'Stunned' Apple rails against Real's iPod move
Posted by malebolgia on 29 July 2004 - 14:16 · 91 comments & 3460 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by empty on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:18
- a bit petty imo, users love having options and even though i hate real it was still a valid alternative. not anymore tho,
-
(6 replies)
#2 Posted by Grappa on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:18
- Way to alienate the hacking community, Apple. I know you know the difference between hackers and crackers.
-
#2.1 Posted by Chadwick 08 on 29 Jul 2004 - 15:31
- yes, but does the general public? "Hacker" is more common to the average person and will make a bigger impression than "Cracker" which could be mistaken for an ethnic slur
-
#2.2 Posted by midsummerstorm on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:31
- "Hacker" is a term that has been degraded to the point of beeing equivalent to "criminal that takes advantage of computers to commit his crimes". It's very sad, and IMHO the media are to blame.
Now, Apple's statement really sounds moronic, coming from a computer company. One who should take care to use appropriate words when discribing its competitors. We all should be proud of the hacker ethos, and this kind of comments really hurt the hacking community. -
#2.4 Posted by Krankerz on 29 Jul 2004 - 18:50
QUOTE (#2.2) ...really hurt the hacking community.
HAHAHA!!! Hurt the hacker community? Now who sounds moronic?
...Idiot.
-
#2.5 Posted by shao on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:17
- the irony in this whole thing is that apple is going to need to 'hack' or reverse engineer harmony to see how they can possibly stop it from working for future ipod updates... thus making them no worse than harmony.
for once i'm glad real managed to screw over someone more smug and arrogant than themselves; jobs. he had it coming to him.
-
(9 replies)
#3 Posted by gunky on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:20
- doesn't the behavior of apple seem a little monopolistic?
-
#3.1 Posted by configure on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:23
- Hey, their server, their bandwidth, their expense. Though Real's software puts more choices on the table for users, you have to remember that it's still Apple's music store, not Real's.
-
#3.2 Posted by neufuse on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:26
- didn't it seem monopolistic back when they bundled iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie all with mac also and quicktime? bundleing is still bundleing and now they have safari included too (remember back when the anti trust thing started with MS nothing was integrated either, Internet Explorer 1.0,2.0,3.0 all were seperate installations and the US justice dept still started the investigation up over MSN being "bundled" with windows)
you dont need at 90% market share to be monopolistic... apple demonstrates the same traits as MS just no one cares enough to repremand them because of the small market share... if apple would gain area the same thing would happen to them.. -
#3.3 Posted by configure on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:28
- Forget my comment above, I misunderstood what Harmony actually do.
-
#3.4 Posted by Mister Lamar on 29 Jul 2004 - 15:35
- they learned from the best.........
-
#3.5 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:50
- Right on neufuse!
-
#3.6 Posted by tRr on 30 Jul 2004 - 00:26
- Nothing is illegal about having a monopoly. MS has– or at least was judged to have during the court case– a monopoly on the OS market. They then used that monopoly to crush and bully competitors, which of course is illegal and hence why they got in trouble.
Apple probably could be considered to have a monopoly on digital music, but I don't see them in any way trying to hold back Real or anyone else from doing business, besides regular competition. Something similar to what MS did would be for Apple to contact the Record labels and refuse to sell any of their music unless Apple is granted exclusive digital rights to their entire collections. -
#3.7 Posted by gunky on 30 Jul 2004 - 04:08
- apple is using the ipod, a music player, to force the use of itunes, their music purchasing service. the way they are restricting their ipod customers is characteristic of a monopoly
-
#3.8 Posted by T-Metal on 30 Jul 2004 - 04:23
- Right on gunky. People have to realize that, or we're doomed.
-
#3.9 Posted by tRr on 30 Jul 2004 - 08:31
- Did Apple every imply that the iPod would be able to use anything but iTunes music store online files? Buyer beware...
And I wouldn't say they are trying to restrict their customers so much (you are free to try and hack it as much as you can, or to smash it against the table) as they are trying to stop Real from using Fairplay, which I assume is protected by law in some form or another, and is Apple's property.
Once again– having a monopoly is NOT illegal. It is in fact the business goal of every corporation! When a company reaches that level, steps have to be taken to foster competition, theoretically protecting us as consumers, but considering it's incredible easy to go out and buy a portable MP3 player and download music from a complete non-Apple solution, I don't think that day is anywhere near.
-
(5 replies)
#4 Posted by JohnO on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:23
- for once the company real seems cool
-
#4.2 Posted by tapo on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:28
- I've actually started to like Real. Being on Dialup, it's better at streaming then QuickTime and a hell of a lot better then Windows Media.
-
#4.3 Posted by N@t5 on 29 Jul 2004 - 17:40
- I actually prefer Quicktime despite its worse performance, only because it caches the file locally at the same time, so i can watch/listen again instantly
-
#4.4 Posted by CubanPete on 29 Jul 2004 - 19:13
- Im not a huge fan of either. I prefer not to use real player but i refuse to instal quicktime as it just doesnt seam to have any optimised code in it, it just feels like a tank to drive! that is the only way i can describe it!
-
(4 replies)
#5 Posted by angrybrit on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:24
- Go GO APPLE!!!
Screw them up real nice! -
#5.1 Posted by i like chips on 29 Jul 2004 - 15:23
- no pun intended huh?
-
#5.3 Posted by Grope for Luna on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:20
- "real nice" -> "Real Networks". Geddit?
-
(15 replies)
#6 Posted by nspeds on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:34
- I don't care what people think of Real or Apple. What Real did was wrong; they asked for permission and when they were denied, they went ahead and did what they wanted.
If you can't follow the rules, don't play the game. -
#6.1 Posted by pagal on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:38
- spoken like a true fanboy (y)
I believe that apple is wrong on this one (may be correct according to the laws but I mean from a user's perspective) I own an ipod, and I'd love to have the ability to play real as well as few other formats. -
#6.2 Posted by Arch on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:47
- What rules? If they broke any laws then Apple would have taken legal action.
I for one see nothing wrong with what they did. It's actually in the spirit of competition to have open support on the iPod.
What if they decided to remove support for Real from OS X, or AAC from Windows? It's their operating system and they own the rights to it, so why wont you let them do whatever they want with it? -
#6.3 Posted by WingZero on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:50
- And as the article says, apple are looking into the legal action.
IMO - Real are in the wrong on this one. There's a distinct difference between being informed by apple, and reverse engineering their format (as was stated in a previous article i read).
No, I'm not an apple 'fanboy'. No, i don't own an Ipod. But it is blatantly obvious that Real are in the wrong.
Yes, it's nice to have choice, i know with the minidisc i plan on buying soon i'd prefer not to use ATRAC. However, just because something is prefered, doesn't make it right. -
#6.4 Posted by XanDaMan on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:52
- Its breaking the law im sure. If so, apple are right.
End of. -
#6.5 Posted by Zepolcire on 29 Jul 2004 - 15:30
- Right. Real should not be allowed to use their Hormony software without being permitted to by Apple.
-
#6.6 Posted by aristotle-dude on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:09
QUOTE (#6.1) I believe that apple is wrong on this one (may be correct according to the laws but I mean from a user's perspective) I own an ipod, and I'd love to have the ability to play real as well as few other formats.
So, if I asked you if I could sleep with your wife/girlfriend and you said no, it would be ok for me to go behind your back and do it anyway?
Or say, if I asked if I could eat the food in your fridge, you said no but I jimmied the lock at night and went to eat out of your fridge while your slept, that would be ok?
It's Apple's DRM, they can license it to whomever they please.
What M<S was doing was different. they were preventing access to a hardware platform they did not even own/develop. Apple designed their own hardware platform. You don't see people demanding Nintendo, sony or MS allow unlicensed games to run on their consoles without mod chips do you?-
#6.7 Posted by linsook on 29 Jul 2004 - 17:25
- uhhh your example is totally off... lol dumbass.
wife is mine, fridge is mine. ipod if you bought it its yours, you married my sister she yours, you bought a fridge off me, its yours.
if i was the owner of a condo and you purchased a flat and i said you couldnt bring any people in but yourself and your spouse... what would you say? i'd say **** that, i bought this half a million dollar condo.. im gonna do whatever i like as long as i dotn disturb my neighbours. -
#6.8 Posted by nspeds on 29 Jul 2004 - 17:30
- pagal,
Spoken like a true idiot. Learn about "common sense" and the "law" before commenting on it. -
#6.9 Posted by NetRyder on 29 Jul 2004 - 18:03
QUOTE So, if I asked you if I could sleep with your wife/girlfriend and you said no, it would be ok for me to go behind your back and do it anyway?
That has to be the worst analogy I have heard in a long time.
-
#6.10 Posted by bogd on 29 Jul 2004 - 19:10
- It's not really a bad analogy. He's trying to get the point acrossed that if someone asked you for something and you said no, you would be pissed off if they did it anyways. The point is, Apple ownes the iPod and they can let who ever they want develop for it. Since Apple and Real are not in an agreement, since Apple turned them down, Apple does not have to support Harmony and they are free to lock it out in the next software upgrade if they choose to do so. Same goes for Microsoft. You can open up the XBox and mod it all you want, but since Microsoft doesn't agree with installing Linux on the XBox and modding it where you can save full games to it, they have a right to lock you out of Xbox live. Yes, you buy the iPod and it's yours, but Apple makes it, and they can do anything they want with it. If you don't like it, don't buy an iPod or use iTunes.
Also it's not about choice either. If you have an iPod, you can transfer song to it through Winamp 5. You may do the same with Winamp 5 by playing AAC and songs purchased off of iTMS. It's a lot different from what real is doing. They're making it so you can play .rm files, or whatever they are on an iPod. -
#6.11 Posted by pagal on 29 Jul 2004 - 19:54
QUOTE So, if I asked you if I could sleep with your wife/girlfriend and you said no, it would be ok for me to go behind your back and do it anyway?
what a retard...more correct example would be asking someone if you could pay their hooker to bang her, and when he says no, do it anyway...since you're paying the hooker.
if that's hard for you to follow then I guess I'll explain it better. I BOUGHT the f'in thing, its mine so make modifications to.
EDIT: how about this one...Windows is MS's software, what if they disallowed ppl from using firefox on THEIR OS (that they are selling)? I guess we all know what would happen, and you same ppl will be bit*hing and moaning about it. Its not too hard to draw a parallel between the two.
Last edited by 2075 on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:01-
#6.12 Posted by nspeds on 29 Jul 2004 - 20:00
- Are you even incapable of forming a coherent syllogism?
-
#6.14 Posted by shao on 29 Jul 2004 - 21:23
- what copyright controls are Real bypassing that would allow apple to sue them under the DMCA?? as far as i can see all real are doing is taking it's songs that IT controls the DRM aspect on, and putting them on a portable device... which just happens to be control by smug ******* #1!
so what? if i own an ipod, which i do, it's up to me what music and files i put on it. I should be able to use any software I want to put whatever music I on to it. The devices are expensive enough without some dumbass american (jobs) telling me what i can and cannot do with it. -
#6.15 Posted by tRr on 30 Jul 2004 - 00:44
- You can do what you want with the iPod, it is yours. You can go put Linux on it today no problem just as well as you could smash it against the floor.
What Real looks to have done is taken Fairplay directly from Apple, which is what I'm assuming Apple feels THEY own. I have no idea if that is actually legal or not. But to make matters worse for Apple, Real even said they were thinking of selling this technology for profit... That derives Apple of another stream of revenue, for instance what they have just announced with Motorola for use on their cell phones, on something they invented.
-
(2 replies)
#7 Posted by georgi55 on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:48
- I hate real but not more than apple, not even close.
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by lilmoonee on 29 Jul 2004 - 14:50
- unless apple releases some additional features for 1st 2nd and 3rd gen i dont see why anyone would update their ipod. i would rather have a choice, but would still probably use itunes music store.
-
#8.1 Posted by Tiger.Girl on 29 Jul 2004 - 15:00
- thats a good point maybe something good will come out of this and they will add new features to all the ipods
-
(1 reply)
#9 Posted by Randall_Lind on 29 Jul 2004 - 15:14
- This is why you don't buy music. You need special players for each service if you want to take it with you. Why can't they just agree on a standard so you can play your tunes on any player you want.
-
#9.1 Posted by tapo on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:33
- Well, MP4 is a standard, but only Apple has adopted it.
Personally, I don't care for MP4 or WMA. I'd rather buy an album, rip it to whatever format I want (MP3, or OGG) and then play it in whatever music player I want to, software or portable (If only some portable player would adopt ogg...). Though I like the iTunes Music Store, I hate DRM. It does nothing but limit your choices.
-
#10 Posted by MipScript on 29 Jul 2004 - 15:23
- Apple should kick reals ass Real are nothing but hackers! its true!
-
(9 replies)
#11 Posted by Fonze on 29 Jul 2004 - 15:25
- wait so apple is saying only iTMS should be able to sell music for an iPod?
all real did was make it so their copy-protected files would play on an iPod and still be protected... I wouldn't see that as hacking.
QUOTE "Real is looking for music store revenue, whereas Apple really uses iTunes just to sell more iPods," he said. "As long as people are still buying iPods, the immediate threat posed by (Harmony) would not seem all that significant."
This quote just about says it all. Apple is just afraid that Real's music store is going to be better than iTMS, and that it is going to ruin their monopoly as a seller of music and player.
It's complete and utter BS if you ask me, it's like microsoft suing other companies that make software that works on their windows platform. oh no they reverse engineered windows to make their software work! hackers! :lame:
Last edited by 345 on 29 Jul 2004 - 15:34 -
#11.1 Posted by georgi55 on 29 Jul 2004 - 15:36
QUOTE (#11.0) It's complete and utter BS if you ask me, it's like microsoft suing other companies that make software that works on their windows platform. oh no they reverse engineered windows to make their software work! hackers! :lame:
Very good point!-
#11.2 Posted by tapo on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:36
QUOTE it's like microsoft suing other companies that make software that works on their windows platform.
"Oh No! They reverse engineered the .NET Messenger Service to make their IM clients work! Hackers!"
So then they changed the protocol, just like what Apple is doing. They're both wrong.-
#11.3 Posted by phreak64 on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:41
- That viewpoint makes zero sense. Apple's use of its iTunes and iPod markets is something left to Apple - conjecture about that is nothing more than speculation.
If terrorists re-engineered the Department of Defense's missile defense network so that they could see where the latest significant threats were, would you be happy with that form of re-engineering because it's all about the freedom of code modification? I bet not.
The fact is that Apple has every right to protect their file formats and every right to dictate exactly what is allowed to be put on their handheld devices. RealNetworks is making yet another last stab at being a relevant company (which they have not been in a great many years) in the business world, and it's not going to work. Reverse-engineering is not a permissable idea by law, and doesn't make sense if you've ever worked on a long-term project involving a ton of code that you'd like to see stay secure.
And I hate Apple. This is just common sense. -
#11.4 Posted by Fonze on 29 Jul 2004 - 17:03
QUOTE (#11.3) The fact is that Apple has every right to protect their file formats and every right to dictate exactly what is allowed to be put on their handheld devices.
You are right, they can do whatever they want in terms of protecting their setup, however they cannot sue Real for making files compatible with their player. Apple would have to put something in the rights of fair use for their device that would say only music purchased from the iTMS or encoded by the user could be played on the iPod. Put in this position, Apple could release firmware to try and block out the Real Online store, but Real could just update harmony to fix that.
-
#11.5 Posted by ciaran00 on 29 Jul 2004 - 17:09
QUOTE (#11.3) If terrorists re-engineered the Department of Defense's missile defense network so that they could see where the latest significant threats were, would you be happy with that form of re-engineering because it's all about the freedom of code modification? I bet not.
An mp3 player isn't a defence concern. Your analogy is way off. Music listener's convenience of choice should be above company's desire to bundle hardware and software together.-
#11.6 Posted by phreak64 on 29 Jul 2004 - 17:10
- In order for them to get the files to work, someone had to purchase a license to develop for the iPod. Whoever did that is responsible for the leak of that code and is thus responsible for violation of the NDA or whatever else is included in contract clauses. They'll be held responsible, and Real can be held guilty of trading in trafficked software (in this case, the software layers necessary to get files to interface with the iPod). It just doesn't sound good for Real.
-
#11.7 Posted by phreak64 on 29 Jul 2004 - 17:12
QUOTE An mp3 player isn't a defence concern. Your analogy is way off. Music listener's convenience of choice should be above company's desire to bundle hardware and software together.
I don't remember hearing about the rights of anyone to have a "convenience of choice". Since when is it our place to legislate convenience of choice to consumers who buy with full knowledge of a device's capabilities? Should we start legislating people being nice to each other while we're at it?-
#11.8 Posted by macrosslover on 29 Jul 2004 - 17:13
- The terrorists re-engineering the missle defense network is a bit extreme. You’re talking about the survival of a nation or company compared to the absolute control one company wants to have over technology. It’s not like Apple is protecting a source of income, although itunes stores turned a small profit last quarter, Apple themselves have said they don’t expect money from it. Tey are getting the money from the ipods. The Real service does nothing to jeopardize their main source of income, it actually enhances it. To me this is nothing more than Apple wanting complete control over everything and locking everybody else out…and I thought we were shown with MS that kind of attitude and business practice is wrong…so how is it different with Apple?
-
#11.9 Posted by phreak64 on 29 Jul 2004 - 17:16
QUOTE The terrorists re-engineering the missle defense network is a bit extreme. You’re talking about the survival of a nation or company compared to the absolute control one company wants to have over technology. It’s not like Apple is protecting a source of income, although itunes stores turned a small profit last quarter, Apple themselves have said they don’t expect money from it. Tey are getting the money from the ipods. The Real service does nothing to jeopardize their main source of income, it actually enhances it. To me this is nothing more than Apple wanting complete control over everything and locking everybody else out…and I thought we were shown with MS that kind of attitude and business practice is wrong…so how is it different with Apple?
I don't believe in the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft to begin with. Besides - a company is allowed to control in whatever way they desire any technology they create. Why do you think you have a right to use it in any way that you see fit? They created it and sold it under specific conditions - not including one to do whatever you please with it. It's RealNetworks's own fault they haven't been able to create a decent product in 10 years, not Apple's.
-
(2 replies)
#12 Posted by Chadwick 08 on 29 Jul 2004 - 15:36
- Its not a question of being a monopoly, apple created their programs for the mac because nobody else was making anything so simple yet powerful like them, we call that taking the initiative
The plain fact is that Real was denied permission but did it anyway. Think of it like this, you have an apparment with your friends in it, you pay for everything and are in control, than some kid that you wouldn't let in comes along and picks the lock and him and his friends move in.
If Real comes out victorious, tech kids will reference this incident everytime their told not to do something by their parents, because apparantly not having permission doesn't matter anymore. -
#12.1 Posted by Ironman273 on 29 Jul 2004 - 15:57
- Look at Fonze reply above, it makes a lot of sense. What would your reaction be it Microsoft said that the next version of Windows would only run MS Office, MS Money and any other MS software. You would immediately (and with reason) cry foul.
No one would force anyone to use Harmony to buy their music. If you do want to use Harmony as an iPod owner, then you can. It's a matter of choice. Hopefully the competition would make iTunes better in the future, if Harmony uncovers a need that wasn't evident previously. -
#12.2 Posted by tapo on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:42
- Like I said above, look at how Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo constantly change their protocol to block third-party IM clients. This is the same thing that Apple is doing, and I don't see anything wrong with that. It is their platform, so I see where they're coming from.
OTOH, this is reverse engineering so they can't really be sued, and I don't see what Real has done exactly that is in the wrong, having Harmony can only bring more choice to users. So all Apple and Real can do is constantly play a game of cat and mouse.
-
(3 replies)
#13 Posted by Liisachan on 29 Jul 2004 - 15:43
- "Hymn" (DeDRMS) and "Harmony" -- very similar names
i bet this is not a coincidence -
#13.1 Posted by VB Guy on 29 Jul 2004 - 15:59
- Hymn: A song of praise or thanksgiving to God or a deity.
Harmony: Simultaneous combination of notes in a chord.
They are not similar in any way, besides both dealing with music.
Last edited by 44539 on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:06 -
#13.2 Posted by Delsphynx on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:08
- You can't have "harmony" without "hymn" (H-Y-M-N)
That's all I could come up with
-
(4 replies)
#14 Posted by [Thrice] on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:08
- Real > Apple.
Apple is just being selfish... they are the company about choice right?? And here they are saying you can't use anything but it's files.. morons.. -
#14.1 Posted by chacho on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:19
- you can use the filetypes it supports, yes. its their product, their decision, their concept. real has no right to do what they did, regardless of your idea that they are being "selfish"
i hate situational ethics.
-
#14.2 Posted by STV on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:30
QUOTE (#14.1) you can use the filetypes it supports, yes. its their product, their decision, their concept. real has no right to do what they did, regardless of your idea that they are being "selfish"
i hate situational ethics.
then shouldnt it be the same for microsoft? it is their Operating System. real are doing what needs to be done. there needs to be a more "open-minded" iPod that doesnt discriminate against certain file types.-
#14.3 Posted by bluarash on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:50
- I second this in a way. Situational ethics are justified if it means the survival of ones company. Without reverse engineering a number of companies would have bit the dust. It is also quiet funny to hear Apple talk about how this should be unlawful when both Apple and Microsoft reverse engineer stuff all the time.
Maybe we should go with the it is their product, their decision, and their concept. With this taken into mind maybe Microsoft should charge everytime someone writes a program that can read the latest Word format or a FAT/NTFS partition. They should also look into making it illegal to run Windows on anything expect for "true" PC hardware. (Note: I'm talking about 3rd party engineering and not Apple directly.)
If the decision was in my hands I would pull out of the Mac market all together. With less then 4% of the market (some claim 2%) it is not a sound business decision.
That being said the honest truth is that I don't support Real, however I don't like Apple either. Both of these parties in my opinion make Microsoft look honest, and that is just down right creppy...
-
#14.4 Posted by N@t5 on 29 Jul 2004 - 17:59
QUOTE (#14.0) Apple is just being selfish...
Of course they are, that's what companies are supposed to do.
..now if we could only convince them that it is in their best interest to allow other store's music on their player, since this would help drive up ipod sales and their profit margin is much larger on the iPod than the songs. Then they could be selfish, and everyone would benefit
I don't think Apple's selfishness is a problem, but their unwillingness to strike deals with competitors. ...well, maybe not, maybe Apple just enjoys trying to be everything to everyone
-
(2 replies)
#15 Posted by daveoc64 on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:10
- Oh so the really amazing Apple won't release an update for older iPods (including those that are being bought right now but are 3rd Generation) to add functionality but they are willing to take it away (I assume that they would block all iPods using the service as there are not as many 4Gs as other generations.)
-
#15.1 Posted by tapo on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:45
- Uh, I just say an update for third generation iPods in software update. You sure?
-
#15.2 Posted by daveoc64 on 29 Jul 2004 - 18:39
- The last update for the 3G iPods was in April which was version "2.2". The "new update" only appears because Apple uses a single installer to update every iPod/iPod Mini model, The only changes present are for the new "click-wheel" iPods (version 3.0).
-
#16 Posted by macrosslover on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:11
- i hope Apple loses this as well. i don't like the screw you, we're superior than you attitude they took in the first place. you'd think after everything they went through as a company they might be a little humble about all this, but no they're still the same asses they've always been.
Real approached Apple first, and constantly tried to license the technology from Apple, open a dialog, everything...and what Apple did was basially took an asshole attitude approach about it.
if you're product is truly the best, then what would you have to fear. now assuming MS came out with a store that did well but didn't support the ipod and eventually the MS store and supported players eroded Apple's share of the market, it would be wrong for MS to say screw Apple we won't support your player, we're #1 you're not.
Apple acts like the music online biz war is over and they've won it, we will see how the landscape is 5 years from now and whether we'll be reading more articles about how Apple lost their monolopy...
-
(1 reply)
#17 Posted by Porp on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:28
- Apple is proving once again that theyr'e going to lock everything down. Very stupid, another reason why I don't like Apple that much. (And I gave away my Apple iPod )
-
#17.1 Posted by rogerroger on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:44
- Yep, what a bunch of babies. Whaaaaaaaaa!
-
#18 Posted by Marduk on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:50
- I can't blame them! I wouldn't want my amazing cash cow associated with a POS format like real.
-
(1 reply)
#19 Posted by Monkeh on 29 Jul 2004 - 16:54
- They are becoming more and more like M$.
What now, Apple fanboys?
-
#20 Posted by Dayon on 29 Jul 2004 - 18:00
- Why does apple care? Didn't they long ago state that the iTunes service gives them nothing in return other than iPod sales? Doesn't this PROMOTE iPod sales?
-
#21 Posted by NetRyder on 29 Jul 2004 - 18:08
- Everyone knew this was going to happen. Yet another case of Apple crumbling under the competition. Pathetic...
-
#22 Posted by AJCrowley Esq on 29 Jul 2004 - 19:11
- God forbid that anyone should increase the options available to iPod owners. I mean, can you imagine if people went around adding additional channels to your television, or adding DivX support to your DVD player or something? The nerve....
-
(1 reply)
#23 Posted by nic on 29 Jul 2004 - 19:14
- Any music store can sell you songs that will work on your iPod. Just sell music without the DRM crap, and wouldn't you know it, you're market has increased to everyone w/ a protable digital music device!
See how easy that was.... -
#23.1 Posted by [moribundi] on 30 Jul 2004 - 05:04
- And the RIAA would sue them to hell and back.
-
#24 Posted by CubanPete on 29 Jul 2004 - 19:15
- Microsoft make software for mac, i see no difference!!!!!!!!!
-
#25 Posted by TooPackShaker on 29 Jul 2004 - 23:59
- this is just another example of why apple has such small market share. THEY DONT SHARE
In a terse statement, a "stunned" Apple accused RealNetworks of adopting "the tactics and ethics of a hacker" with the release of its Harmony software, which allows songs sold via its online store to be played on a variety of portable devices, including Apple's iPod and Microsoft-compatible rivals. Apple threatened to block access to the iPod using Harmony the next time it updates the software used to run the device. The company last week unveiled the fourth generation of the trend-setting music player.
"It is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future iPods," the company said in its statement. In addition, Apple said that it is investigating the implications of Real's software strategy under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and other laws. The DMCA broadly restricts the bypassing of copy-protection technologies used in DVDs and in some music CDs and software programs.
Cont...
Additionally, McNealy said, "We believe that SNE is preparing now for the production of its next-generation of products, from the Sony PlayStation Portable to the next-generation PlayStation console and other consumer electronics devices that will be based on its cell processor."
Suggesting such a ramp-up was one of the reasons the game division earnings had slumped, Katsumi Ihara, group chief financial officer for Sony, reportedly said at a Tokyo news conference. "For the PSP and the next-generation entertainment system we continue to have a high level of investment which is bringing down profit."
Sony's net sales for the quarter were flat at 1.6 trillion yen ($14.8 billion), up just 0.5 percent from the previous year, and operating income was 9.8 billion yen ($87.7 million), down from 16.7 billion yen ($149 million) a year earlier.