DRM and not all the WMA stuff out there.
Crack Apple's DRM, you get to listen to the songs you already paid for in the program and OS of your choice.
Crack MS' DRM, you get to listen to any song you want for a small subscription fee.
Clear advantage in cracking a subscription based DRM. Why isn't
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.
And yet again, consumers lose (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And yet again, consumers lose (Score:3, Interesting)
May I inquire why it should matter who you bought the music from as long as you own it?
It should not, which is why music formats and DRM should be open standards. Unfortunately, MS is in the process of embracing the digital music industry with yet more illegal bundling. As the industry stands right now, the music seller is responsible for providing support and authentication for your digital music. Real just tried to make Apple do it for them, free of cost and Apple shot them down. If Apple does not
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple takes careful aim.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Or maybe I am just a dreamer...
Fantasy world (Score:2)
So you should be able to play your 8 track tapes on your cd player?
What's that? You mean you'd have to convert the media format to do that? What's stopping you from doing that with your Real purchased tracks?
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 you
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,
Of course... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is not bad for consumers in the short run.
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
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!
We remember. (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple didn't support Quicktime for Linux.
New firmware: (Score:2)
if (realnetworks_file && 30_day_money_back_expired) {
remove_ability_to_play_file();
}
way to go Apple!
I don't get it... (Score:2)
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.
What? (Score:2)
But why would Apple think I want them to take a feature OUT of something I already bought? Firmware updates should fix stuff and give me new features, but under no circumstances do I want them to REMOVE functionality that I once had.
Re:What? (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory GEB quote (Score:4, Interesting)
Achilles: Naturally, I suposse you disagreed.
Tortoise: True, but he would hear nothing of my arguments. He staunchly maintained that any sound whatever was reproducible on his machine. Since I couldn't convince him of the contrary, I left it at that. But not long after that, I returned the visit, taking with me a record of a song which I had myself composed. The song was called "I Cannot Be Played on Record Player 1".
Achiles: Rather unusual. Was it a present for the Crab?
Tortoise: Absolutely. I suggested that we listen toit on his new phonograph, and he was very glad to oblige me. So he put it on. But unfortunately, after only a few notes, the record player began vibrating rather severely, and then with a loud "pop", broke into a large number of fairly small pieces, scattered all about the room. The record was utterly destroyed also, needless to say.
Achiles: Calamitous blow for the poor fellow, I'd say. What was the matter with this record player?
Tortoise: Really, there was nothing the matter, nothing at all. It simply couldn't reproduce the sounds on the record which I had brought him, because they were sounds that would make it vibrate and break.
(More is here [geocities.com]. Buy the book, those dialogues are really fun to read, even if you are scared by the remaining parts of the book.)
The Apple vs. Real battle will be fun to watch, and of course, Apple has no chance of winning within the system. We'll see when Apple realizes this, steps out of the system, and sues Real.
Anyone notice... (Score:2)
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.
We are all collateral damage to them (Score:2)
Here's what I recommend Apple, Real, MPAA, RIAA: Go fuck yourselves, but first go to Home Depot get some sharp tools and fucking kill each other with them. Then, when one of you is standing proud and aroused amidst the gore on pile of children's skulls, we'll talk to you, whoeverthefuck you are. Until then PGFY (please go fuck
When all else fails, screw the customer. (Score:2)
You CAN use any song from another service (Score:3, Insightful)
angry Real customers (Score:3, Funny)
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.
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.
Sounds like BS (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re:Well, don't use iTunes (Score:2)
Re:Well, don't use iTunes (Score:2)
You can use daap to share music without itunes. An excellent (very fast, faster than itunes) daap server is can be found here [sourceforge.net]
And there are plenty of clients... you can even get gnome-vfs-daap and browse itunes music shares with nautilus (or anything that uses gnomevfs)
iTunes has absolutely zero to do with this (Score:3, Insightful)
So take your "I hate iTunes" troll elsewhere.
Re:Well, don't use iTunes (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Well, don't use iTunes (Score:3, Insightful)
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 contin
Re:Well, don't use iTunes (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a difference between what is supported and what is possible [rutemoeller.com].
Re:Don't you just... (Score:2)
No. The advertised functionality is still there. The third-rate hack from a third-party company is not supported, and it was never intended to be supported.
And when the next 999,999 people join me, it will happen!
If you can find even 20% that many actually using Harmony, I'll buy you a coke when you visit Thule AFB.
Re:Don't you just... (Score:5, Informative)
Um, no, they didn't. First of all, read this [slashdot.org]. Second, the iPod doesn't support DRM content from anyplace other than Apple. Even if Apple intentionally disabled it, Real cannot predict legitimate changes that might be made to the product or the DRM technology that might break it. And guess what? Real's trickery reflects poorly on APPLE. If they're so concerned about getting their music on iPods, maybe they should be the champion of DRM-free music, eh? After all, non-DRMed music in numerous formats plays on the iPod just fine. Real's whole reverse-engineering house of cards was built on shaky ground to begin with. As for the issue of DRM in general, the iTunes Music Store and quite possibly some of the success of the iPod wouldn't exist today if Apple hadn't allowed for SOME DRM in their store. Apple made it as invisible as it could, and also, Apple's product win is the tight integration between iTunes, the iPod, etc. It's their right to treat their products as they see fit. And if this really concerns you that much, then yes, by all means, don't buy any more iPods.
Re:Don't you just... (Score:2)
Which advertised function do you base this claim on? Apple has never claimed that its iPod product would play RealMedia files.
Re:Don't you just... (Score:2)
I would like to see a logical explanation of why someone who either bought an iPod for the purpose of playing RealMedia files or bought RealMedia files for the purpose of playing them on an iPod decided to do so.
The advantage to the firmware is that it removes the temptations to violate your iTunes or iPod end-user license agreement. As the iPod runs software, it is subject to licensing terms. As iTunes music is
Re:Don't you just... (Score:2)
And you bought Real's music anyway. More fool you.
Re:Legality of Harmony (Score:2)
The ipod belongs to the owner who paid for the device. Not to Apple. If you want to load Real content on it or if you want to store your Microsoft XP home directory on there, you should be able to do whatever you want to do.
Re:Great? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is their business model.
It is their choice.
You like it or you lump it.
Re:This is deplorable (Score:2)
Re:Screw Real (Score:3, Insightful)
That's only if you don't consider windows XP "a bunch of other crap"
No no no... Fuck Real (Score:3, Interesting)