Real shoots back at Apple, reaffirms commitment to Harmony

Advertisement (Why?)

Earlier today Apple released a statement about the recent actions of RealNetorks. Accusing Real of using hacker-like tactics for its Harmony technology. Now RealNetwork's is shooting back saying "Consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod." You can't argue with that statement users should have the option to choose what goes on their iPod, but in Apples eyes it doesn't excuse what Real did.

Apple Computer Inc. issued a statement on Thursday accusing RealNetworks of hacker-like tactics for its Harmony technology that will allow content from Real's music store to be played on Apple's iPod. Several hours later RealNetworks shot back saying they have done nothing wrong and reaffirmed its commitment to developing Harmony.

"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, said Apple's statement. "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. For its part Real Networks said customers have welcomed the introduction of Harmony. "Consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod," Real Networks said in a statement given to MacCentral.

News source: MacCentral

The Pokémon franchise remains as popular as ever. Pokémon has sold more than 128 million video games worldwide, accounting for more than $4 billion in sales. For several weeks in early 2004, Pokémon Colosseum™, made exclusively for Nintendo GameCube™, and its pre-sell bonus disk outsold every software title and video game console on Amazon.com. And in Japan, Pokémon FireRed and Pokémon LeafGreen sold more than 2.5 million units in just over three months.

Pokémon FireRed and Pokémon LeafGreen offer never-before-seen features, including Union Rooms, hubs for social game play where up to 40 players can meet and chat wirelessly to trade and battle Pokémon or just make conversation using chat functions. The games also feature a more colorful and easier-to-use Pokédex that lets users sort their Pokémon in a variety of different ways.

(17 replies) #1 iMike on 29 Jul 2004 - 19:32

apple made the iPod. therefore, APPLE should be deciding what goes on it. thats a bunch of crap, what Real said

#1.1 chacho on 29 Jul 2004 - 19:47

agreed.

#1.2 theyarecomingforyou on 29 Jul 2004 - 19:53

The thing with Apple is not that they're just not providing support for other formats, but that they're actively blocking other formats to limit consumer options.

I understand that it is their hardware, but Real were just trying to allow more consumer choice. Apple is too aggressive with their litigation - suing/taking legal action against everyone is no way to run a business; it is working against the customers, and is against everyone's interests [apart from their own].

#1.3 Hurmoth on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:34

Whose iPod is it, Apple's or Real's? I totally agree with Apple! They have the right to block other music out, even though it is a monopoly!

#1.4 puredeath on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:47

Screw Apple and their b/s IPod. Plenty of other players out there that are chaper and more feature-rich [kudos to Iriver].

Apple is a prime example of corporate greed. What goes around, comes around. Apple won't last a decade, and you can quote me on that.

#1.5 sdkaneda on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:47

if i BUY the ipod, i'll use it however i want to use it and however i can use it. if i slip in the tub and injure my head, become a flipping retard and want to play ass-quality realaudio on my $600 ipod, it's nice to know the option is there.

#1.6 Hurmoth on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:53

QUOTE

Screw Apple and their b/s IPod. Plenty of other players out there that are chaper and more feature-rich (kudos to Iriver).

Apple is a prime example of corporate greed. What goes around, comes around. Apple won't last a decade, and you can quote me on that.

What are you smoking? Apple's already been around 20 years, what would make them go under now? The iPod is the best thing to ever happen to them and I doubt Apple lovers are going to give up on Apple because of corporate greed

Which every company gets when they get something as big as what the iPod turned out to be!

#1.7 pagal on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:55

come on man, don't you think that's a bad statement?
Its like saying MS made windows so there shouldn't be any other companies making software for windows?

jeez...I wonder what the heck these apple marketers use to brainwash ppl.

#1.8 mezz on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:05

QUOTE (#1.0)

Uh? Microsoft made Windows and MSIE, so why aren't Microsoft allowed to block the other browsers? Few companies are trying to avoid people rip out the CD and DVD, so they made these and we aren't allow to rip it on our hardwares? There are plenty of examples why your point is nonsense.

If I own an iPod, it's not Apple's decision what they want to put in my iPod anymore because I own it.

#1.9 theyarecomingforyou on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:09

become a flipping retard and want to play ass-quality realaudio on my $600 ipod, it's nice to know the option is there.

Real uses 192AAC... so if AAC is ass-quality, then Apple is super ass-quality. Keep taking that medication.

#1.10 MEMO.INC on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:34

And the same goes for windows.. they made windows, they can bundle averymiddleware they want

#1.11 Hurmoth on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:41

Agreed!

#1.12 doubledragonxz on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:14

QUOTE (#1.10)

Not when MS owns 95% of the market.

#1.13 NetRyder on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:15

It belongs to neither of them. Once the consumer buys an iPod, the consumer owns it. Plain and simple fact that our brainwashed buddies don't seem to understand.

#1.14 Hurmoth on 29 Jul 2004 - 23:04

You need to check to see who owns the copyrights to the iPod, who owns the patent to the iPod and the software that iPod uses!

#1.15 insurektion on 29 Jul 2004 - 23:37

Then use them and dont waste a post. Im all for apple. Also you cn rip Cd's apples not holding a gun to your head telling you that you can't go out to a music store.

#1.16 superfula on 30 Jul 2004 - 00:21

QUOTE (#1.13)

You still have to abide by the EULA

#1.17 j.reed on 30 Jul 2004 - 05:49

I guess we can just throw the concept of fair use right out the window then.

#2 bangbang023 on 29 Jul 2004 - 19:32

"Consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod,"

I can't say I disagree at all. This is a real shame what Apple is doing. They were always one of those "always right" companies, in my book, but this is just not cool at all.

#3 Mister Lamar on 29 Jul 2004 - 19:37

I still want an iPod and I like real player(enterprise edition)

#4 [Thrice] on 29 Jul 2004 - 19:39

yep i see reals move as great ipod + more choice = great

(1 reply) #5 username on 29 Jul 2004 - 19:46

Harmony... ironic name

#5.1 sentio on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:29

ehe; just what I was thinking.

(2 replies) #6 aristotle-dude on 29 Jul 2004 - 19:51

This is bullsh*t. You are free to load any non-DRMed AAC file from any service or ripped from your CD's. Same thing goes for MP3s. emusic.com offers legal MP3 downloads for any platform.

Given that Apple developed the iPod and owns the rights to the DRM engine, they have the write to allow or deny anyone a license.

#6.1 Ciderx on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:00

Let's face facts. Steve Jobs could go around injecting heroin into the eyes of kittens and orphans and there would STILL be an aristotle-dude post on neowin defending him and Apple.

#6.2 shao on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:28

unfortuantely for us he doesn't do that. he just works at apple..
unfortuantely for him that still makes him an absolute díck in my eyes. Always has been, always will be. I can remember the news stories of real asking apple if they could 'co-exist', and the obvious overwhelming smugness in apple's retort, that just makes this whole story even funnier.

(1 reply) #7 angrybrit on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:02

Real is competitor (Rhapsody). The hell is Apple gonna help those guys out!

Real is irrelevant just like Raskin. No one uses Real media stuff anymore.

#7.1 lodgepole on 30 Jul 2004 - 00:14

ummm, while I don't know how they calculate market-share, it was my understanding, Real still had 25% of the market.

(3 replies) #8 tgindrup on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:09

apple made the iPod. therefore, APPLE should be deciding what goes on it

It would seem to me that as a customer, having paid good money for the iPod, I should get to decide what goes on MY device.

#8.1 aristotle-dude on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:22

And you do have a choice what goes on your device in terms of formats supported by the device and firmware. You can install any song you want in one of the supported formats. In fact, you can use it as a HD and install any file you want on it in the HD portion of the iPod outside of the music player directories.

We consumer are not able to force companies like MS or Apple to support different formats.

#8.2 Krankerz on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:47

Well said aristotle-dude.

It's interesting how everyone is making this an Apple-only discussion, when it's more general than that.

#8.3 Deviate_X on 30 Jul 2004 - 03:21

aristotle-dude :

We consumer are not able to force companies like MS or Apple to support different formats.

And apple has no right to stop anyone making software to extend the capability of the music player. In reality all apple can do is whine and be bitter about it.

(4 replies) #9 NinjaMonkey82 on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:18

I'd have to say that Real is in the wrong here. I agree you should be able to do what you want with your iPod but if Real is going to use Apple's DRM should they have to pay to license it?

Not only that but Real wants to license this hack to other people to make money off of it.

#9.1 figgy on 30 Jul 2004 - 00:06

Real had no alternative.
They tried to acquire a license from Apple, but Apple refused.

That left Real with no option but to reverse engineer Apple's DRM.

#9.2 superfula on 30 Jul 2004 - 00:23

I go into your house and ask to borrow your TV. You say no. You leave me no choice but to steal it.

I guess in your world, if we ask someone for something and they don't give it to us, it's ok to obtain it illegally.

#9.3 figgy on 30 Jul 2004 - 01:18

Reply to #9.2
Wrong analogy.
Stealing my TV would mean I would no longer have a TV.
What has Apple lost?

Reverse engineering was not really illegal until the DMCA came along.
In fact many courts had rules in favor of companies which had reverse engineered.
A prime example was PC Tools which had a tool to backup copy-protected floppies in the 80s and early nineties based on reverse engineered tech.

The are thousand of examples in the software world where products are based on reverse engineering. For example, I trurly believe Microsoft should never sue Samba developers for reversing Active Directory protocols. And to Microsoft's credit it has never ever sue anyone for patent infringement. The only cases where Microsoft actually sued was as a counter-suit when the it got sued. That's an example that everybody should follow.

Last edited by 34759 on 30 Jul 2004 - 01:24

#9.4 NinjaMonkey82 on 30 Jul 2004 - 02:42

What do you mean what has Apple lost? They would potentially loose business. That's the whole point. Hence the reson companies sue each other over patents.

Real was turned down, they should have given up there.

(3 replies) #10 Cyranthus on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:41

i dont see what the big deal about this is? why is apple being so damn snooty to Real about this... i see no point in it.

#10.1 cal2002 on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:46

If you had a DRM system and wanted to control the use of it (this being Apple) and Real came along (behind your back) and made a "workaround" you would not be mad?

Add to that, this "could" open holes in the DRM. Many DRM breaks = less record companies signing to distribute music. In turn, this equals the fall of the iTunes, which makes the iPod market share drop, etc.

If you are Apple, you are thinking if Real screws up ONE thing, you could be the ones to get screwed.

#10.2 MOGua on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:34

If you are Apple, you are thinking if Real screws up ONE thing, you could be the ones to get screwed.

Apple's system had been screwed for so long.

Remember when they updated iTunes to what? 4.6? on the SECOND DAY, algorithm was broken, again.

There are so many software out there that will allow me to load anything into my iPod, there's even Winamp plug-ins that can do that.

So what's the big deal?

#10.3 cal2002 on 29 Jul 2004 - 23:02

Read my post again, "the more DRM breaks...." Thats common sence, no?

#11 Sushubh on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:46

since u cant make a cool gadget like iPod (u cant even make a decent player realnetwork), do the next best thing. screw others.

#12 jmole on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:48

Will you have to wait till the real media music buffers on the iPod before being able to listen to it?

(1 reply) #13 frod on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:50

real is being a bunch of idiots about this. this has nothing to do with letting people choose what they want on their ipod. real didn't have to come up with some ghetto hack to put their files on an ipod, they could have just offered non-drm'ed aac files instead. but no, they want to be greedy and have their proprietary drm format play on another company's player, and now they are getting pissy when apple decides to do something about it.

#13.1 jasondefaoite on 30 Jul 2004 - 01:19

That makes no sense. Since Real has its own music store, it would have a tough time selling non DRM'ed tracks without the RIAA kickin in the door.

Secondly they are non making their proprietary drm format play on the iPod, the tracks on their music store are wrapped in a reverse engineered copy of apple's DRM, to allow it to play on the ipod. The hack is not forcing the iPod to play reals DRM, but rather changing Reals music store files to match apples DRM.

#14 xp1ode on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:52

Well i cant say i dont like real becasue of their software, but i do however dont like apple because of their monipilistic ways, so me and my ipod are very happy just the way it is, when this update comes around, il let it go by. I'll put whatever i want on the damn thing becasue i bought it, fuq apple let them do whatever they want with the ipods they havent sold.

(2 replies) #15 fubarshibby on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:12

As far as Apple's actions go, I don't even care. I think they should be mad, but it really makes no difference to me.

Real is the one in the wrong. As it has been said before, they could just put AAC/MP3 files on the iPod. What's the problem with that? Instead, they decide to make a "hack" to get their own stuff on the damned thing. What the hell are they thinking? Is there any point in that? If you see one, tell me, because I sure as hell don't.

#15.1 noyb on 29 Jul 2004 - 23:47

Real could not put unprotected files out, because record companies would take their product off Real's store

#15.2 insurektion on 29 Jul 2004 - 23:56

Thus screw Real if you so desire buy physical media and rip. For about as much as it cost to downlod off iTunes. Whoes selection is awesome now.

(9 replies) #16 CrimandEvil on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:13

Can't we sue REAL for it's crappy format? Why does Apple have to support it?

#16.1 cal2002 on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:18

wtf

#16.2 OptiPlex on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:41

yeah kid
lay off the crack

#16.3 NetRyder on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:25

In case you haven't noticed, Real is offering 192k AAC at the same price per song as Apple's 128k AACs.
Same format as Apple's, better bitrate = better quality.

Dumbass.

#16.4 insurektion on 29 Jul 2004 - 23:58

QUOTE (#16.0)

You're American? Oh, Im so sorry.

#16.5 fubarshibby on 30 Jul 2004 - 02:00

QUOTE (#16.3)

In case you haven't noticed, Real is offering 192k AAC at the same price per song as Apple's 128k AACs.
Same format as Apple's, better bitrate = better quality.

The thing is, AAC doesn't need to be any higher than 128kb... It sounds perfect there. If it were MP3, then 192kb would be understandable...

#16.6 Deviate_X on 30 Jul 2004 - 03:25

The thing is, AAC doesn't need to be any higher than 128kb... It

You kidding right? you really can't be that ignorant..

#16.7 fubarshibby on 30 Jul 2004 - 07:11

Ignorant? Don't even go there. I don't need my AAC files any higher than 128kb. I've heard both 128 and 192 and I hear no difference. Those people that think that they need the highest quality imaginable are just being anal.

#16.8 T-Metal on 30 Jul 2004 - 12:29

YOU don't hear any difference, but I and other people with better hearing do. Are you THAT selfish?

Edit: typo.

Last edited by 45622 on 30 Jul 2004 - 16:56

#16.9 m0digital on 30 Jul 2004 - 14:01

Lol, Your speakers must suck for you not to be able to tell the difference. Granted some recordings aren't recorded very well so you won't tell much of a difference, but you should still tell the difference.

#17 PureEdit on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:37

This is the same as MS/Sony/Nintendo not letting people make games for their systems without buying the expensive SDKs. Real needs to ****ing die, so I hope they are forced to pay apple a large settlement for DMCA infringement.

(2 replies) #18 MOGua on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:53

There are even books out there that you can buy to "Hack the XBOX"...Install Linux on it, blah blah...

I guess it is okay for ppl to f--- with MS since they are such a monopoly but nope, we can't do it to Apple because it is the underdog, and we need to protect it from...Microsoft?...uh, no...wait a minute, Apple IS the monopoly in online music...

foolishness.

#18.1 matric on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:57

Exactly mate. If it were Microsoft doing this it would be " oh my god, anti competitive Microsoft *******s". But since it's Apple, it's OK. Yeh right.

#18.2 PureEdit on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:43

There is a difference between hacking something for your personal gain and a company hacking something to profit from it.

#19 NetRyder on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:12

I never thought I'd say this, but...GO REAL! Kick 'em back. That's the spirit.

#20 C_Guy on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:14

And enter the lawyers on 3...2...1....

(4 replies) #21 HeAtWaVe on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:14

F***K REAL......bloatware piece of garbage.....first time i've supported apple, but i hate Real too much.....

#21.1 cal2002 on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:18

You only hate Real as a company becuase you are ignorant.

#21.2 NetRyder on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:22

All I can say is think rationally, not emotionally, and you'll see who is right in this particular case.

#21.3 noyb on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:28

Who is the ignorant one here, he doesn't like something, is that not allowed in here. For years Real has offered poorly written software thet takes control of file associations without asking and loading massive amounts of spyware onto the machine these are all reasons why many people dislike Real and not only wish to not use their software again but also to wish them to go out of business.

#21.4 nic on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:44

QUOTE (#21.3)

I'm going to have to agree with your statement. I can understand why people hate Real. They have changed their ways, or so that was reported. But it is hard to get over it when they screwed your computer up so many times.

As for the issue of this news story, i'm going to have to side with Real.

(1 reply) #22 nic on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:41

Just open a music store that doesn't shove DRM down your throat. Then you can sell songs that can be placed on apple's iPod with no problem!

#22.1 noyb on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:45

No record company in their right mind would ever support a store that doesn't use DRM

#23 EVO VIII on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:46

lol this is stupid. this is like AMD making my CPU and limiting what programs i should run it with...

(1 reply) #24 monofonik on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:52

Apple doesn't allow you to play WMA files on your iPod, so why the f-k is this an issue?

#24.1 figgy on 30 Jul 2004 - 00:10

That is exactly the issue. Why don't they open up the architecture and allow more music formats.

#25 leebobs on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:53

I feel an ECJ judgement on Breach of Article 82 comming on!

#26 noyb on 29 Jul 2004 - 22:55

I just wanted to pour gas on the flames for the hell of it, MS doesn't allow you to play ITMS purchased songs in media centre

(3 replies) #27 threetonesun on 29 Jul 2004 - 23:04

"Consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod,"

Yeah, that's why they buy from iTunes. I don't think there's ever been a case of someone going, "only Harmony has the song I want! It exists neither on iTunes or in CD form, but curse you Apple for not allowing me to use their format!"

#27.1 NetRyder on 29 Jul 2004 - 23:44

It's not availability. It's quality. 128k AAC @ 99c/song vs. 192k AAC @ 99c/song
Which would you pick? I know which one I would. What you do is your concern. It's all about choice here. Why is it so difficult for people to see that?

#27.2 threetonesun on 29 Jul 2004 - 23:56

Apple @ 128k AAC. Why? Because Real has made a lot of claims about their quality before, and they've never delivered. Just base quality numbers really have nothing to do with the quality of the song you'll end up with.

#27.3 NetRyder on 30 Jul 2004 - 00:11

That's fine. As I've said so many times already, use what you like. Just because the iPod now SUPPORTS Real's files, doesn't mean it's going to change anything if you continue to use iTMS. For those who want alternatives (I've seen many people complain about iTunes for Windows), they now have an option. What's wrong with that?

(1 reply) #28 monofonik on 29 Jul 2004 - 23:37

"Yeah, that's why they buy from iTunes."

There's another good point. Nobody's going to use Real's service. They're like Netscape - a fossil company scraping the ground with their fingernails doing everything they can to resist getting dragged out of the industry.

Neowin.net