SEATTLE (AP) - RealNetworks Inc. (RNWK) says it has created technology that allows songs purchased through its online music services to be played on Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL)'s popular iPod player, just a few months after complaining that Apple was rebuffing attempts to form an alliance.
In an interview Friday, RealNetworks chief executive Rob Glaser said he did not know how Apple would react to the new technology. Apple, based in Cupertino, Calif., did not return numerous phone calls from The Associated Press seeking comment.
Glaser said the new system, called Harmony Technology, will let people securely transfer music bought using RealNetworks' music download services to an iPod or virtually any other portable music player.
Previously, music purchased through RealNetworks' music download services could most easily be played on devices that supported its copyright protection technology. By the same token, the easiest way to get digital music onto the iPod player was through Apple's iTunes Music Store, which uses its own system. The same held true for devices that supported Microsoft's Windows Media Player anti-piracy technology.
Microsoft said it could not immediately comment on the system.
Glaser said the new the system works by essentially translating the various anti-piracy technologies, to make the players' systems compatible with RealNetworks' system. RealNetworks said it was not concerned that the system would be illegal.
"We are making it so that consumers can buy music once and play it anywhere," Glaser said.
A test version of Harmony will be available Tuesday on Real's Web site.
Full Story: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040726/D842707G0.html (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040726/D842707G0.html)
Sounds like it's a program for talking to the iPod, similar to iTunes, which will transcode from whatever format Real is selling to some format that the iPod supports. It might even transcode to a protected AAC format, if they're serious about security. Then they just store the key on the iPod and voila, it'll play. Easy enough to do.
RealNetworks said it was not concerned that the system would be illegal.
Cool, that means we could finally distribute some Real copyrighted material too (like the RealVideo codec in the Matroska Pack).
Real already uses AAC in its online store (licensed Coding Technologies implementation), they only need to transmux the stream from their RA container to apples M4P container.
Well this is really interesting because, Real Files, in order to be playable in the iPod would:
- Be muxed into Apple's m4p format (which has already been cracked)
- Be muxed into a regular mp4 (which would make it cross-plataform)
So, if there is no option three, wouldn't we be able to play these tunes in linux either way?
If that's true it would be great news for people who would like to buy music online without buying an iPod or using iTMS
Well this is really interesting because, Real Files, in order to be playable in the iPod would:
- Be muxed into Apple's m4p format (which has already been cracked)
- Be muxed into a regular mp4 (which would make it cross-plataform)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=229054"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Assuming that they also use AES encryption in their format, they'll probably go with the M4P method. The upshot of this is that it requires the decryption key to be stored in a special file on the iPod itself, in order for the iPod to play it. This could be a problem, because if you try and, say, play the M4P using iTunes, it will not only not play, it'll talk to Apple's server, try to get a key, fail, and still not play. Alternatively, they may leave the thing in "RM" format and simply fake the headers enough to fool the iPod into playing it as if it was an M4P. This is possible, although I think the iPod may rely on the extension in this case and so that might not work.
If they go with the second method, and create an M4A file, then it's not encrypted at all and you're golden.
interesting news indeed
from my point of view i cant imagine that this new tool will create unprotected .mp4 files
As you know, the RealNetworks music store sells songs in 192 kbps AAC (as opposed to iTMS at 128 kbps). When transferring your purchased songs to the iPod, the AAC itself is not touched, but the Helix DRM is transmuxed to a DRM that is compatible with the iPod, i.e. fully protected and without trans-coding. If you then transfer the file back to your PC (for instance with Anapod), you get an M4P file, that is a protected MPEG-4 AAC file.
I did not work on this myself, I work with video codecs, but this is how you will see it works, after 5 minutes of testing, and is how the press release describes it as well, in less technical terms.
cool stuff (as long as something like drm can be cool )
why did real not simply use the same drm system as apple, right from the beginning? does real have plans to change to selling .m4p by default?
interoperability is always a good thing
Hopefully this will put pressure on Apple to up the bitrate for the iTMS
Friends, this is a sad story... There are just too many audio formats, and way too many protection schemes. They all seem to have a strong foothold. The battle may wage for years, but sooner or later someone (probably me) is going to get BetaMaxed!! God help us.
As you know, the RealNetworks music store sells songs in 192 kbps AAC (as opposed to iTMS at 128 kbps). When transferring your purchased songs to the iPod, the AAC itself is not touched, but the Helix DRM is transmuxed to the DRM used by the iPod, i.e. fully protected and without trans-coding. If you then transfer the file back to your PC (for instance with Anapod), you get an M4P file, that is a protected MPEG-4 AAC file.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=229181"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's pretty much what I figured. However, you do realize that the key must be on the iPod too, correct? I mean, it'll be just as easy for something that breaks the Apple Fairplay protections to now break your protections, since you're transmuting the DRM methodology from one to the other.
Karl, can you comment on whether Harmony gets a userkey from an authorized iTunes install, gets a userkey from Apple's servers (http://nanocrew.net/blog/apple/fairkeys.html), or generates a new userkey?
Btw, where do I send the invoice?
I noticed something very interesting on the news release. It stated that now REAL will be able to be played on a variety of MP3 players, including the iPod, where previously the only compatible player was the Creative Nomad Zen Xtra. REAL uses 192 kbps AAC right? Since when can the Nomad Xtra play AAC, or REAL files????
Anyway, this is great news for iPod owners, assuming the integration with the iPod is seamless. 192 AAC should be terrific quality, although I have not used REAL's store as of yet.
You can now download the beta here:
http://www.real.com/harmony (http://www.real.com/harmony)
No Mac OS X version sadly.
Sean
You can now download the beta here:
http://www.real.com/harmony (http://www.real.com/harmony)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=229324"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For your information:
RealNetworks Statement about Harmony Technology and Creating Consumer Choice
Real is delighted by initial consumer and music industry support for Harmony. Compatibility, choice and quality are critically important to consumers and Harmony provides all of these to users of the iPod and over 70 other music devices including those from Creative, Rio, iRiver, and others. RealPlayer Music Store provides the highest sound quality of any download music service. That's why so many consumers have welcomed news of Harmony. Consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod.
Harmony follows in a well established tradition of fully legal, independently developed paths to achieve compatibility. There is ample and clear precedent for this activity, for instance the first IBM compatible PCs from Compaq. Harmony creates a way to lock content from Real's music store in a way that is compatible with the iPod, Windows Media DRM devices, and Helix DRM devices. Harmony technology does not remove or disable any digital rights management system. Apple has suggested that new laws such as the DMCA are relevant to this dispute. In fact, the DMCA is not designed to prevent the creation of new methods of locking content and explicitly allows the creation of interoperable software.
We remain fully committed to Harmony and to giving millions of consumers who own portable music devices, including the Apple iPod, choice and compatibility.
also on yahoo (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040729/sfth065_1.html)
I grabbed a copy of the Harmony beta the other day. It works, but is a bit confusing to use, to some degree.
Note that the iPod software isn't built in, you have to download a plugin for it to work. It's pretty easy to get the plugin right in the software itself though.
I'd like the new RealPlayer better if they'd lose the ugly interface. I don't need all my windows to be curved and skinned and such, thank you. A simple normal window with a box design would be fine by me. The skinning slows everything down and makes it hard to use. It's one of the reasons I dislike iTunes.
It appears to support smart playlists, although I didn't test that thoroughly. It may be a fakey kind of support.
I didn't feel like buying a song from Real to test out that aspect. It'd be nice if they had a free song available I could test with. iTunes have the free song of the week, which comes in handy for that sort of thing.
Hopefully this will put pressure on Apple to up the bitrate for the iTMS
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=229191"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Note that Apple's AAC encoder is a lot better than Real's. I wouldn't be so sure that Real offers higher quality files until I see it tested.
@karl: You probably can't comment on that, but if you can...
Any threats from Apple so far?
Good luck to Real for that ! I hope they will win in the end.
BTW, "Helix DRM devices"... Does that mean the DRM system is open-source or at least available to any OS supported by Helix ? That would be really cool.
This (http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040729-4051.html) is on various news media around the 'net:
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.
@karl: You probably can't comment on that, but if you can...
Any threats from Apple so far? :)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=230076")
[a href="http://news.com.com/Apple+fires+back+at+RealNetworks+'hack'/2100-1041_3-5288378.html]Apple Real Mad[/url]
Apple seems pretty upset, they acused Real of using "tactics and ethics of a hacker" (pretty harsh words to company that they had planned to form an alliance with). Anyways Apple says that they plan to block Real's Harmony access to the iPod in future iPod and iTunes updates.
Hacker is not an odd word in the computing+dev world.
IIRC, Real offered Apple cooperation to allow this to work in a friendlier manner. But they refused because of their large monopoly. Now Real probably don't break the DCMA (which only apply to USAns anyway), so good luck to Apple.
IIRC, Real offered Apple cooperation to allow this to work in a friendlier manner. But they refused because of their large monopoly.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230084"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
AFAIK Apple has about 70% of the online music market, which hardly makes them a monopoly. Yet.
Apple seems pretty upset, they acused Real of using "tactics and ethics of a hacker" (pretty harsh words to company that they had planned to form an alliance with). Anyways Apple says that they plan to block Real's Harmony access to the iPod in future iPod and iTunes updates.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230082"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Making publicity about it will only impact their sales
I'm not a big fan of Real's software but I'm taking their side on this issue. People should be able to put whetever they want on their iPod.
this mess is caused because mpeg wasnt fast enough to develop their drm system
if it would have been far earlier available, i am sure apple would have used it and this incompatibility problems would be somehow obsolete and every company not following iso standards could be easily blamed
Legal ramifications aside, what's Apple huffing and puffing for? The can't possibly be afraid that they will lose the couple of pennies they make on each iTMS song to Real.
The way I see it, having other services that allow transfer of music to the iPod will only sell more iPods. If the iPod could play WMA music, for example, it would work with just about any service out there, which would (probably) increase sales of Ipods. Does this make any sense?
Does this make any sense?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230114"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For control freaks like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, yes.
this mess is caused because mpeg wasnt fast enough to develop their drm system
I do not think that developing a DRM system would fit in the current mpeg scopes. Specifying parts that could be used as a PORTION of a drm system, probably.
Thanks for everyone's support, including this long thread (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/04/07/29/1425246.shtml?tid=176&tid=141) on slashdot!
I noticed something very interesting on the news release. It stated that now REAL will be able to be played on a variety of MP3 players, including the iPod, where previously the only compatible player was the Creative Nomad Zen Xtra. REAL uses 192 kbps AAC right? Since when can the Nomad Xtra play AAC, or REAL files????
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=229277"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have been told there is a firmware update for the Zen Xtra available from Real, that includes AAC. However, this is only AAC wrapped in RM. You will have to ask Creative why they are not offering AAC for everyone...
Hopefully this will put pressure on Apple to up the bitrate for the iTMS
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=229191"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Note that Apple's AAC encoder is a lot better than Real's. I wouldn't be so sure that Real offers higher quality files until I see it tested.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230073"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I encourage anyone who has
any doubt whether 192 kbps AAC from the Coding Technologies encoder Real licensed, has higher sound quality than that of 128 kbps AAC from iTunes, to test for themselves. It is very easy:
- RealPlayer and Helix Producer both come with free AAC encoding at all bitrates, encode your own test songs
- Or purchase the same song from both stores and compare.
if it would have been far earlier available, i am sure apple would have used it and this incompatibility problems would be somehow obsolete and every company not following iso standards could be easily blamed
But if the DRM would be a ISO standard, everybody would know how it works and it could be easily decrypted (just like apple´s DRM can be decrypted already with hymn/fairplay)
That would mean if you can DRM-transmux Real´s DRM into Apple´s DRM you can also decrypt it to plain un-DRMed mp4.
But for me this is no option, since in Germany iTunes is the only available online music store. And I would never buy Music that is DRMed. I already bought one song with iTunes, decrypted with hymn, plays perfect in foobar2000 (and of course every other mp4-supporting player).
But even if I could use the Real Store, is the quality really better? (Remember this) (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128v2/plot12z.png) You cannot say RealVideo 10 400kbps and Indeo 5 600kbps, 600kbps is higher, so quality is better. Roberto´s test showed Real didn´t licensed the best technology. I still do not understand why they didn´t have used Vorbis, it would have cost them nothing at all! Of course the difference RV10 / Indeo5 is much bigger than between those two AAC codecs, it would be interesting to have a "Music Store Listening Test", to compare the used codecs at the used bitrate/settings in the music store.
But I´ll first start using internet music stores regulary when a) lossless compression is used, b) no DRM and c) acceptable price (99 cent one song is far too much).
this mess is caused because mpeg wasnt fast enough to develop their drm system
I do not think that developing a DRM system would fit in the current mpeg scopes. Specifying parts that could be used as a PORTION of a drm system, probably.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230134"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
dont they work on drm already?
Does this make any sense?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230114"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It sort of does, because:
- Apple is free to deny Real a license to use their DRM system.
- If Apple updates the DRM system in a way that kills Real's unlicensed implementation, who will get the angry costumer calls or the returned iPods because 'it cannot play my tunes'.
I didn't feel like buying a song from Real to test out that aspect. It'd be nice if they had a free song available I could test with. iTunes have the free song of the week, which comes in handy for that sort of thing.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230072"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good idea. I have forwarded in the right direction.
I have been told there is a firmware update for the Zen Xtra available from Real, that includes AAC. However, this is only AAC wrapped in RM. You will have to ask Creative why they are not offering AAC for everyone...
That is pretty cool for Nomad Zen Xtra owners - 3 compressed file formats handles by the player (MP3, WMA, AAC wrapped in RM).
- If Apple updates the DRM system in a way that kills Real's unlicensed implementation, who will get the angry costumer calls or the returned iPods because 'it cannot play my tunes'.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230144"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think Real would get these calls, they are the ones promising the tunes will work. Many companies now will not take back opened electronics anyway, unless there is a manufacturing defect.
It's quite possible the result of such a test would be: undecided
How can you say that? This is a listening test testing Apple's and Real's AAC at 128kbps
only. Now you try to compare 128kbps Apple AAC with 192kbps Real AAC. You can't extrapolate and you can't make any other conclusions from this test. And I thought at least here at HA you should have a proper listening test or at least some ABX results before making such a claim.
I'm confused. Doesn't RealPlayer 10 and iTunes use the exact same codec when creating AAC files; only the container is different?
I'm confused. Doesn't RealPlayer 10 and iTunes use the exact same codec when creating AAC files; only the container is different?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=230736")
No.
From: [a href="http://www.codingtechnologies.com/news/index.htm#]Coding Technologies | news[/url]
January 07, 2004: RealNetworks Licenses Technology and Software from Coding Technologies for MPEG-4 AAC / aacPlus.
more (http://www.codingtechnologies.com/news/assets/2004/20040107_real_eng.htm) >> | mehr >> (http://www.codingtechnologies.com/news/assets/2004/20040107_real_ger.htm)
>> full press release as pdf in english (http://www.codingtechnologies.com/news/assets/2004/20040107_real_eng.pdf) | german (http://www.codingtechnologies.com/news/assets/2004/20040107_real_ger.pdf) | swedish (http://www.codingtechnologies.com/news/assets/2004/20040204_real_swe.pdf)
Could you have possibly confused the meaning of Codec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec)?
Apple - MPEG-4 (http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/)
"The AAC codec in QuickTime 6 builds upon new, state-of-the art signal processing technology from Dolby Laboratories and brings true variable bit rate (VBR) audio encoding to QuickTime." from Apple - MPEG-4 - AAC Audio (http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/aac/) (for whatever that is worth)
I believe Apple's AAC encoder was developed in-house, but I'm far from being the expert. I'd be surprised if the answer had not been discussed at least once at HA though.
Hope this helps, tec
Real and Apple use the same compressed music format or 'codec' format: in both cases AAC, but the actual encoders doing the compression to this format are supplied by different providers. It is my understanding Apple licensed theirs from Dolby and did in-house tuning. Real licensed from Coding Technologies, which based theirs on code from Fraunhofer, the main inventors of AAC. In essence, the format is interoperable, meaning that any AAC decoder can interpret both, but the DRM protection is not. Real uses Helix DRM, while Apple uses what is called FairPlay. Real was able to create a method to transmux the Helix DRM protection losslessly to a DRM that is compatible with the DRM used by the iPod. In practice this means that you can purchase an AAC file from the Real Music store at the highest bitrate available from any music store, 192 kbps AAC, and load it onto your iPod, without any loss in quality, since RealPlayer 10.5 with Harmony technology is able to interoperate with the protection scheme used by the iPod portable music players. What will happen is a simple transmux operation from one DRM scheme to another, without any loss in audio quality.
only the container is different?
next to what karl lillevold said, also the container is different
the aac audio format is defined in the mpeg-4 standard, and the mpeg-4 standard also defines the container format, which is also known as .mp4/.m4a
aple uses the official mpeg-4 container format
real uses its own .ra container, so this is also harming the interoperability
only the container is different?
next to what karl lillevold said, also the container is different
the aac audio format is defined in the mpeg-4 standard, and the mpeg-4 standard also defines the container format, which is also known as .mp4/.m4a
aple uses the official mpeg-4 container format
real uses its own .ra container, so this is also harming the interoperability
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230772"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not quite true. The default container format when encoding in AAC in RealPlayer 10 is the official mpeg-4 container format (M4A), fully interoperable and standards-compliant. Only in the first beta of RealPlayer 10 long ago, did it output in RA, because the M4A support was not yet completed.
Not quite true. The default container format when encoding in AAC in RealPlayer 10 is the official mpeg-4 container format (M4A), fully interoperable and standards-compliant. Only in the first beta of RealPlayer 10 long ago, did it output in RA, because the M4A support was not yet completed
of course, but we were mainly talking about drm (meaning files from the music stores), and there it shouldnt be forgotten that the container also causes incompatibilities
its indeed good that realplayer by default rips to .mp4
bond: you are right. when music stores add DRM on top of any container format, interoperability is generally lost. For instance, before RealPlayer 10.5 introduced Harmony, iPod users were forced to use only one music store.
Sorry for the dumb questions, but:
1. How do you get your Harmony-purchased music into iTunes?
2. How can you burn your Harmony-puchased music to CD?
3. Can you mix Harmony and iTunes Music Stores music on the same CD?
4. Does Harmony work on Macs?
Frank
1. By somehow circumventing the its DRM.
2. Using Real Player.
3. If you get them to same burning program.
Sorry for the dumb questions, but:
1. How do you get your Harmony-purchased music into iTunes?
2. How can you burn your Harmony-puchased music to CD?
3. Can you mix Harmony and iTunes Music Stores music on the same CD?
4. Does Harmony work on Macs?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230892"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
1. You can't. Well.. That's not entirely true. If you use Harmony to send the purchased music to an iPod, you can then use a program who's name I will not mention as it's against the rules here. This program will produce unencrypted M4A files, which you can then use in iTunes or anywhere else. The program was created to convert iTunes Music Store purchased music, but it will work with Real's Helix DRM after Harmony converts it to FairPlay DRM. How to get it to work is not exactly obvious, however.
Without this method, it cannot be done, yet. You can't get the DRM key into the iTunes keyring, so iTunes cannot play the resulting M4P files. I think. I admit that I have not tried this yet.
2. Using Real's software.
3. I believe RealPlayer/Harmony can read iTunes purchased music as well, so you can bring everything into Real and burn it from there.
4. I think they have a Mac version on the way, if it's not released yet.
Real was able to create a method to transmux the Helix DRM protection losslessly to a DRM that is compatible with the DRM used by the iPod. In practice this means that you can purchase an AAC file from the Real Music store at the highest bitrate available from any music store, 192 kbps AAC, and load it onto your iPod, without any loss in quality, since RealPlayer 10.5 with Harmony technology is able to interoperate with the protection scheme used by the iPod portable music players. What will happen is a simple transmux operation from one DRM scheme to another, without any loss in audio quality.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230752"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Karl,
Glad to see a representative from Real participating on the forum and I hope Harmony is a huge success. I was wondering if you could give some more details as to how AAC files with Helix DRM are translated into protected WMA files. I'm assuming that this would not be a lossess process but rather an additional re-compression/re-encoding step since a different codec is involved. Thanks!
Glad to see a representative from Real participating on the forum and I hope Harmony is a huge success. I was wondering if you could give some more details as to how AAC files with Helix DRM are translated into protected WMA files. I'm assuming that this would not be a lossess process but rather an additional re-compression/re-encoding step since a different codec is involved. Thanks!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230928"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks. If you have a WMA capable device, you are right, the only possibility is a full transcode. This is a lossy process. You can however decide which WMA bitrate to use, up to 192 kbps. Since both transmuxing and transcoding can be time-consuming, both for the AAC lossless transmux to iPod and AAC transcode to WMA, there is an option for RealPlayer to cache the converted files, so sub-sequent transfers to the device are much faster.
1. By somehow circumventing the its DRM.
2. Using Real Player.
3. If you get them to same burning program.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230895"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the answers. It seems that to the average user, who probably can't tell the difference between 128kbps and 192kbs, it's somewhat of a nuisance to deal with Harmony songs if they are keeping their music library and playlists in iTunes, and burn CDs from iTunes.
There seems to be no advantage, and a bunch of hassles, to go with Harmony for most consumers. Unless, of course, a wanted song is not available on the iTunes music store.
It's interesting seeing Real cloak themselves as champions of consumer choice, when they probably went ahead with Harmony for the same hard business reasons that Apple would like to block it: the bottom line. Of course, Real's choice seems more popular in these forums.
But what if Apple lets Real get away with this, how about when Microsoft opens up their own music store, subsidized by their $50 billion, and does the same Harmony trick, selling songs at a big discount from the Real and Apple stores? I think Real would lose any three-way race in on-line music stores.
It's also interesting to see, in RealNetworks' end user license agreement for RealPlayer with Harmony, the following:
2. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS. a) You may not: (ii) modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble (except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by law) or create derivative works based upon the Software or Documentation..
and
8. DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS a) The Software includes a DRM called the RealSystem Media Commerce Update Software....You may not take any action to circumvent or defeat the security or content usage rules provided or enforced by either the DRM or the Software.
Seems to me that's what Real has done to Apple, no? Well, I guess the attorneys and courts will decide..
Frank
Thanks for the answers. It seems that to the average user, who probably can't tell the difference between 128kbps and 192kbs, it's somewhat of a nuisance to deal with Harmony songs if they are keeping their music library and playlists in iTunes, and burn CDs from iTunes.
You could keep your music an playlists in Real's program, and burn CD's from there just as easily. Really, it's a matter of simply picking which you like better. FWIW, Real is capable of reading and working with songs purchased from iTunes Music Store, but iTunes is not capable of doing this the other way around.
There seems to be no advantage, and a bunch of hassles, to go with Harmony for most consumers. Unless, of course, a wanted song is not available on the iTunes music store.
The advantage is simply that of choice. If you want to use iTunes, use it. If not, here's another choice. Maybe you want to use Real instead. If so, it's now capable of working with an iPod. That's really all that has happened here.
It's interesting seeing Real cloak themselves as champions of consumer choice, when they probably went ahead with Harmony for the same hard business reasons that Apple would like to block it: the bottom line. Of course, Real's choice seems more popular in these forums.
Well, of *course* they want to make some cash. That's the whole reason for doing it, and I highly doubt they'd deny it. They're selling music. They want their customers to be able to listen to that music. So they added iPod support to their storefront program. Where's the issue?
But what if Apple lets Real get away with this, how about when Microsoft opens up their own music store, subsidized by their $50 billion, and does the same Harmony trick, selling songs at a big discount from the Real and Apple stores? I think Real would lose any three-way race in on-line music stores.
Firstly, it's not much of a "trick". Secondly, it's pretty hard to argue that they're doing anything illegal. And third, if M$ wants to abandon WMA (not a chance in hell, if you ask me) and create MPEG 4 music to sell, then I'll cheer them on. More competition = a good thing.
It's also interesting to see, in RealNetworks' end user license agreement for RealPlayer with Harmony, the following:
2. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS. a) You may not: (ii) modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble (except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by law) or create derivative works based upon the Software or Documentation..
and
8. DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS a) The Software includes a DRM called the RealSystem Media Commerce Update Software....You may not take any action to circumvent or defeat the security or content usage rules provided or enforced by either the DRM or the Software.
Yes? So? iTunes Music store has the same rules in their TOS. And Real's Harmony software violates neither of them, in fact, with regards to iTunes or the iTunes music store.
Seems to me that's what Real has done to Apple, no? Well, I guess the attorneys and courts will decide..
Yes, well, now I'm pretty sure that you're a troll. I don't need a court to decide that.
In any case, Real hasn't done anything against Apple's various terms of service anywhere. All they did was create a way to convert *Real's* DRM into a form that's compatible with the way the iPod reads protected files. That's it. They didn't change the way the iPod works, they didn't change the way iTunes works. They just changed *their* software. It's hard to argue that they've done anything wrong when all they did was make their stuff compatible with other people's stuff.
This bellyaching from Apple happens a lot.. every time somebody works out how to break the Apple monopoly on whatever they happen to be griping about, in fact. And amazingly enough, Apple defenders rise up to complain about legal ramifactions nearly every time. Well, here's a tip: Making your software do virtually the exact same thing your competitors does is NOT ILLEGAL. It's called competition, and most of the free world thinks it's a good thing for consumers when it happens.
There seems to be no advantage, and a bunch of hassles, to go with Harmony for most consumers. Unless, of course, a wanted song is not available on the iTunes music store.
The advantage is simply that of choice. If you want to use iTunes, use it. If not, here's another choice. Maybe you want to use Real instead..
Actually, if you download some of your music through Harmony, some choices are eliminated, because now you cannot move your purchased music into iTunes or iTunes playlists, or burn CDs from iTunes. You are forced to use Real. Where is the choice here?
Well, of *course* they want to make some cash. That's the whole reason for doing it, and I highly doubt they'd deny it. They're selling music. They want their customers to be able to listen to that music. So they added iPod support to their storefront program. Where's the issue?
The issue is that Apple is losing a song sale to Real that it might have been able to make. Apple has a right to protect its profits and technology and it has the right to create and sell whatever legal products it wants to. You have the right not to purchase them.
If Apple blocks Harmony, and you have not purchased an iPod, you don't have to buy one if you don't like this limitation. If you have purchased an iPod, after doing a bit of research, you would know that it is only guaranteed to work with their own music store, and willingly bought it knowing that limitations. Apple has never claimed the iPod was an open system when it came to DRM, it has actually claimed the opposite. The iPod is closer to a Playstation2, which is open only to licensed developers, than a PC, which is open to anyone's software development. If you bought the Catwoman game for a Nintendo GameCube, would you expect it to work in your Playstation2, just because both are manufactured by EA and are essentially the same game?
But what if Apple lets Real get away with this, how about when Microsoft opens up their own music store, subsidized by their $50 billion, and does the same Harmony trick, selling songs at a big discount from the Real and Apple stores?
if M$ wants to abandon WMA (not a chance in hell, if you ask me) and create MPEG 4 music to sell, then I'll cheer them on. More competition = a good thing.
I think that Microsoft will develop any strategy it has to in order to make a profit (as any company should), or its directors and managers would be remiss, even if it means going to an open standard. And the key word I used is SUBSIDIZED. Let's say that it costs Real or Apple $.80 total in costs per song sold, and they sell it for $.99 (these prices are illustrative). Now Microsoft comes along, with the same $.80/song overhead, but decides to take a loss (as it has many billions stashed away) to slice off a large share of the market, and sells the songs for $.50 each. Great for the consumer, right? But how about the Real and Apple developers, encoders, and personnel that are working supporting their music stores. Out of work because the companies cannot afford to subsidize them! You cannot just think of the customer, you also have to think of the developers, programmers, and long-term future ramifications for any affected industries when a product is "dumped" at below cost. Subsidizing a product is not necessarily "More competition = a good thing".
Seems to me that's what Real has done to Apple, no? Well, I guess the attorneys and courts will decide..
Yes, well, now I'm pretty sure that you're a troll. I don't need a court to decide that.
It seems to me, reading in other news sites, that the legal issues in this matter are not totally clear-cut, which is why I mentioned that this will probably end up in the attorney's hands (as I am sure it has already), and possibly the courts.
No, I'm not a troll. I am pointing out that there are other sides to this issue. I am not necessarily on Apple's side, as I can't predict what they are going to do in this matter (can anyone?), or how their strategy is going to change over time, or when the 800 pound gorilla shows up for the party. I would like to think I can present a viewpoint, which may be in the minority in this forum, and have it discussed in a rational and logical manner by those that wish, without resorting to personal attacks.
It's hard to argue that they've done anything wrong when all they did was make their stuff compatible with other people's stuff.
Well, they are taking profits away from Apple for every sale they make that would have gone to Apple instead, and there are some people that think this is wrong.
There is also another big issue here, which is not directly monetary. Apple has always strived hard to make its software and hardware work well together, be smoothly integrated, and provide as pleasant and trouble-free an experience to the user as possible. Thus, OSX only runs on its own hardware, much Apple software only runs on OSX, and up to now you could only buy AAC for your iPod from iTunes. The only way Apple can control a seamless integration is by controlling the entire process, from start to finish. Apple already got burned by licensing its OS years ago, and lost control over the hardware, leading to many compatibility problems. Now you can call Apple a control freak, but this is the only way to provide a total system that works seamlessly. I have never seen, on a Windows PC, the smooth integration between a digital still camera/iPhoto/a miniDV camera/firewire/iMovie/iDVD/audio CDs/and iTunes, so Apple must be doing something right, and some people like this integration. It is not for everyone, and we know there are often bugs and problems with Apple hardware and software, as with any OS or hardware.
The problem with Harmony is that it is only half a solution (it plays on iPod), the other half is broken (it does not work in iTunes). So, it breaks the smooth integration and user experience that Apple has strived so hard to achieve with its products. If I was Steve Jobs, this would bother me a lot more than the money I lost over song sales.
Apple has the right to control its own business model, as long as it is legal, and no-one has to purchase Apple products if they don't like it.
Frank
Actually, if you download some of your music through Harmony, there is no choice, because now you cannot move your purchased music into iTunes or iTunes playlists, or burn CDs from iTunes. You are forced to use Real. Where is the choice?
The choice is not using iTunes, dammit
It's not about choosing iTunes and Real, it's choosing
either iTunes or Real. Choose one and settle with it.
It's better than being forced to use iTunes only, IMO.
The point you seem to be completely missing is that Harmony is not about providing interoperability with iTunes. It's about allowing tracks from the Real Music Store to play back on the iPod, and maybe other hardware players.
Actually, if you download some of your music through Harmony, some choices are eliminated, because now you cannot move your purchased music into iTunes or iTunes playlists, or burn CDs from iTunes. You are forced to use Real. Where is the choice here?
You have the choice to download via iTunes or to download via Real, and use *either* one of them with your iPod. How are you missing out on this fundamental new choice that you now have?
The issue is that Apple is losing a song sale to Real that it might have been able to make. Apple has a right to protect its profits and technology and it has the right to create and sell whatever legal products it wants to. You have the right not to purchase them.
So, if I buy a song from Real, Apple loses a potential sale. And this is bad... why, exactly? Competition is a good thing for the consumer. Apple doesn't sell the iPod to drive iTunes Music Store sales. It's totally the reverse, in fact. They make money off the iPod, not the music store.
If Apple blocks Harmony
First, let's be totally clear here. Assuming Real paid attention when writing the thing, Apple cannot block them. Period. Anybody who tells you otherwise is probably Apple, and they're wrong.
and you have not purchased an iPod, you don't have to buy one if you don't like this limitation. If you have purchased an iPod, after doing a bit of research, you would know that it is only guaranteed to work with their own music store, and willingly bought it knowing that limitations. Apple has never claimed the iPod was an open system when it came to DRM, it has actually claimed the opposite.
Then they made claims that they couldn't keep, didn't they? It's not an open system, but that doesn't prevent me from developing compatible software.
The iPod is closer to a Playstation2, which is open only to licensed developers, than a PC, which is open to anyone's software development.
In point of fact, courts have ruled on this very issue numerous times, and the fact is that game box makers cannot prevent somebody from creating software for their machine. Sega actually tried to do this first, I think. Nintendo also tried this, and got shot down after some extended lawsuits. Sony tried again later, with much the same results. The game companies don't have to sell you the developers kits, but they can't prevent you from releasing software to run on their hardware either. This is how you can get things like those code discs and such. They tried to stop them several times, and have always failed.
But how about the Real and Apple developers, encoders, and personnel that are working supporting their music stores. Out of work because the companies cannot afford to subsidize them! You cannot just think of the customer, you also have to think of the developers, programmers, and long-term future ramifications for any affected industries when a product is "dumped" at below cost. Subsidizing a product is not necessarily "More competition = a good thing".
No, I don't have to think of the developers. And I *am* a software developer. All I have to think about is my bottom line. And yes, if M$ sold the music in the form I wanted, you're damned right I'd buy from them instead. If Apple didn't like it, well, Apple could lower their prices. If Apple couldn't lower their prices, then they'd go the hell out of business. That's the free market.
But you fail to see the bigger picture here. Stores are competing against each other, but they also have the big competitor of P2P looming down there at the "free" price point. If M$ were to do just that, drive them all out of business, and then raise prices or impose stupid restrictions or something, P2P would rise up and swallow their customer base whole. The constant danger of having the consumer slip back into the old ways is everpresent. This keeps 'em honest.
It seems to me, reading in other news sites, that the legal issues in this matter are not totally clear-cut, which is why I mentioned that this will probably end up in the attorney's hands (as I am sure it has already), and possibly the courts.
Those other news sites were wrong. The legal issues in this matter are actually totally clear cut, and anybody who disagrees probably doesn't understand the way the system works here. Real has done nothing illegal, or indeed immoral.
Well, they are taking profits away from Apple for every sale they make that would have gone to Apple instead, and there are some people that think this is wrong.
So setting up a competing business is wrong? How in the heck can you possibly justify such a statement?
(bunch of Apple rhetoric promoting total control is a good thing)
...
The problem with Harmony is that it is only half a solution (it plays on iPod), the other half is broken (it does not work in iTunes). So, it breaks the smooth integration and user experience that Apple has strived so hard to achieve with its products. If I was Steve Jobs, this would bother me a lot more than the money I lost over song sales.
Actually, Harmony works with most *any* portable music player. And if iTunes doesn't work with Harmony DRM, then that's a problem with iTunes, not with Harmony. See, Harmony works fine with Apple's DRM. So I'd say it's perfectly compatible all around. But Real cannot force Apple to change iTunes. Blaming Real for problems with Apple's software seems rather disingenious.
Furthermore, why should it work with iTunes? It *replaces* iTunes. That's the *choice* aspect of the whole thing.
And even furthermore, Apple's user experience is anything but seamless, IMO. Frankly, I cannot stand Apple's user interfaces, as they are easily the worst in the business. They're confusing, nonintuitive, hard to use and learn, and usually quite ugly. They claim to have guidelines, but they frequently violate them. All in all, programs made for Windows, which lacks enforced guidelines (though such guidelines do exist), usually provide a much smoother and easier user interface. Windows Media Player being one of the major exceptions, I grant you.
You don't need total control to provide a smooth system, you need proper published standards to follow. Apple is pretty poor about publishing standards with regard to software development, extremely poor at actually implementing the standards they do publish, and hideously bad at creating good standards for their systems in the first place. Microsoft is not good at it either, but at least they don't claim to be good at it.
Apple has the right to control its own business model, as long as it is legal, and no-one has to purchase Apple products if they don't like it.
Apple has the right to control it's business model, I agree. However, my iPod is *MINE*. It is not part of Apple's "business model". I paid good money for the iPod. I *OWN* IT. Understand? What I do with it is none of Apple's concern. The only right Apple has to my iPod is the copyright on the design and hardware. I can't copy it. But anything else I want to do with it, I can. Period. They do not own it. I do.
That's where my choice comes in. I have the choice not to use iTunes if I don't want to, and Apple can't make me.
You don't need total control to provide a smooth system, you need proper published standards to follow. Apple is pretty poor about publishing standards with regard to software development, extremely poor at actually implementing the standards they do publish, and hideously bad at creating good standards for their systems in the first place. Microsoft is not good at it either, but at least they don't claim to be good at it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=231358"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can't help but find it a bit ironic that you claim that Apple are bad at publishing standards, when so many core technologies in Mac OS X are based on open standards. To name a few technologies Apple invented themselves, there's the QuickTime File Format and their file system. Both are completely documented on their homepage. Apple have been a major proponent of MPEG-4 for quite some time, and Real have only just begun to follow suit. In fact, QuickTime mainly uses MPEG-4 now. Their core operating system implements standards such as POSIX and the Single UNIX Specification. Their browser aims to be both standards conformant and able to read all the crappy HTML out there.
They have for long had the Aqua Human Interface Guidelines to ensure a consistant user interface. This means that inexperienced users - and experienced ones too - can approach properly written mac application and make a lot of assumptions about it's functionality without every bothering with a wizard or a manual. Recently, the GNOME project was inspired by this for their own guidelines. I'll grant you, though, that not all of Apple's applications conform to these, with Safari's toolbar being the most prominent example.
Apple are not completely without merit when they claim they are based on standards. In fact, it is not unreasonable to claim that the entire mac platform is based on open standards - after all, Apple have a huge interest in the interoperability of their computers and the rest of the world.
I'm not taking any side in this argument, I just believe that you are mistaken with regard to this particular issue.
I can't help but find it a bit ironic that you claim that Apple are bad at publishing standards, when so many core technologies in Mac OS X are based on open standards. To name a few technologies Apple invented themselves, there's the QuickTime File Format and their file system. Both are completely documented on their homepage. Apple have been a major proponent of MPEG-4 for quite some time, and Real have only just begun to follow suit. In fact, QuickTime mainly uses MPEG-4 now. Their core operating system implements standards such as POSIX and the Single UNIX Specification. Their browser aims to be both standards conformant and able to read all the crappy HTML out there.
That's the other face of Apple. But that should not hide the other one.
Having UNIX foundations also helps them to get lots of applications for free that they would have to develop themselves.
Having UNIX foundations also helps them to get lots of applications for free that they would have to develop themselves.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=231372"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed like Safari is based on KHTML Html rendering engine from KDE project. But this is getting off topic
I can't help but find it a bit ironic that you claim that Apple are bad at publishing standards, when so many core technologies in Mac OS X are based on open standards. ....Their core operating system implements standards such as POSIX and the Single UNIX Specification. Their browser aims to be both standards conformant and able to read all the crappy HTML out there.
That's the other face of Apple. But that should not hide the other one.
Having UNIX foundations also helps them to get lots of applications for free that they would have to develop themselves.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=231372"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What's interesting is that no matter what Apple does, there will be someone to criticize its actions. If OSX was closed and secret, it would get criticized for being so, but because much Apple technology is based on open source or open standards, it gets accused of profiting from free software! Sheesh....
That's why Apple should just legally do what it thinks its best for itself as a corporation and for the customer market segment it cares about, and not worry too much about what everyone alse thinks.
Frank
Dopey me! Yes, I meant "don't Real and Apple use the same encoder, not codec.
Also, this Harmony technology has convinced me to sell my iRiver iHP-120 and get a 4G iPod. The iHP-120 does not support DRM of any kind.
I already have more than 100 songs purchased from the RealPlayer Music Store. Does the Harmony conversion only happen when the songs are purchased?
Thanks. If you have a WMA capable device, you are right, the only possibility is a full transcode. This is a lossy process. You can however decide which WMA bitrate to use, up to 192 kbps. Since both transmuxing and transcoding can be time-consuming, both for the AAC lossless transmux to iPod and AAC transcode to WMA, there is an option for RealPlayer to cache the converted files, so sub-sequent transfers to the device are much faster.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=230932"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Karl,
Thanks for the quick reply on a Sunday! I was hesitant to purchase an ipod because I wanted to play music on other (non-apple) devices and I'm glad Real has solved that problem; time to get rid of my RCA player. Unfortunately, I have some protected WMA files that I'll need to convert to an AAC format to play on the ipod. I know I can burn them to CD and re-encode them to AAC. Will Real Harmony allow me to skip this step and take protected WMA files and transcode them to protected AAC files? I'm guessing not, but wanted to ask. Thanks again!
Carlton Bale: You can play protected songs from any music store in RealPlayer (if you have the right QT and WM SDK DLLs installed, this is usually taken care of by having these other media players installed). You can however, not use RealPlayer to transfer protected songs from other music stores than the Real Music store, to the iPod. RealPlayer transfers unprotected WMA though, via transcoding to AAC.
As you know, the RealNetworks music store sells songs in 192 kbps AAC (as opposed to iTMS at 128 kbps). When transferring your purchased songs to the iPod, the AAC itself is not touched, but the Helix DRM is transmuxed to a DRM that is compatible with the iPod, i.e. fully protected and without trans-coding. If you then transfer the file back to your PC (for instance with Anapod), you get an M4P file, that is a protected MPEG-4 AAC file.
I did not work on this myself, I work with video codecs, but this is how you will see it works, after 5 minutes of testing, and is how the press release describes it as well, in less technical terms.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=229181"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Since you are connected to the source, how is your legal fight with Apple going? I know Apple was "shocked" by your actions. Personally, I can't figure out why Apple cares. Jobs openly admits that iTunes is just there to promote iPods (they only make about 20% of the revenue from song sales), so why wouldn't they like people to buy an iPod and use it with your online store? It seems like it's just broadening the market of iPods to me, which should please Apple.
Has Apple officially sued you, or are they simply threating to increase protection to eventually make your product incompatible?
Actually, if you download some of your music through Harmony, some choices are eliminated....
You have the choice to download via iTunes or to download via Real, and use *either* one of them with your iPod. How are you missing out on this fundamental new choice that you now have?
Yes, I understand the new choice of where you can download music from, but wanted to point out that you also now LOST a choice, because with Harmony songs you can't any longer sync your iPod music with your iTunes playlists, crippling iTunes. I would guess this is one of Apple's concerns.
The issue is that Apple is losing a song sale to Real....
So, if I buy a song from Real, Apple loses a potential sale. And this is bad... why, exactly? Competition is a good thing for the consumer. Apple doesn't sell the iPod to drive iTunes Music Store sales. It's totally the reverse, in fact. They make money off the iPod, not the music store.
Competition may be good for the consumer, but subsidizing a product, which is what I was talking about, is not always good for an industry or the country. Yes, you can buy a $6 T-shirt, a $12 pair of shoes, and a $2 screwdriver. Great. What are you going to tell the 3 million people that recently lost manufacturing jobs (and probably their health care) in this country, that the consumer is better off now because he can save a few bucks?
Let's say it costs Microsoft, Real and Apple $.80 to sell a song through their on-line music store, and each company employs 40 people to support the store (illustrative number). Now Microsoft decides to subsidize its music, and sells it for $.50/tune. Real and Apple can't do this for very long, drop out of the market, and lay off 80 people. Microsoft's sales triple, but due to economies of scale, they only need to hire 10 additional employees. So now you have 70 people out of work. My point is that competition is NOT automatically always good for everyone, you can't just think of the consumer, there are other human beings in the equation.
Actually, Apple has started to make a small profit from the iTunes Music Store, now that it's up and running, their plan may be to increase these profits, and to be fully able to profit from the iPod/iTunes technology it developed.
The iPod is closer to a Playstation2, which is open only to licensed developers, than a PC, which is open to anyone's software development.
In point of fact, courts have ruled on this very issue numerous times, and the fact is that game box makers cannot prevent somebody from creating software for their machine.
True, but don't third-party game makers have to pay Nintendo, Sega, Microsoft, etc. licensing fees to make a game for their boxes?
Real is not paying Apple any money in this situation.
Analogies always fail in the end, but I wonder, can anyone make a game for a Nintendo box, and legally sell it, as long as they send Nintendo the licensing fee? Or does Nintendo have to "license" the licensee?
It seems to me, reading in other news sites, that the legal issues in this matter are not totally clear-cut, which is why I mentioned that this will probably end up in the attorney's hands (as I am sure it has already), and possibly the courts.
Those other news sites were wrong. The legal issues in this matter are actually totally clear cut, and anybody who disagrees probably doesn't understand the way the system works here. Real has done nothing illegal, or indeed immoral.
No impartial third party with the appropriate technical expertise has, to my knowledge, examined how RealNetworks managed to get their software to work with the Apple's DRM, all you have to go by is their claims that they did not reverse-engineer the DRM. I doubt that everyone is going to take Real's word for this, and it will need to be verified. Claims without verification don't mean very much, look at SCO vs IBM.
The legal issues involve at least the DMCA, copyright law as applicable to Apple's software, and click licenses. How can they be clear-cut until you know in technical detail how Real got their software to work with the iPod?
(bunch of Apple rhetoric promoting total control is a good thing)
Well, those were my opinions, not Apple's "rhetoric". I have never seen official philosophy statements from them, but it is obvious what their strategy is.
I think that in many ways Microsoft exerts more control than Apple. Have your tried deleting the Explorer and Windows Media Player applications on a Windows PC lately? Easy enough to delete Safari and QuickTime on OSX, things will keep working just fine. Microsoft has managed to weld together the OS, the web browser, and the media player, and then claim that the OS will break if you delete them! Now how is that for control?
I did say that Apple's control is not for everyone. It is NOT a good thing for everyone! However, it is the philosophy, direction and products that Apple has developed over the years, for the people that want them and the market segment it is targeting. It has a right to do this, just as you have a right not to buy into it. As no other successful hardware/OS/software company is following this philosophy very strongly, it makes it available to those that want it. Would you deny them the ability to make it available?
It is obviously not for the people that have responded to my posts. However, it is very possible that Apple is not targeting your types of users, and it can't keep everyone happy.
Furthermore, why should it work with iTunes? It *replaces* iTunes. That's the *choice* aspect of the whole thing.
Well, here again, I guess our semantic definition of choice is a bit different, the way I see it you are also removing a choice, you can't fully use iTunes any more with your iPod if you use Harmony, the Harmony song purchases forces the choice for you. What Harmony does is break the ability of two Apple products (iTunes and the iPod) to work together, which worked pretty well together up to now. No wonder Apple is concerned, it works hard for interoperability between its products.
And even furthermore, Apple's user experience is anything but seamless, IMO. Frankly, I cannot stand Apple's user interfaces, as they are easily the worst in the business. They're confusing, nonintuitive, hard to use and learn, and usually quite ugly.
I am not sure what you are comparing Apple's software to, but I assume it is Windows-based software. I respect other's platform choices, so I'll try to restrain myself. Without criticizing Windows products, and without going too off-topic, I have seen recent comparisons, in mainstream trade journals, of Filemaker (which also runs on Windows) vs. Access, iMovie/iDVD vs. Windows Movie Maker/any free DVD program, XServe/XServe Raid/OSX Server, and the Panasonic HD VariCam/ AJ-HD100A deck/Final Cut Pro HD/Apple G4 Powerbook to comparable Windows products and combinations. In all these cases the Apple products were rated higher than the competition.
I also can't find on Windows anything that includes the functionality and integration of the four programs in iLife: iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto and iTunes.
And I can implement and start my apache web server with one click. Now that's confusing and nonintuitive!
A large percentage (if not the majority) of graphic artists, illustrators and digital photographers use Apple products, so there are many individuals with an eye for esthetics and usability that would disagree with you.
However, my iPod is *MINE*. It is not part of Apple's "business model". But anything else I want to do with it, I can. Period. They do not own it. I do.
Well you do own that small chunk of metal, plastic and wires. However, there is also software and firmware on it, that you may or may not own.
I have not studied the fine print that comes with the iPod, I don't know what click licenses you might have agreed to, and I am not enough of a lawyer to know whether they mean anything, or are enforceable. I believe that you think you are right, but I would want to see an expert third-party legal opinion for confirmation. And there are many cases where owning a product does not give you the right to do whatever you want with it.
Apple has not made their next move, and Microsoft has not come to the dance yet, so anything can happen. There is also the possibility that while Apple may have the legal or technical ability to block Harmony on the iPod, it may decide that it is not in its best long-term interests to do so. It may not want to win the battle and then lose the war.
Frank
Let's say it costs Microsoft, Real and Apple $.80 to sell a song through their on-line music store, and each company employs 40 people to support the store (illustrative number). Now Microsoft decides to subsidize its music, and sells it for $.50/tune. Real and Apple can't do this for very long, drop out of the market, and lay off 80 people. Microsoft's sales triple, but due to economies of scale, they only need to hire 10 additional employees. So now you have 70 people out of work. My point is that competition is NOT automatically always good for everyone, you can't just think of the consumer, there are other human beings in the equation.
Competition is always good. In the long run, 70 people who lost thier jobs will find MORE productive jobs and will increase overall productivity for the whole economy.
No need to put 120 people for the jobs that 50 people can do.
Yes, I understand the new choice of where you can download music from, but wanted to point out that you also now LOST a choice, because with Harmony songs you can't any longer sync your iPod music with your iTunes playlists, crippling iTunes. I would guess this is one of Apple's concerns.
Except for the fact that you're making absolutely no sense, sure. How does it cripple iTunes? It doesn't. If you want to use iTunes, then by all means use iTunes. I fail to see how you cannot continue to use iTunes if you want to do so.
But if you want to use Harmony, use Harmony. You have total freedom of choice here. The existance of other software to do what iTunes does does not prevent iTunes doing what iTunes does.
If you're stating that iTunes can't sync Harmony songs, well, yes. But then it can't sync songs from any other music store either. So how is this any different?
My point is that competition is NOT automatically always good for everyone, you can't just think of the consumer, there are other human beings in the equation.
I don't give a damn about everyone. I give a damn about me. Those other people can look out for themselves.
Look, the point is that capitalism is inherely selfish in nature. Yes, Microsoft could undercut Apple in theory, and possibly cause loss of jobs. So what? They can go find new jobs. My point is that it is not a given that I should pay higher prices just to keep somebody in work. Sorry, but if they can't hack it, then they go out of business. This is not a zero sum game.
Actually, Apple has started to make a small profit from the iTunes Music Store, now that it's up and running, their plan may be to increase these profits, and to be fully able to profit from the iPod/iTunes technology it developed.
So developing some technology automatically gives you monopoly power over that technology? I find this to be a rather twisted view of the world.
True, but don't third-party game makers have to pay Nintendo, Sega, Microsoft, etc. licensing fees to make a game for their boxes?
Nope. Not unless they want to use the Nintendo (or whoever's) logo on the thing.
The legal issues involve at least the DMCA, copyright law as applicable to Apple's software, and click licenses. How can they be clear-cut until you know in technical detail how Real got their software to work with the iPod?
I do know, in technical detail, how they got Harmony to work with the iPod. It's fairly clear how it works, in fact. And it's my considered opinion, as somebody who knows how this stuff works, and as somebody who may not be a lawyer but is at least capable of reading the laws in question, that no laws have been broken. Happy now?
As no other successful hardware/OS/software company is following this philosophy very strongly, it makes it available to those that want it. Would you deny them the ability to make it available?
As far as I am aware, competition does not prevent them from making their products available. Their products *are* available, which proves my point.
Well, here again, I guess our semantic definition of choice is a bit different, the way I see it you are also removing a choice, you can't fully use iTunes any more with your iPod if you use Harmony, the Harmony song purchases forces the choice for you. What Harmony does is break the ability of two Apple products (iTunes and the iPod) to work together, which worked pretty well together up to now. No wonder Apple is concerned, it works hard for interoperability between its products.
Man, it's like talking to a wall here. If you don't want to use Harmony, then
don't use Harmony. How much simpler can it be? You have the choice to decide what to use. You act as if, by creating software, Real has somehow broken other similar software. They haven't. iTunes does exactly the same thing that it did before. If you want to use iTunes, then by all means, do so. Yeesh.
I have seen recent comparisons, in mainstream trade journals
Funny, I simply use software and perform my own comparisons without the benefits of "mainstream trade journals". This thing called a "brain" lets me make "decisions" and form "opinions". It's a fairly straightforward process, really.
I also can't find on Windows anything that includes the functionality and integration of the four programs in iLife: iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto and iTunes.
Possibly, possibly not. Nevertheless, I find those 4 products to suck, for the most part. Maybe you like them, but the poor user interfaces on them is one of the primary reasons I dislike them.
A large percentage (if not the majority) of graphic artists, illustrators and digital photographers use Apple products, so there are many individuals with an eye for esthetics and usability that would disagree with you.
I'm not asking them to agree with me. I frankly don't care what they use. That's their problem.
And there are many cases where owning a product does not give you the right to do whatever you want with it.
Please clarify. I know of no such comparable cases.
There is also the possibility that while Apple may have the legal or technical ability to block Harmony on the iPod
Again, let's be clear. Assuming Real implemented every little detail correctly, Apple does not have the technical ability to block Harmony. Not without breaking backwards compatibility, which would tick off a lot of iTMS users.
You have total freedom of choice here.
Not really, Harmony forces you to use a PC to download files from its music store. Real is not opening its music store to Mac users, nor have they ever done so. There is no total freedom here, actually all major music stores except the iTunes Music Store force you to use Windows, the iTMS is the only one that gives you a CHOICE of which OS to use.
So developing some technology automatically gives you monopoly power over that technology?
Well, it is proprietary technology, and I don't think that iTunes/iTunes Music Store/iPod qualifies legally or practically as a monopoly. From what I have read, the iPod has 50% market penetration, and the iTunes Music Store 70%. I think it boils down to the right of a company to offer the product that it wants (the unique iPod/iTunes Music Store closed integration), including any publicized limitations.
And it's my considered opinion, as somebody who knows how this stuff works, and as somebody who may not be a lawyer but is at least capable of reading the laws in question, that no laws have been broken. Happy now?
Well, not really. If there is a dispute between two parties (Real and Apple), any believable expert third-party opinion should come from a disinterested neutral source. Can you point out such an opinion? In this case, although you may be an expert, I don't think you are neutral.
And opinions are not enforceable, so to make it so, a judge, jury or court-appointed expert would have the final say (which can be appealed) on interpreting the laws, which, of course, can always be changed. None of this has happened yet.
You act as if, by creating software, Real has somehow broken other similar software. They haven't. iTunes does exactly the same thing that it did before.
No, it does not not. Before, iTunes could sync to ALL the songs on the iPod. Now, if you have some songs from iTunes and some from Rhapsody, it cannot sync to all the songs on the iPod.
And there are many cases where owning a product does not give you the right to do whatever you want with it.
Please clarify. I know of no such comparable cases..
1. You own a house but you can't put vinyl siding on it because you live in a historic district.
2. You own land but you can't raise a few chickens on it because of zoning regulations.
3. You own an open bottle of wine but can't drive with it in some states.
4. You are a high school student and own a hat but can't wear it in school.
5. You own a ticket to the ball game but can't sell it for $1,000.
I admit I can't think of any direct comparable cases. The Harmony/iPod issue is really just part of a major new area where the concept of "ownership", its definition, rights and limitations in the digital world are being redefined on a daily basis.
There is also the issue that if Real is allowed to do this, every little Mom and Pop store, and bright teenager, can theoretically also make their store compatible with the iPod. Over a period of time, this limits Apple's ability to develop or improve the way the iPod and the iTunes Music Store work, as Apple becomes more and more responsible (practically if not legally) for the interoperability, or "squatter's rights", of third-party stores and music it never wanted on the iPod.
FairPlay DRM is not a licenseable "open" standard, but privately owned and controlled. What you really need in this industry is a DRM that works, developed and controlled by a neutral third-party organization, like MPEG, and licenseable to everyone on a non-discriminatory basis, at set rates (or free).
Well, we've gone round and round, and are starting to repeat ourselves, so I'll bow out for now and let you have the last word. I sympathize with many things you have said, but I admit I am a fan of Apple, so I try and see their side of the story. Somehow the company has survived, but its long-term longevity (with only 3-4% of the computer market) is always in doubt. Until it accumulates many billions of dollars year after year, I don't think it can be accused of being greedy. Apple has to do to whatever it deems necessary to survive, as long as it is legal, consistent with its business model, generally supportive of its user base, and profitable. Even if these actions do not benefit all consumers.
I know that my opinions probably go strongly against the beliefs of many in HA, so I truly thank them for restraining themselves and not attacking me personally, only my ideas.
Frank
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=232054"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You act as if, by creating software, Real has somehow broken other similar software. They haven't. iTunes does exactly the same thing that it did before.
No, it does not not. Before, iTunes could sync to ALL the songs on the iPod. Now, if you have some songs from iTunes and some from Rhapsody, it cannot sync to all the songs on the iPod.
All the songs, or all the songs that were from iTunes?
FairPlay DRM is not a licenseable "open" standard, but privately owned and controlled. What you really need in this industry is a DRM that works, developed and controlled by a neutral third-party organization, like MPEG, and licenseable to everyone on a non-discriminatory basis, at set rates (or free).
Well, we've gone round and round, and are starting to repeat ourselves, so I'll bow out for now and let you have the last word. I sympathize with many things you have said, but I admit I am a fan of Apple, so I try and see their side of the story. Somehow the company has survived, but its long-term longevity (with only 3-4% of the computer market) is always in doubt. Until it accumulates many billions of dollars year after year, I don't think it can be accused of being greedy. Apple has to do to whatever it deems necessary to survive, as long as it is legal, consistent with its business model, generally supportive of its user base, and profitable. Even if these actions do not benefit all consumers.
I know that my opinions probably go strongly against the beliefs of many in HA, so I truly thank them for restraining themselves and not attacking me personally, only my ideas.
Frank
Frank, I don't agree with many of your statements, but I absolutely agree that there should to be an accepted
and implemented industry standard for protected downloads. Unfortunately, as with instant messenger services, there are multiple companies fighting for market share using proprietary technologies.
I'm not anti-apple, I respect most their designs, and they have every right to sell proprietary products. However, if I were to purchase an iPod or a song from iTunes, I would feel ownership of it and would want to be able to use it however and wherever possible. Some people are glad to regain some freedom by being able to download DRM-protected files from Real, convert them to multiple formats, and store them on a large range of devices. If Apple would do this, I'd be even more pleased. All I really want is to be able to play DRM-protected music in my car's MusicKeg, or any other device I own!
True, but don't third-party game makers have to pay Nintendo, Sega, Microsoft, etc. licensing fees to make a game for their boxes?
Nope. Not unless they want to use the Nintendo (or whoever's) logo on the thing.
Sorry, but as far as I understand it this is rubbish. I agree with most of the rest of your statements, but you can't do shit on your console without someone (either the user or the programmer of the hack) being liable somewhere, hence why most developers (like for example the Xbox Media Center chaps) dont distribute binaries, only source. You certainly can't sell anything unofficial without their contracts and fees, there is no high street store in the west that will deal with you at the risk of losing the 'right' to sell consoles and official software for that system.
Or am I missing something?
most developers (like for example the Xbox Media Center chaps) dont distribute binaries, only source. You certainly can't sell anything unofficial without their contracts and fees, there is no high street store in the west that will deal with you at the risk of losing the 'right' to sell consoles and official software for that system.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=232790"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is completely the case (as I understand it anyway). The reason Xbox Media Center binaries (for example) are not distributed publicly is because they are compiled with an illegally-obtained version of the Microsoft Xbox Software Development Kit. I believe there is work on an open source version of a Xbox SDK. If something were to develop with this open SDK, it could be distributed pubicly. (For the Xbox, there is also the issue of the 1024-bit encryption key included in every approved game, so software written using the open SDK would only run on hacked Xboxes.)
I think hacked Xboxs are similar enough to the iPod for a more in-depth "legal hacking" comparison. For Xbox, it is legal to sell mod chips and Xbox’s with mod chips installed
as long as the mod chips do not contain any illegal code. When you buy a legal, hacked Xbox, it comes with a Linux cromwell bios installed; this bios can run no Xbox games or applications. There is nothing illegal until a new bios (containing modified Microsoft code) is downloaded and installed, allowing any games or applications developed with the Microsoft SDK to run. This new bios circumvents the 1024-bit encryption key, defeating Microsoft security measures. Breaking the security and using copyrighted code is what is illegal, not installing the mod chip and running Linux code.
Real shouldn't have any legal issues, because: 1) they are not using any Apple code and 2) they are not breaking any Apple encryption or copy protection. It is not illegal for a company to make software that runs on another company’s device as long as all software is free of copyright concerns. Who knows, someone may even get Linux running on an iPod! I'm kidding here, but I don't see how it would be illegal.
Or am I missing something?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=232790"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What you're missing that that most projects along the lines you're thinking were developed using pirated versions of the stuff MS wants you to pay for. Thus the resulting binary works are not legal, because you didn't pay for the tool used to create them.
However, if you were to develop your own tool and use it to produce your program, then you're be perfectly in the clear. Microsoft cannot prevent people from developing software to run on or with the XBox, to use your example. They simply own all the available tools for it. Thus it's probably cheaper to go through Microsoft to develop for the XBox, since you don't have to reinvent the wheel in order to make your programs work.
But this is an economic control method, not a legal one. Because they have the cheaper solution, everybody goes through them. Legally, however, they cannot prevent somebody from developing software for the XBox itself, they can only have any control if you use their tools to do so. Develop your own tools, and you're outside their sphere of influence.
You have total freedom of choice here.
Not really, Harmony forces you to use a PC to download files from its music store. Real is not opening its music store to Mac users, nor have they ever done so. There is no total freedom here, actually all major music stores except the iTunes Music Store force you to use Windows, the iTMS is the only one that gives you a CHOICE of which OS to use.
So what? You have the choice of what computer to buy as well. Just because Real doesn't offer a Mac solution at present, this affects the argument, how, exactly?
We were arguing that you're free to choose iTMS or Real's solution. The fact is that you are also free to choose the computer and OS you run. Are you trying to suggest that because, say, iTunes doesn't offer Linux support that they are delibrately limiting your choices or something? You're making very little sense here.
Well, it is proprietary technology, and I don't think that iTunes/iTunes Music Store/iPod qualifies legally or practically as a monopoly. From what I have read, the iPod has 50% market penetration, and the iTunes Music Store 70%. I think it boils down to the right of a company to offer the product that it wants (the unique iPod/iTunes Music Store closed integration), including any publicized limitations.
Apple hasn't lost anything. They still offer the iPod/iTunes intergration. If you want to choose their way, then do so. iTunes still works as well as it always did. So does the iPod. Nothing Real has done changes that.
Well, not really. If there is a dispute between two parties (Real and Apple), any believable expert third-party opinion should come from a disinterested neutral source. Can you point out such an opinion? In this case, although you may be an expert, I don't think you are neutral.
Frankly, I don't think you are neutral either. However, I don't work for anybody in this particular industry. My only connection is that I'm a compuuter programmer who happens to own an iPod.
No, it does not not. Before, iTunes could sync to ALL the songs on the iPod. Now, if you have some songs from iTunes and some from Rhapsody, it cannot sync to all the songs on the iPod.
If you had songs from Rhapsody before Real released the Harmony Beta, iTunes still wasn't able to sync them to the iPod. Nothing has changed in that respect. The fact that iTunes lacks support for other music stores is all the more reason for Real to release something like Harmony, which makes that support available to iPod owners. Since Apple isn't going to do it, somebody else will.
I admit I can't think of any direct comparable cases. The Harmony/iPod issue is really just part of a major new area where the concept of "ownership", its definition, rights and limitations in the digital world are being redefined on a daily basis.
No. Things like "ownership" are not being redefined. Corporations keep trying to do so, because they want to maximize their income. It makes perfect sense that way.. if you can lock somebody into using your solution, then you have guaranteed income, or at least more guaranteed than before. When you can lock out your competition, then you can make a bundle.
However, the legal definitions of these things have not changed in fact. That doesn't stop corporations trying to change people's perceptions of those things. They've done so to the extent that they make you think that you are actually buying a license instead of a piece of software, for example.
There is also the issue that if Real is allowed to do this, every little Mom and Pop store, and bright teenager, can theoretically also make their store compatible with the iPod. Over a period of time, this limits Apple's ability to develop or improve the way the iPod and the iTunes Music Store work, as Apple becomes more and more responsible (practically if not legally) for the interoperability, or "squatter's rights", of third-party stores and music it never wanted on the iPod.
Apple is under no obligation to be responsible for whether other people's stuff works or not. If other people's stuff stops working, they will change it as needed.
Furthermore, Apple can only really break third party applications by breaking compatibility with their own older software. This is easily proven in fact.. If I create an application that behaves in the exact same way as iTunes does, with regard to the iPod, then my application can only break if Apple changes the iPod such that that particular version of iTunes breaks as well. If Apple is breaking backward compatibility that simply, then they have other issues than worrying about third party software.
A whole host of third party software already exists, BTW. Look at foo_pod, which Aero wrote and I helped with. It works very well with the iPod. Apple could break it by a new iPod firmware, but the fact of the matter is that if they did that, iTunes wouldn't work with the new iPod firmware either.
FairPlay DRM is not a licenseable "open" standard, but privately owned and controlled. What you really need in this industry is a DRM that works, developed and controlled by a neutral third-party organization, like MPEG, and licenseable to everyone on a non-discriminatory basis, at set rates (or free).
I'll agree to that, except that I don't believe an effective open standard DRM is possible, because of the nature of DRM.
AFAIK, XBOX SDK is available legally only for game developers who agree to pay M$ some percentage of the revenue from game sale as a licensing fee.
If some developer delevlop thier own SDK and using it to create software, the binary won't run on unmodded xbox anyway because it have not been signed by M$. (This also implied that ALL users of that software have to brake DMCA in some ways.)
This is the business model of the whole consol game industry.
Anyway, consol game business is totlally different from music player business, on game consol it runs softwares (which build with consol maker's software) but for portable player it plays music. Apple does not have any right to control thier customers where to purchase music and how they use their products.
P.S. Don't get me wrong, I totally support fair use rights, I use XBOX Media Center extensively on my modded XBOX, it's totaly awesome.
We were arguing that you're free to choose iTMS or Real's solution. The fact is that you are also free to choose the computer and OS you run.
I think the point is that Real is being hypocritical by advocating choice of players but not OS's.
Apple hasn't lost anything. They still offer the iPod/iTunes integration. If you want to choose their way, then do so. iTunes still works as well as it always did. So does the iPod. Nothing Real has done changes that.
Umm... no they don't. When Apple sells the iPod they say (to those who listen) "It just works". They also say, in finer print, as long as you use us for everything. You, as the new owner of the iPod should have the right to purchase music from anywhere. Apple, should have the right to say that they will only warrant the "It just works" statement when you buy from them.
Before Helix this was easy. Now it is not.
The point is, Apple was walking along knowing they alone had keys to the kingdom. Helix gives others the key >>to play music on the iPod<<. The kingdom, post "Harmony" is not so harmonious...
Frankly, I don't think you are neutral either. However, I don't work for anybody in this particular industry. My only connection is that I'm a computer programmer who happens to own an iPod.
The point was that you said the case was solved. Frank pointed out that no neutral party has decided that. Frank did not say he was neutral.
If you had songs from Rhapsody before Real released the Harmony Beta, iTunes still wasn't able to sync them to the iPod. Nothing has changed in that respect. The fact that iTunes lacks support for other music stores...
In the interest of trying to get you to see the issue, let me try another approach.
Before Helix your only choice was iTunes
After Helix your choice is between Helix or iTunes
Once you "choose" Helix, your only choice is Helix
The act of choosing limits future choice. "Real" choice would be to be able to use BOTH. Until you can, please say "you can choose either Helix or iTunes but not both." Your choice ends once you choose Helix.
Here is another try: you can sync all songs with Helix or with iTunes. If you choose iTunes, then you must only buy from the iTMS. If you choose Helix, you can buy from either iTMS or Real. [I think this is what you mean by choice] But no song purchased from Real will synch with iTunes. Only Real software will allow you to play Real purchases on your iPod.[And this is what I mean by limiting future choice.] [See solution at the bottom of this post.]
Apple becomes more and more responsible (practically if not legally) for the interoperability, or "squatter's rights", of third-party stores and music it never wanted on the iPod.
Apple is under no obligation to be responsible for whether other people's stuff works or not. If other people's stuff stops working, they will change it as needed.
I think this idea needs to be explored in greater detail. "Squatters rights" could become a major future issue.
Furthermore, Apple can only really break third party applications by breaking compatibility with their own older software.
You speak with such... authority. I wonder if time will not prove you wrong.
----
What I would like to see is real choice. Since Real is an advocate for such things now (right?) how bout they just go about selling whatever they want on their music site. Release Helix under the GPL and let us all see the code. Then we can make a super-whizz-bang-thingie-mah-bob that translates ALL the music stores to whatever DRM we want. Heck, if we want to get spiffy we can look at (http://nanocrew.net/blog/) JustePort and make something really useful
My question for Real is, are you an advocate for choice... or just the ability for customers to get locked into YOUR system? If the latter, you could change your marketing to read; "Don't like Apple? Choose Real instead. We are better and you can play your songs on the iPod." I mean... that is the truth right?
Nah... talking about choice is better - even if it is "less accurate".
I think the point is that Real is being hypocritical by advocating choice of players but not OS's.
Real makes players. They don't make OS's. So I think this is a rather stupid point you're trying to make, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Which I admit that I may be, as it seems to be a really dumb way to take the conversation to me.
Umm... no they don't. When Apple sells the iPod they say (to those who listen) "It just works". They also say, in finer print, as long as you use us for everything. You, as the new owner of the iPod should have the right to purchase music from anywhere. Apple, should have the right to say that they will only warrant the "It just works" statement when you buy from them.
But they never said that, because they cannot guarantee that. Look, if "it just worked" then Apple's own user forum wouldn't be full of people finding that usually, it don't just work. Nothing ever "just works". That's not how reality is.
Before Helix this was easy. Now it is not.
The point is, Apple was walking along knowing they alone had keys to the kingdom. Helix gives others the key >>to play music on the iPod<<. The kingdom, post "Harmony" is not so harmonious...
Not harmonious for Apple, I agree. But nobody ever said actually *having* competition was easy. I doubt Real's intent was to make things easier for Apple.
In the interest of trying to get you to see the issue, let me try another approach.
Before Helix your only choice was iTunes
After Helix your choice is between Helix or iTunes
Once you "choose" Helix, your only choice is Helix
So? Once you choose iTunes, you're limited to iTunes. They use DRM as well. You can hardly fault Real for something when Apple does the *exact same thing*.
I mean, you're saying that Real has done something wrong, essentially, and that Apple has not. But functionally, from a black-box persepctive, both iTunes and Harmony do the *exact same thing*. So I fail to see how one can be wrong and the other can be right, unless you're simply an Apple-apologist who feels that Steve Jobs walks on water and can do no wrong.
The act of choosing limits future choice. "Real" choice would be to be able to use BOTH. Until you can, please say "you can choose either Helix or iTunes but not both." Your choice ends once you choose Helix.
"Choice" is not a binary state, where you have it or you don't. Reality is shades of gray. Maximum choice would be for both iTunes and Real to dump the silly and easily broken DRM, and thus be wholly interoperable with one another and everybody else, offering maximum choice and competing on selection, price, and quality.
But having two virtually identical offerings to choose from is a hell of lot more choice than having one. It's not maximum choice, but it's better than before.
Here is another try: you can sync all songs with Helix or with iTunes. If you choose iTunes, then you must only buy from the iTMS. If you choose Helix, you can buy from either iTMS or Real. [I think this is what you mean by choice]
Actually, I think Karl stated above somewhere that iTMS songs won't transfer to an iPod when using Harmony. I admit I have not tried it myself yet.
But no song purchased from Real will synch with iTunes. Only Real software will allow you to play Real purchases on your iPod.[And this is what I mean by limiting future choice.] [See solution at the bottom of this post.]
My personal solution is to remove all DRM from every song I buy. I've worked out how to do this for iTMS, and Harmony makes it easier for me to do it with Real's songs as well. Once I have removed DRM, I have total choice. I admit this is not the best solution, but it works for me.
I think this idea needs to be explored in greater detail. "Squatters rights" could become a major future issue.
I utterly fail to see how. Apple has no obligation to preserve compatiblity with third party apps, and have made changes in the past that were designed specifically to break third party apps.
You speak with such... authority. I wonder if time will not prove you wrong.
Let's be very clear here. I have not examined the operation of Harmony in detail, and so it's quite possible Apple could break Harmony without breaking old iTunes versions as well. In fact, I know they could. If Apple changed the iPod to expect Protected AAC files to be 128 kbits and not 192 kbits, then that would certainly do it, for example.
However, in theory, it's possible to create Harmony, or a program like Harmony, which behaves in an manner so as to produce files indistinguishable from iTMS files, with regards to the iPod. The upshot of this would be that Apple would not be able to break it without breaking backward compatibility. I have no proof that Real has done this good of a job, but it's within the realm of possibility.
Take Hymn for an example. One of the things iTunes 4.6 did was to break Hymn decoded songs. It did this by recognizing things in Hymn decoded songs that were not in normal songs. Hymn found a fix, but is still distinguishable. However, this did lead to an offshoot of Hymn (which you can find if you look hard enough) that will produce files that are indistinguishable from iTunes encoded M4A files. Apple will never be able to break this offshoot version of Hymn, because there's nothing to distinguish the resulting files. No way to tell.
Since when can the Nomad Xtra play AAC, or REAL files????
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=229277"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ever since it was released, but only in the form of Helix and AFAIK only with real software
My question is rather when Creative gets their act together and updates the firmware of their other players to support the same, and why Helix/real, why not standard mp4/m4a to begin with
Add/Edit:
Frank, u must be american. This is like 2 secs undocumented knowledge from a 21-year-old dane: One of the major accomplishments of the EU has actually been to ban all proprietary products, in the 80's it was mostly VCR's, TV's and other "analog" consumer electronics. But everything is of cause in constant motion. In the 90's my dad administrated all EU funds tied to communication stantards, maybe ETSI rings a bell, or standards like GSM, 802.11... ALL there so that NO company can monopolise the market. Ever heard of the 500 mill EUR Microsoft owes the EU!?
I'm not saying that private technology investments should be open and exploitable to everybody but there's a difference.
As an example u can point at all the hopelessly stupid patents the americans hands out to everybody. Most people i know laffs over stuff like ebay's one-click-shoppping patent, or what did microsoft expect with the brand windows, they didn't even invent the windows-like interface, they stole it from apple, who wasn't much better and stole it from xerox.
bit more than 2 secs, flaming welcome
I think the point is that Real is being hypocritical by advocating choice of players but not OS's.
Real makes players. They don't make OS's. So I think this is a rather stupid point you're trying to make, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Which I admit that I may be, as it seems to be a really dumb way to take the conversation to me.
Sorry for being foolish. Last I checked, apps ran on top of operating systems. I do not think you need to write an operating system in order to write an app.
iTMS, if I recall, was created on Max OS X and later ported to Windows. If Real is going to talk about choice, does it raise any concerns to you that they do not write an app that runs on BOTH OS X and Windows? They are giving "choice" only to Windows users - even though iTMS was started on a non-Windows OS.
And just in case you are wondering, Real makes OS X applications.
Umm... no they don't. When Apple sells the iPod they say (to those who listen) "It just works". They also say, in finer print, as long as you use us for everything. You, as the new owner of the iPod should have the right to purchase music from anywhere. Apple, should have the right to say that they will only warrant the "It just works" statement when you buy from them.
But they never said that, because they cannot guarantee that. Look, if "it just worked" then Apple's own user forum wouldn't be full of people finding that usually, it don't just work. Nothing ever "just works". That's not how reality is.
Let me guess, you don't own a Mac. FYI, on Macs, things "just work". Please point to a single user forum "of people finding that usually, it don't just work." Hubris is fun to read but not factual. FYI, Apple has the highest consumer satisfaction rating in OS, hardware and software. There is a reason - things "just work". I have yet to find an iPod/iTMS install that did not "just work". And this, I think, is what we are discussing. (PS: If you know of one, please point it out.)
Before Helix this was easy. Now it is not. The point is, Apple was walking along knowing they alone had keys to the kingdom. Helix gives others the key >>to play music on the iPod<<. The kingdom, post "Harmony" is not so harmonious...
Not harmonious for Apple, I agree. But nobody ever said actually *having* competition was easy. I doubt Real's intent was to make things easier for Apple.
You agreed to my main point. Thank you.
I was not talking about competition. I was talking about a kingdom where Apple had complete control. Now that Harmony is out, that Kingdom is less harmonious. Apple has taken issue with that. The debate, as I see it, is 1) if Apple believe Real has done something illegal and 2) if Real has not, what taht does to Apple's "game plan".
Both 1 & 2 will take work for Apple. No, that is not easy. But I think your original statement was that Apple should not be upset. I was simply trying to point out that to me, and my foolish way of thinking, it makes sense that Apple might be perturbed.
As for Real, they are simply trying to survive. I do not fault them for trying. I think they are lame for the way they are trying, but hey, that is my opine.
In the interest of trying to get you to see the issue, let me try another approach.
Before Helix your only choice was iTunes
After Helix your choice is between Helix or iTunes
Once you "choose" Helix, your only choice is Helix
So? Once you choose iTunes, you're limited to iTunes. They use DRM as well. You can hardly fault Real for something when Apple does the *exact same thing*.
Um... not. Real crashed the party. If I go home and sit on my sofa, I think I have a right to protest if you barge into my house uninvited and sit on my sofa - even if we are both sitting on the same sofa.
Or are you going to do another typical Windows logical leap:
1) It will never work. It can not happen.
2) Apple did it. So what, it does not matter. Who cares?
3) We have figured out how to do it better and cheaper. Apple should change their solution to adhere to the standards we just created because consumers want choice.
unless you're simply an Apple-apologist who feels that Steve Jobs walks on water and can do no wrong.
U r funny.
The act of choosing limits future choice. "Real" choice would be to be able to use BOTH. Until you can, please say "you can choose either Helix or iTunes but not both." Your choice ends once you choose Helix.
"Choice" is not a binary state, where you have it or you don't. Reality is shades of gray. Maximum choice would be for both iTunes and Real to dump the silly and easily broken DRM, and thus be wholly interoperable with one another and everybody else, offering maximum choice and competing on selection, price, and quality.
So if choice is not binary, how to folks who buy songs on Real get them to work in iTunes? Oh, they can't. I call that binary. What do you call it? There is not grey here. Either use Helix or iTunes. Pick one and stick with it. Either or... not both.
But having two virtually identical offerings to choose from is a hell of lot more choice than having one. It's not maximum choice, but it's better than before.
I agree. I only disagree with the word choice. As I said before, a more accurate marketing campaign would be "Choose either iTunes or Harmony, the choice is yours." Saying consumers have choice implies the ability to move back and forth. Anything purchased on iTMS can be played in either Harmony or iTunes. Anything purchased on Real can ONLY be played in Harmony. I think Reals houdl be clear.
My personal solution is to remove all DRM from every song I buy. I've worked out how to do this for iTMS, and Harmony makes it easier for me to do it with Real's songs as well. Once I have removed DRM, I have total choice. I admit this is not the best solution, but it works for me.
You and me both. DRM is foolish - truly. But the RIAA requires it so apple is doing their best to comply. I think Apple will drop all DRM once the requirement is dropped.
iTMS, if I recall, was created on Max OS X and later ported to Windows. If Real is going to talk about choice, does it raise any concerns to you that they do not write an app that runs on BOTH OS X and Windows? They are giving "choice" only to Windows users - even though iTMS was started on a non-Windows OS.
Yes, they do. They also make RealPlayer 10 for Windows, Mac, and Unix/Linux. It works pretty well on all three.
They have only created the iPod plugin with the "Harmony" thing available on Windows so far, and Rhapsody still is Windows only, I grant you. However, as I recall, iTMS was Mac only for about 18 months or so. I think a bit of leeway is granted here. Apple has iTMS on Mac and Windows, but where's the Linux version? See, it's a matter of time and effort, and in any case is wholly irrelevant to the argument.
Let me guess, you don't own a Mac. FYI, on Macs, things "just work"
Hell no I don't own one. Wouldn't take one if they paid me to. I use them. I also hate them. They *NEVER* do what you expect them to do, and only rarely what you want them to do. OS X is the most unintuitive interface ever invented.
Please point to a single user forum "of people finding that usually, it don't just work."
http://discussions.info.apple.com (http://discussions.info.apple.com)
I was not talking about competition. I was talking about a kingdom where Apple had complete control. Now that Harmony is out, that Kingdom is less harmonious. Apple has taken issue with that. The debate, as I see it, is 1) if Apple believe Real has done something illegal and 2) if Real has not, what taht does to Apple's "game plan".
1) They're wrong.
2) Nobody cares about Apple's "game plan" except Apple.
Here's the thing.. Apple having complete control is good for Apple, it's not good for me. And call me selfish, but I don't much care if Apple survives or not. I don't much care if Real survives or not, for that matter. When something is good for me, then I consider it to be good.
I consider Real's Harmony offering and iPod compatibility to be good. Anything beyond that, and I don't farkin' care.
But I think your original statement was that Apple should not be upset.
You thought wrong then, as I never stated any such thing. Apple can be upset all they like, I won't attempt to calm them down, nor do I care how upset they are. How upset Apple is is *not the point*.
As for Real, they are simply trying to survive. I do not fault them for trying. I think they are lame for the way they are trying, but hey, that is my opine.
For many years I have thought Real sucked. Worse than Apple. They have a branding issue, as Real Player has been the worst crap ever made for years and years and years.
With this new software and the path they are taking on it, I'm beginning to think they might have turned it around and are no longer "lame".
Um... not. Real crashed the party. If I go home and sit on my sofa, I think I have a right to protest if you barge into my house uninvited and sit on my sofa - even if we are both sitting on the same sofa.
Yes, except your analogy sucks. Real isn't sitting on your iTunes sofa. They're making a new Harmony easy chair available for you to sit on. And even then you have to go to the furniture store and pick it up. Yes, the people that make the iTunes sofa (Apple furniture) are understandably unhappy about you being able to use your new Apple-branded ass in somebody else's easy-chair, but there's little they can do about it.
Or are you going to do another typical Windows logical leap:
1) It will never work. It can not happen.
2) Apple did it. So what, it does not matter. Who cares?
3) We have figured out how to do it better and cheaper. Apple should change their solution to adhere to the standards we just created because consumers want choice.
Actually, Real created choice in iPod music stores to use by converting their software to use Apple's standards. Apple has no reason to change their solution, Real adapted to their system.
So if choice is not binary, how to folks who buy songs on Real get them to work in iTunes? Oh, they can't. I call that binary. What do you call it? There is not grey here. Either use Helix or iTunes. Pick one and stick with it. Either or... not both.
Exactly. Pick one of two. Where before you could not pick anything other than one, now you can pick one of two. Ahhh, isn't choice wonderful?
Saying consumers have choice implies the ability to move back and forth.
You're reading some kind of implication into there that I cannot find *anywhere*. I would say that you reading something that even you admit is not explictly there is your own problem.
Anything purchased on Real can ONLY be played in Harmony. I think Reals houdl be clear.
Real's music can also be played on an iPod or an iRiver or any portable music device that Harmony supports (many of them). Last I checked, iTunes supported only one music device, the iPod.
You and me both. DRM is foolish - truly. But the RIAA requires it so apple is doing their best to comply. I think Apple will drop all DRM once the requirement is dropped.
The requirement will never be dropped until the RIAA is destroyed and the middlemen in the music industry are jobless. This is my opinion.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/scienc...sp?story=552489 (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=552489)
I guess you are right - nothing ever works as intended on a Mac...
You do, however make a good point; Harmony is good for some. I happen to think what they did is illegal. If it is not, more power to them. Live long and prosper. I give them 6 months.
I ordered a 4G 40GB iPod from the Apple Store. I'm looking forward to loading up on 49 cent tracks and half-price albums from the RealPlayer Music Store.
Not to dredge up this topic again, but I ran across this chart that might be helpful to some people, if no-one has posted it yet, showing which on-line store works with which music player.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6490_7-514029...l?tag=cnetfd.ld (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6490_7-5140299-1.html?tag=cnetfd.ld)
Sorry for any duplication
I'm sure someone here will find some mistakes ;-)
Frank
ATTN: Karl from Real (or n e 1 else),
would it be possible for you to give me a link to the creative zen xtra firmware, i cannot find it!
can you get the documentation also (source code)?
ps. how did u crack creative's firmware code? did they give you permission or did u come up with it? what language is used?
thx in advance
The updated Creative firmware is available from the Install devices page in RealPlayer.
Tools->Add A New Device... ( http://music.guide.real.com/realplayerdevices (http://music.guide.real.com/realplayerdevices) )
Here is what the description says: "Clicking 'Install' below will also update your firmware to support the Music Store." This means the f/w supports AAC, but I think it means AAC wrapped in Helix DRM only. There is no 'hacking' involved: this is an official firmware, developed in collaboration with Creative.
You have to ask Creative why they are not offering AAC in their normal firmwares, but I do suspect it has to do with patent/IP licensing costs for the technology in AAC, which unfortunately is probably the case for most other "MP3/WMA" players as well.
The updated Creative firmware is available from the Install devices page in RealPlayer.
Tools->Add A New Device... ( http://music.guide.real.com/realplayerdevices (http://music.guide.real.com/realplayerdevices) )
Here is what the description says: "Clicking 'Install' below will also update your firmware to support the Music Store." This means the f/w supports AAC, but I think it means AAC wrapped in Helix DRM only. There is no 'hacking' involved: this is an official firmware, developed in collaboration with Creative.
You have to ask Creative why they are not offering AAC in their normal firmwares, but I do suspect it has to do with patent/IP licensing costs for the technology in AAC, which unfortunately is probably the case for most other "MP3/WMA" players as well.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=318835"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
thx karl, is there any way real can incorporate ogg vorbis in a new version?