Is Real's iPod
Posted by malebolgia on 30 July 2004 - 20:06 · 36 comments & 1418 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
-
-
(8 replies)
#1 Posted by xStainDx on 30 Jul 2004 - 20:18
- Reverse Engineering = illegal. duh.
-
#1.1 Posted by JaggedFlame on 30 Jul 2004 - 20:27
- The way they did it, it's not exactly "reverse engineering," which is why they're arguing about this right now.
-
#1.2 Posted by Andareed on 30 Jul 2004 - 21:49
- If it is done for compatibility reasons it is perfectly legal. It is the same reason that OpenOffice can open "proprietary" word doc files.
-
#1.3 Posted by dp123 on 30 Jul 2004 - 22:02
- But they aren't doing it solely for compatibility reasons... They are planning on selling licenses. Now, one could claim for a brief second that too is about compatibility... but not from Real's perspective... from Real's perspective selling licenses would be about making money and coopting Apple's technology.
That I would imagine would be illegal. -
#1.5 Posted by snippet1 on 31 Jul 2004 - 00:14
QUOTE (#1.3) But they aren't doing it solely for compatibility reasons... They are planning on selling licenses. Now, one could claim for a brief second that too is about compatibility... but not from Real's perspective... from Real's perspective selling licenses would be about making money and coopting Apple's technology.
And that's why we all hate Real. I like that compatibility on iPod is being brought in, but Real just haaaas to get their big buck out of it.-
#1.6 Posted by dp123 on 31 Jul 2004 - 00:22
- its not, what? Compatibility solely... That does not grant Real the right to sell licensing to Apple's DRM.
-
#1.7 Posted by Jstphish on 31 Jul 2004 - 00:48
- Reverse engineering is perfectly legal in the United States people.
-
#1.8 Posted by rogerroger on 31 Jul 2004 - 04:02
- And has been going on for a long long time. Just look at the AMD/Intel x64 entensions! Lots of companies around the world do this.
-
#2 Posted by Mister Lamar on 30 Jul 2004 - 20:22
- oh well someone was bound to do it
-
#3 Posted by STV on 30 Jul 2004 - 20:29
- apple is just sour about the whole situation and they cant stand that someone else found out how to use something they have.
STV
-
(2 replies)
#4 Posted by aristotle-dude on 30 Jul 2004 - 20:51
- Real threatened Apple that they would go with MS and then proceeded to develop this hack because both Apple and MS turned them down.
Even it Real was only trying to do this for themselves, it would be illegal but they also want to license this hack to others.
It's kind of like someone going behind your back to sleep with your wife and then pimping her out to to others. -
#4.1 Posted by fubarshibby on 30 Jul 2004 - 21:05
- Nice example. I never thought about it that way, but I still disagree with what Real is doing. It's absolutely illegal, yet they're trying to say it's not. I sure hope they lose this battle...
-
#4.2 Posted by rogerroger on 31 Jul 2004 - 04:03
- Your wife didn't have a problem with it!
-
#5 Posted by betax on 30 Jul 2004 - 21:57
- Real is in the right 'if' they just used trial and error to re-create the apple 'itunes' 'fairplay' protection.
This is a bold move for Real, not only have they opend themselves up to a very popular player, they have also found a way to maintain their digital rights on this player.
Like any format used by these companies... rm, acc, wma, the ultimate way to bypass the built-in protections is to burn a CD and re-rip non protected versions of the content.
Real could have simply allowed the end-user to easily transcode to unprotected MP3 to 'make' its music content work on the iPod; however, ths would undermine any rights management system that was in place.
Its only logical that they wanted to protect their licence management, and if they intend to make its format compatible with the iPod,this was the only option. Most side with Real because the technolgy mantains rights, apple disagrees because now that its format (or a compatible one) is no longer under its complete control. If this new 'harmony' technolgy is shared, its only a matter of time before its exploited in a way that would completly remove the rights management system that apple banks on.
My $.03
-
(8 replies)
#6 Posted by Yazoo on 30 Jul 2004 - 22:43
- Don't get too comfortable thinking Real will win. Apple is known to be very protective of their technology. Expect an update that will lock out Reals hack.
Real should spend their own money and develop their own music player and not hijack someone else's.
-
#6.1 Posted by betax on 30 Jul 2004 - 22:55
- its a war, real will just try again.. find out what changed through trial and error and it would be compatible again... This will continue until there are very few differences between the real apple format and real's 'version'.
-
#6.2 Posted by dp123 on 30 Jul 2004 - 23:22
- Betax, that removes all desirability from Real's point of view. They will not be able to claim compatibility with any reasonable degree of accuracy. Their custoemrs will complain, they will look like fools.
Also, it has hardly been reported, but Harmony hasn't been developed for the Mac and Linux. And Harmony ONLY works on the iPod, not on PCs through iTunes. So... despite their claims, they aren't supporting broad compatibility, and it's a minorly useful hack. -
#6.3 Posted by STV on 31 Jul 2004 - 00:31
- and please tell me why real is the bad guy? in this particular situation, while apple is perceived as an angle.
STV -
#6.4 Posted by ThisIsNotMe on 31 Jul 2004 - 04:22
- >why real is the bad guy?
Because they are a company with a crappy product; althouh it did not use to be crappy but they ran it into the ground. They were the first ones in the compressed audio/video market but they sat around with their thumbs up their asses and instead of making a better product they bloated it with useless spyware.
Apple and Microsoft caught up to them and left them eating their Quicktime and Windows Media dust and now Real is just trying to use others to get out of the gutter -- check out this year's lawsuit vs MS in which they wanted their player installed by default; and now trying to use the iPod to their advantage.
Sorry to say the train has left and Real wasn't on it; it sucks but it's true, they should try and get the bad karma off their products and then try to reclaim the market share they used to have. -
#6.5 Posted by STV on 31 Jul 2004 - 04:30
QUOTE (#6.4) >why real is the bad guy?
Because they are a company with a crappy product; althouh it did not use to be crappy but they ran it into the ground. They were the first ones in the compressed audio/video market but they sat around with their thumbs up their asses and instead of making a better product they bloated it with useless spyware.
Apple and Microsoft caught up to them and left them eating their Quicktime and Windows Media dust and now Real is just trying to use others to get out of the gutter -- check out this year's lawsuit vs MS in which they wanted their player installed by default; and now trying to use the iPod to their advantage.
Sorry to say the train has left and Real wasn't on it; it sucks but it's true, they should try and get the bad karma off their products and then try to reclaim the market share they used to have.
1) i am not talking about their product
2) if microsoft has to change their OS, then how come apple doesnt have to change their iPod for other formats.
3) your post still doesnt say why real is the bad guy in this situation. i would think that most people would want open standards for something as big as the iPod.
STV-
#6.6 Posted by ThisIsNotMe on 31 Jul 2004 - 07:42
- 1) You asked why they are viewed as "the bad guy"
2) MS is seen as a monopoly on their OS, the iPod is the dominant player but is very far from being monopolic. Change just because someone else wants to use their player? Then why not force every other DRM-compatible player to accept Real's format?
3) My post shows you why Real is seen as a company no one likes, same thing has happened to MS, whenever this happens (regardless of the issue) people just seem to want them to lose.
Regarding the openness of standards for the iPod it's shaky ground, the fact that it's a closed platform and therefore some measure of control can be enforced on the songs, has been a strong point in the negotiations of Apple with the record companies. Open standards on the iPod is not something for the people to decide, it's for Apple to decide, after all, it's their product, the only way the people can influence this decision is by not buying the product. -
#6.7 Posted by STV on 31 Jul 2004 - 08:21
QUOTE (#6.6) 1) You asked why they are viewed as "the bad guy"
2) MS is seen as a monopoly on their OS, the iPod is the dominant player but is very far from being monopolic. Change just because someone else wants to use their player? Then why not force every other DRM-compatible player to accept Real's format?
3) My post shows you why Real is seen as a company no one likes, same thing has happened to MS, whenever this happens (regardless of the issue) people just seem to want them to lose.
Regarding the openness of standards for the iPod it's shaky ground, the fact that it's a closed platform and therefore some measure of control can be enforced on the songs, has been a strong point in the negotiations of Apple with the record companies. Open standards on the iPod is not something for the people to decide, it's for Apple to decide, after all, it's their product, the only way the people can influence this decision is by not buying the product.
agreed. thanks for the reply
STV-
#6.8 Posted by jasondefaoite on 31 Jul 2004 - 13:01
QUOTE (#6.0) Don't get too comfortable thinking Real will win. Apple is known to be very protective of their technology. Expect an update that will lock out Reals hack.
I'd be curious to see how apple could change fairplay to lock out Real, without locking out the other million tunes already downloaded from their music store.
-
#7 Posted by angrybrit on 31 Jul 2004 - 01:19
- Run'em down Apple!
-
#8 Posted by bluarash on 31 Jul 2004 - 01:37
- I am so sick of this. Almost every major tech company in the United States (and rest of the world) uses reverse engineering. There is nothing any government can actually do to ban it, DMCA or not. The more they try, the more companies will float in under the radar. It is absolutely not illegal in most cases.
-
#9 Posted by NetRyder on 31 Jul 2004 - 02:48
- Good news indeed. Let's see what becomes of all this.
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by slimy on 31 Jul 2004 - 02:49
- hmm, real shouldn't have done what they did but it will benefit the average ipod user
-
#10.1 Posted by Dayon on 31 Jul 2004 - 03:11
- Why not? Is it really the place of Apple to say: "You can only play OUR music on the iPods?"
-
#11 Posted by none on 31 Jul 2004 - 12:42
- Apple does have a long history of keeping everything proprietary which is why IBM's PC dominated them. Whether or not Apple should license their technology to others is debatable.. It does have the potential to do a lot of good for them.
BUT... Regardless of what Apple "should do", or what is "best for them", Real should burn in hell (or at least a court room) for what they have done. Not only did Apple not give anyone permission, they explicitely DENIED everyone permission to license Fairplay or sell songs for the iPod. This is not "harmless reverse engineering", Real is making money from this and may license this pretty much hacked technology to others.
Real is a PIECE OF **** company, with a PIECE OF **** product. There is no argument in their "We want to give consumers choice" crap. Even if they really DID create Harmony for that reason, it is not their place to decide if Apple's practices are good or bad. But worse off, surely they did not create Harmony for this reason.
It's pretty damn obvious that Real just wants a piece of the online music service pie. And seeing as Apple's iPod holds the largest player share, hacking it and selling music for it would be the best way for them to make money.
It's a good thing that Real will never get anywhere. Almost everyone here hates their products and knows they are bloated garbage. Many people wouldn't buy from them just because of their name.
As far as the general public... Well... Real has no chance with the general public. For every techy who reads this thread, there are 10,000 computer users who don't know how to run msconfig. 10,000 users who will always go to Apple because they bought their iPod from Apple and think that it will give them better compatibility or performence. 10,000 users who will never even find out that Real sells iPod songs, and 10,000 users who have no interest in managing multiple music service accounts when most everything they need can be found in just one place named Apple.com.
-
#12 Posted by Xenos on 31 Jul 2004 - 15:35
- I just don't understand it...if Real used 'hacker tactics' to bust open the ipod and develop something for it and still make it secure....then why is it that when a hacker does this, or something similair, he/she faces stiff charges? Is it just the profit thing or is it something completely different that I'm missing out on here?
-
#13 Posted by nX07 on 31 Jul 2004 - 17:12
- Apple is taking a hissy fit, big deal.
(*puts of flame jacket*)
-
#14 Posted by Spark99 on 31 Jul 2004 - 17:18
- This just smacks of desparation on Reals part...
Worst Audio/Video Codec + Bloated, Crippled, Spyware Infested Player that is required to play maybe 1-2% of the audio/video files out there. Has anyone ever bought a subscription and paid monthly to watch blocky/jerky postage sized video of CNN News on their PC?
Real has nerve. They are the first to to rail against "Real Alternative" and any other Media Player that Supports their precious CODEC, yet they have no problem hopping on Apple bandwagon. I am not a huge fan of Apple, but, I have to give them credit for taking a risk and producing one of the most successfull consumer product ever.
Jees, I wonder why Apple doesn't want Real to grab a free ride and cut into thier profits.
Real is sooooo 1990's, I hpoe they merge with SCO, sue a few people, and then die the horrible death they deserve. I, for one, won't miss them or their garbage Software.
-
#15 Posted by Cøbra on 01 Aug 2004 - 22:32
- Finally, someone to threaten Apple
-
#16 Posted by k28 on 06 Aug 2004 - 14:19
- here is the point of customers views
1.dose real music store better than iturns?
answer: no
2.dose real sell music cheaper?
answer: no
3.dose real music store use better sound quallity?
answer: no
4.dose real music store have any promotion like free song?
answer: no
5.dose real music store have friendly interface?
answer: no
6.dose real music store have more music than iturns?
answer: no
so what is the point to install Harmony software on your iPod then?
Code-crackers risk fines and prison time when they defeat copy-protection technology, but such draconian rules likely don't apply in the case of RealNetworks and its iPod "hack," legal experts said.
Efforts by both code-crackers and Real could undermine Apple Computer's plans for its popular digital music player and its iTunes Music Store, which together have put Apple so far ahead of the competition that companies such as Real appear ready to do virtually anything to catch up.
In a move Apple said reflected the "tactics and ethics of a hacker," RealNetworks this week essentially replicated Apple's proprietary digital rights management software. Known as Fairplay, the software prevents consumers from making unlimited copies of songs and ensures that the iPod doesn't work with any other kinds of copy-protected formats. As a result, songs purchased on Real's music download service will now play on the iPod--something Apple contends may be illegal.
Although much of the session will be about the game's creation, Martin will apply lessons learnt during its development to current and future projects. He will touch on his experiences since quitting Rare and setting up Cambridge-based developer Zoonami, and focus on ways in which game creators can excel in design and gameplay.
EDF is a TIGA event, supported and actively marketed by many of TIGA's partner associations, including APOM in France, GAME in Germany as well as the Dutch and Danish trade bodies. EDF's International Programme Consultant is Jennifer Olsen, the influential former editor of Game Developer magazine in the USA, while EDF's European Programme Consultant is Fred Gill of Gusto Games.
"My aim is to help others through my own experience," says Martin Hollis, founder of Zoonami, currently developing the revolutionary rhythm-action game, Funkydilla. "And as this is the first time I have ever discussed the development of GoldenEye 007 in such a public forum, I hope to offer delegates inspiration and advice which will result in better games from us all."
"This is a real coup for the European Developers' Forum," adds Fred Hasson, CEO of TIGA. "Martin is one of this country's most respected yet elusive developers and his presence at EDF illustrates that it is the only conference of its type to receive such support from the length and breadth of the industry. I'm sure, like so many of the sessions we have organised, it will be something not to be missed."
EDF is open to all developers. A full list of speakers and details on the entire programme can be found at www.europeandevelopersforum.co.uk
Dice says: The EDF sounds like an excellent event for the gaming industry. Speaches, games, trading, making of goldeneye 007, game stars live, 5 day exhibition for gaming...can't get any better. :D We will keep you updated as the EDF nears down and during the event.