[MacRGood4U]

This is the lead editorial for Thursday, August 26:

A Digital Divide Everyone covets a piece of Apple Computer's iPod. And for good reason. It essentially defines what consumers want in a digital music player: capacity, style, seamless integration with personal computers and, through them, access to an enormous musical database. The iPod itself has been wildly successful with consumers, and that translates into profits. The iTunes Music Store has been no less successful in its way, though it has been slower to make money. Apple's business strategy is to maintain control over both the music and its digital player. Some companies want to outdo the iPod with players of their own; others aim to compete with the iTunes Music Store. And some, like RealNetworks, want to be able to sell music from their online store for use on the iPod. That has led to an escalating feud between Apple and RealNetworks. The issue is how to protect the copyright of the products you buy - digital music in this case. Apple uses proprietary software, called FairPlay, to keep you from making illegal copies of the songs you download from the iTunes Music Store. Apple has steadfastly refused to license this software to RealNetworks. In late July, RealNetworks introduced a software called Harmony, which allows its music to be played on an iPod. In other words, RealNetworks mimics Apple's software without licensing it. Litigation will surely ensue. If nothing else, this dispute demonstrates the increasing importance that digital rights play in our lives. Digitally encoding music, selling it and sending it over the Internet, not to mention carrying thousands of songs around on a music player the size of a box of cough drops - these things are easy to do. What's hard, and yet what makes it all possible, is creating the software bottleneck that protects the rights of copyright owners. It would be better for consumers if Apple began licensing its digital rights management software, only because the iTunes Music Store will not be able to lock up access to all the copyrighted music in the world. But RealNetworks' contention that Apple is stifling freedom of choice is self-serving. You can play music from any CD on an iPod, once it has been digitally copied, and the device works on PC's and Macs. Some critics like to argue that Apple is making the same mistake that it made by not licensing its operating system back in the 1980's. At the moment, Apple seems to hold most of the cards.

[torifile]

Do you have an opinion or are you going to get the old crew in here telling you to stop posting articles without comment?

My opinion? I'm divided on the issue. It's sleazy as hell of Real to do what they did. OTOH, I think consumers SHOULD be allowed to use their iPods to hold whatever music they want. It's obviously a contrived impediment to not be able to use Real songs on the iPod, not a physical playback or licensing of other software (WMA) issue. :/

[MacRGood4U]

Originally Posted by torifile Do you have an opinion or are you going to get the old crew in here telling you to stop posting articles without comment? My opinion? I'm divided on the issue. It's sleazy as hell of Real to do what they did. OTOH, I think consumers SHOULD be allowed to use their iPods to hold whatever music they want. It's obviously a contrived impediment to not be able to use Real songs on the iPod, not a physical playback or licensing of other software (WMA) issue. :/

Yes, I have an opinion. As you say, Real's motives are self-serving. But so are Apple's. The editorial in the end just sets forth the general consensus of what has been said on internet sites. I agree that Real has gone about it the wrong way, but Apple has shown their usual arrogance in dealing with other companies... or should I say SJ has. These two CEO's obviously don't like each other. They should grow up and stop the bickering. Mensches they aren't.

[HHogan]

Both companies need a swift kick to the nuts

[Escher]

Originally Posted by torifile OTOH, I think consumers SHOULD be allowed to use their iPods to hold whatever music they want.

Similarly, I think consumers SHOULD be able to play songs they buy on iTMS on any player, not just the iPod. It bothers me that I can't buy a light waterproof solid-state player from Rio without loosing use of songs I purchased from iTMS.

Originally Posted by HHogan Both companies need a swift kick to the nuts

Couldn't agree more. Apple talks about open standards, but then keeps its music platform closed.

For me, that's the reason I'm still buying CDs and ripping them myself -- this despite the much higher cost of CDs. No stupid DRM! Plus, I can pick any bitrate I please.

Escher

[Moogs]

I am siding with Apple on this one. Regardless of legal precedent, what Real did was under-handed at a minimum. Their lack of business ethics is pretty shocking in this context.

Real had no business doing what they did without Apple's consent, as it directly affects the quality of the iPod experience. If their software turns out to be flawed and it causes problems with any of the iPod's ability to transfer files, play Apple-certified music, or use the menuing system in all possible configurations, who do you think is going to get the support calls / be made to look bad? Apple.

iPod is a [closed source], proprietary system, period. All of the hardware, firmware, software and purchasing systems are designed solely by Apple to work as an integrated system. And they've done so [while *including*] Windows users, by making iTunes for Windows a free download, and by making the iPod a cross-platform piece of hardware. Apple has the right to expect that they will maintain control over 100% of the code and hardware that goes into this system. Because that's the only way they can assure users of a quality experience.

This is not a computer, all of which depend on third parties to write useful software, in order for the computer to be useful. This is a music player, based strictly on proprietary code, music formats and menuing systems. If you want to partner with Apple and offer a software add-on that plays other types of music files not certified by Apple... then you either convince Apple it's a good idea and get their buy-in and arrange support options, or you don't convince them and you go elsewhere.

Real should either: partner with some other company and use Harmony with that player; design their own player; or STFU and get out of the music player market all together.

I do understand that the user has to consciously add the non-Apple software, but IF they're going to be allowed to do that, then Apple should be allowed to legally void the warranty and support options, in their entirety, on the spot. Because as soon as you let Real (a company known for their crappy software) to start tinkering with the inner-workings of your music player, you can forget about "controlling the user experience". It just won't happen.

[HHogan]

Shades of the Apple ][ IMO.

Apple was hellbent on releasing closed systems and ignored the success and open-ness of the Apple ][. Its a given that the iPod is a huge success, but opening it up would make a cult following among PC users, and potentially bring more customers to Apple. Remember that Apple wouldn't have to grant full access to the device if they licenced it. They could simple allow songs to be transfered, but no settings or formatting be affected. Plus they originally didn't support PC users, and since companies like Real and M$ wouldn't produce stores that work on the Mac, their original market would remain intact. They'd simply be opening things up on the PC and sell more devices.

[alcimedes]

DRM pretty much ruins online/digital music purchasing in my opinion. the cost (in loss of flexibility and quality) is too high for the gain. oh well.

[thuh Freak]

Originally Posted by Moogs iPod is a [closed source], proprietary system, period. All of the hardware, firmware, software and purchasing systems are designed solely by Apple to work as an integrated system. And they've done so [while *including*] Windows users, by making iTunes for Windows a free download, and by making the iPod a cross-platform piece of hardware. Apple has the right to expect that they will maintain control over 100% of the code and hardware that goes into this system. Because that's the only way they can assure users of a quality experience.

well, indeed it is a completely closed system. but thats not the only way. infact, in my opinion, quality would increase significantly if parts of the system were opened. the operating system for example. apple opened up darwin, and in part thanks to the world at large, darwin is a fantastic system (and thusly, so is osx). i think if the ipod os was open, the world at large could work on it; perhaps to make changes or improvements (the kind that a small percentage of users are interested in, not enough for apple to spend resources on implementing; or even larger changes and general bug fixes). imo, open sourcing as much of it as possible would be beneficial.

clearly they can't open everything, since they have drm. but methinks most of the it could be opened. then real wouldn't have to hack an apple-compatible music file. it would eventually make the iTMS have to compete, but that would ultimately be a good thing (for the consumer). and it would help ipod sales, methinks, if the 'pod could play any music files. apple could audit code submitted by outsiders, and not allow it into the official releases until they are confident in it (as they do with darwin). then the only users who would be using non-apple sanctioned code would be ones who went out of their way to get hacks, and obviously couldn't hold apple responsible for them.

[psmith2.0]

I don't believe - or agree with - anything I read in the NY Times. Why would I start with this?

[Kickaha]

Um... you *CAN* play iTMS tunes on any player.

1) Burn to CD

2) Rip into MP3

3) Load onto other player

Clunky? Arguable.

Possible? YES.

Can you do this with Real-DRMd WMA files? Serious question here. If not, then *gasp* Apple provides a better DRM experience and a more open system.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by thuh Freak well, indeed it is a completely closed system. but thats not the only way. infact, in my opinion, quality would increase significantly if parts of the system were opened. the operating system for example. apple opened up darwin, and in part thanks to the world at large, darwin is a fantastic system (and thusly, so is osx). i think if the ipod os was open, the world at large could work on it; perhaps to make changes or improvements (the kind that a small percentage of users are interested in, not enough for apple to spend resources on implementing; or even larger changes and general bug fixes). imo, open sourcing as much of it as possible would be beneficial.

Apple licensed the os from another company. They didn't build it in-house. Maybe they could've bought the rights to the source and opened it to everyone, but that probably would've cost Apple much much more than they pay now (whatever that is). I'm sure Pixologic or whatever the iPod os company's name is gets some kind of per-unit royalty to keep them in the green.

Originally Posted by thuh Freak clearly they can't open everything, since they have drm. but methinks most of the it could be opened. then real wouldn't have to hack an apple-compatible music file. it would eventually make the iTMS have to compete, but that would ultimately be a good thing (for the consumer). and it would help ipod sales, methinks, if the 'pod could play any music files. apple could audit code submitted by outsiders, and not allow it into the official releases until they are confident in it (as they do with darwin). then the only users who would be using non-apple sanctioned code would be ones who went out of their way to get hacks, and obviously couldn't hold apple responsible for them.

I'm thinking Apple has kept their DRM closed so they wouldn't be pressured into adding WMA support. I mean, if they licensed Fairplay, wouldn't that allow MS to license it and use it on WMA files? Then they could pull the old "Open your iPod, Apple" but in a way that allows them to push WMA in a big way, on the most popular mp3 player around.

Originally Posted by Escher For me, that's the reason I'm still buying CDs and ripping them myself -- this despite the much higher cost of CDs. No stupid DRM! Plus, I can pick any bitrate I please.

I buy CDs as well because right now that's the only medium available to me as a music lover where I can transcode the music into any format (mp3, SHN, FLAC, OGG, whatever) I desire. All this bickering over DRM, and none of these companies have truly asked us consumers what we want (because they don't want to hear the truth, I'm sure).

[thuh Freak]

Originally Posted by bassplayinMacFiend Apple licensed the os from another company. They didn't build it in-house. Maybe they could've bought the rights to the source and opened it to everyone, but that probably would've cost Apple much much more than they pay now (whatever that is). I'm sure Pixologic or whatever the iPod os company's name is gets some kind of per-unit royalty to keep them in the green.

well, whatever their deal is with the writers of the os, i'm sure apple has the resources and the ability to buy it out. if that outside company is getting paid per 'pod, then i would think it would be in apple interest to take ownership of it just to stop paying that tax.

I'm thinking Apple has kept their DRM closed so they wouldn't be pressured into adding WMA support. I mean, if they licensed Fairplay, wouldn't that allow MS to license it and use it on WMA files? Then they could pull the old "Open your iPod, Apple" but in a way that allows them to push WMA in a big way, on the most popular mp3 player around.

perhaps that is one of apple's concerns, but i can't imagine its a strong concern. what woudl make more money for apple: selling ipods or hindering wma usage? we all (or many of us atleast) might dislike wma (and just about anything ms puts out, but i digress), but if playing wma files can sell more ipods then that is something apple should seriously consider. their music store doesn't make much money. i believe the steve hisself has said that the store is just a means of promoting the 'pod.

I buy CDs as well because right now that's the only medium available to me as a music lover where I can transcode the music into any format (mp3, SHN, FLAC, OGG, whatever) I desire. All this bickering over DRM, and none of these companies have truly asked us consumers what we want (because they don't want to hear the truth, I'm sure).

drm isn't about what the consumer wants. from the record industry's perspective, the consumer wants to steal music (true or untrue as it may be; legal or not as it may be). so the record industry is forcing music stores to only sell music which is reasonable difficult to steal.

[MacRGood4U]

In order to get the iPod out in "record" time (I believe about a year from inception), Apple licensed the basic OS from PortalPlayer. However, the user interface was designed and refined by Apple. The click wheel is their design and has a patent pending. The previous wheels (both versions - the mechanical one on the 1st Gen and the touch sensitive one afterwards) were basically off the shelf items.

[curiousuburb]

Apple probably didn't just license PortalPlayer's OS, they're smart enough to have exclusively licensed it, at least for 'portable music players' (otherwise, Real might go direct to PortalPlayer for compatibility).

Beefing about the inability to reverse-engineer without getting sued (inhibiting the Open Source plan for world domination)? Take it up with the politicians who passed the DMCA... or Jack Valenti... or the RIAA.

[Chinney]

My sympathies are not with Apple here. Real may be a bit sly in the way that they have done things, but the bigger concern is getting Apple to open up. iTMS is never going to have the complete catalogue of music – available around the world – nor should it even try. There should be different online catalogues – with different music approaches – directly serving and competing for iPod users. The iPod should be able to directly play music downloaded from different sources. I say “fuck Apple” if they do not allow, and even facilitate, this to happen. Frankly, I think that they should be subject to legal action on anti-competitive grounds if they do not. They should also be laughed at for being so stupid – because I think that they are only going to screw themselves in the long run. And I say all this while still being, in other respects, an Apple fan.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Chinney The iPod should be able to directly play music downloaded from different sources.

AAC
AIFF
MP3

It can.

Oh, you meant *different proprietary closed DRM'd formats*.

Anti-competitive practices my butt.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by Kickaha AAC AIFF MP3 It can. Oh, you meant *different proprietary closed DRM'd formats*. Anti-competitive practices my butt.

I thought the issue here was iPod users buying music online from other sources.

http://www.vnunet.com/news/1156985 and http://www.forbes.com/home/personalt...30tentech.html and
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/35704.html

I have some discomfort with Real's hacking approach (and I wonder how well it will work), but I applaud it if the ultimate result is to get Apple to license the software.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by Chinney I thought the issue here was iPod users buying music online from other sources.

It is.

You asked why couldn't the iPod play other formats... I pointed out it can. But the *real* question you wanted to raise was "Why can't the iPod play *other proprietary closed DRM files*?"

Which kind of makes the cry of anti-competitive practices a little, um... silly looking.

Go talk to the other stores and have them release their music in non-DRMd AAC or MP3.

I'd like to see Apple license FairPlay to others as well (assuming their license for it allows it), but for right now the iPod/iTMS combo rules the market, and they have basically no incentive to allow others into the fray. Allow other hardware players to play iTMS songs? Why? They get $ from the iPod. Allow other stores to sell FairPlay AAC? Why? They get (a smaller amount of) $ from the iTMS. Either way, they cut some of their own profits. Only after figuring in expected sales, licensing fees, and losses can such a decision be rationally made... and we don't have that info. :/

[Paul]

also, as mac users we can't buy music from any store other then the iTMS ANYWAY
Real(Napster), Walmart?, Buy.com are all PC only... why should apple play nice if they don't provide access to their services for the Macintosh platform?

[Chinney]

I think that, in part, both of your arguments ask why I criticize Apple for failing to act in a non-proprietary, fully open manner with the iTMS/iPod combo, when other companies are proprietary. There are at least three reasons why I criticize Apple for this:

1. It’s a matter of principle: I think that all companies should open up here. But right now, Apple is in the driver’s seat with iTMS/iPod and, surprise, surprise, when Apple is in the driver’s seat, it begins to act like a monopolist. We all feel free to slag MS around here for their behaviour, in their own area of dominance. When that shoe fits on Apple too, I think that we have to recognize it.
2. It’s a matter of money: I like Apple products and hope the company makes lots of money. I think that they will make this money by doing everything they can to facilitate making the iPod work easily with any online music store. The real money is in the iPod, and by licensing FairPlay, or finding some other way to facilitate online music loading from other sources (like working with Real, rather than threatening to sue them), you make the iPod stronger. While I also hope that Apple does well with iTMS, I don’t think that it will ever be the money maker the iPod is.
3. It’s a matter of music: Online music purchasing (as opposed, incidentally, to online music stealing) is a great new development. I am hoping that it really opens up the music industry, breaking the historical dominance of label and their catalogues (already weakened). Online music ownership and offerings should be diverse, not tied-up through restrictive new trade practices that could now, unfortunately, be developing in the online market. The iPod should be, and is, popular because it is an intelligent design – not because of tied selling to iTMS. iTMS should be popular because it has good musical offerings – not because of tied selling to the iPod. Neither should be popular because of monopolistic practices. Competing openly, I think Apple will do well.

[Barto]

I hate DRM as much as the next geek, but nobody here has given a good reason why Real should not be allowed to encrypt their songs with FairPlay.

[SledgeHammer]

Originally Posted by Barto I hate DRM as much as the next geek, but nobody here has given a good reason why Real should not be allowed to encrypt their songs with FairPlay.

Because Fair Play is proprietary technology that Real has not purchased any rights to. Therefore, legally they are not allowed to encrypt their songs with FairPlay. That really isn't so much the issue as, why doesn't Apple license FairPlay so that they can legally use it. I personally don't know how I feel on the issue.

[Barto]

Why should Real have to purchase the rights to it? It's not like they are using copyrighted Apple code. Just encrypting the songs the same way. Why should Apple be able to point to the iPod and say "ooga-booga, every iPod mine, touch iPod without permission and die"?

[curiousuburb]

Originally Posted by Barto Why should Real have to purchase the rights to it? It's not like they are using copyrighted Apple code. Just encrypting the songs the same way. Why should Apple be able to point to the iPod and say "ooga-booga, every iPod mine, touch iPod without permission and die"?

Clearly a spy photo of the iPod (PhotoShopped to protect NDA) . Origin of all tool use.

[Barto]

I'm still missing your point. Real are not copying the iPod, they are simply using the iPod. Imagine if Microsoft was able to claim ownership of their document formats or IBM of the PC architecture. The world would be stuck running Microsoft Word on 80 column displays on PCs costing ten thousand dollars.

[curiousuburb]

I was trying to be tongue in cheek. Didn't work, obviously.

[Barto]

Too subtle for a simpleton like me.