Apple disables RealNetworks music on iPod photo | iLounge News

News

Apple disables RealNetworks music on iPod photo

Apple’s iPod photo contains updated firmware that blocks songs downloaded from the RealNetworks music store from being played on the device, according to CNET News.com. “The move could render tunes purchased by many iPod owners unplayable on their music players. For the last four months, RealNetworks has marketed its music store as the only Apple rival compatible with the iPod, following the company’s discovery of a way to let its customers play their downloaded tunes on Apple’s MP3 player. Apple criticized RealNetworks’ workaround, dubbed Harmony, as the ‘tactics…of a hacker,’ and warned in July that RealNetworks-purchased songs would likely ‘cease to work with current and future iPods.’”

« Mix: Classrooms, Podfolio, iPod train, Hasselhoff

‘iPod & iTunes Garage’ released »

Related Stories

Comments

41

Real messed up my iPod by screwin up a dialouge box, so I got rid of it.

For that, they neeed to die.

Posted by XanDaMan on December 15, 2004 at 3:23 PM (CST)

42

Start ripping those DRM’s onto CD’s

That’s illegal my friend. We’re talking about licensed music here. Let’s keep on the straight and narrow!

Posted by Demosthenes on December 15, 2004 at 4:01 PM (CST)

43

If Real really thinks this is a problem, then they should have someone investigate.

I’m pretty sure they will. But consider that it took the FTC four years and the DoJ another 4 years to corral MS and you see that the wheels of justic move exceedingly slowly.

The competitive advantage to Apple’s iPod and iTMS is that that work hand in hand, seemlessly. No other company does this

You know that’s weird because last I heard, the Real thingy and the iPod worked nicely together… until Apple broke it.

I still can’t quite understand the point of claiming that denying the iPod the ability to play back a wider range of music and formats is a good thing.

Consider this. If I have an iPod and it plays A and B type of tunes I am very happy. Then along comes something that lets it play A, B, and C tunes. I am even happier.

Then along comes Apple and breaks this and says No!, you can only play A and B. How is that good for me?

Posted by Demosthenes on December 15, 2004 at 4:04 PM (CST)

44

just give up Demo, it’s about the music, the same music offered by everyone, if you are not happy about some stupid format issues, then go open your own open-source, work-for-free format and try to compete. Stop spinning your high horse wheel that goes no where, we don’t care what you think, matter of fact, replying to your drival is wasting my time, but you need to step back from the computer and promote your ideas via action, like stop using the iPod and move the a third world country and see how long you could exist.

If you don’t like anything, then don’t buy it, buy something else that makes you happy or don’t buy anything if you think they all should be FREE (what ever that means to you) no one, I said no one is pointing a gun to your head, and stop arguing a lame ideology and be content that you exist.

Posted by hokka in Sydney on December 15, 2004 at 5:40 PM (CST)

45

Hokka, you truly are lame.

Posted by Talking Madness in Los Angeles on December 15, 2004 at 8:44 PM (CST)

46

it’s about the music, the same music offered by everyone, if you are not happy about some stupid format issues

No the same music is not offered by everyone. Because of different licensing and royalty agreements, Real happens to have a significant number of tunes that Apple does not. And vica versa. And furthermore, Real and Apple offer different quality encodings for those tunes that they do jointly offer. So really it comes down to choice. And if it wasn’t for Apple’s crippling then the iPod would have had a significant advabtage, being the only player that could offer people both Real/Rhapsody AACs and Apple AACs. To me that’s a compelling advantage of the iPod - bringing it nearer the holy grail of being the first, true, universal legal music portable player.

stop arguing a lame ideology

Which are you calling lame? The idea of the free market, or the idea of decentralised open-source development?

If it’s free market then I can’t help you. To each their own.

If it’s open source, then let’s get a few things straight. Over 70% of the internet’s web sites run on Apache, an open source web server. A majority of servers on the internet run Linux or BSD, also open source. The Google cluster, the largest computing device on the planet, runs open-source Linux. The majority of databases in the world run open-source MySQL or PostGreSQL, and are fronted using some combination of Perl, Python, or PHP, also open source.

Closer to home my classic example of open source development is the Rockbox. This open-source firmware replacement took the crappy 4-year-old Archos player and added full motion video, JPG viewer, hundreds of games and applications, but most significantly of all recently added a spoken menu UI system for blind users and hands-free users. Now,

I know some people that would *love* to have spoken menus for the iPod and some alternative to its completely visual UI, but because Apple runs it as completely closed source that doesn’t look like it’s ever going to happen. The iPod’s hardware is so freaking cool that it could do so much more than simply play music and flick through photo albums, but Apple has stymied the creativity of the world’s programmers by closing off access to the iPod’s API. Instead all we get are occasional limited plugins and add-ons that underwhelm.

Posted by Demosthenes on December 15, 2004 at 9:39 PM (CST)

47

stop using the iPod

If I am wrong about your opinion of open-source then I attribute it to the general incoherence of your rant. How dare you tell me what I should or should not buy. That is my choice to make, not yours, and similarly it is my choice as to how I can improve or modify that which I own. If that concept seems alien to you, if you truly believe you have no right to modify things in your possession, then you have nothing to lose but the chains in your mind that shackle you into compliant servile consumerism.

Posted by Demosthenes on December 15, 2004 at 9:40 PM (CST)

48

open-source ONLY works in software, and nothing else because it requires no real labour but intellectual of a few who has too much time on their hands (who’s gonna guarantee continue relatively painless instant support? No one.)

I just spotted it was you, dear Hukka, who wrote this earlier. MySQL gives their database away for free, yet sees revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars a year in support contracts. SUSE Linux, now part of Novell, brought them a change of $150m of profit in 2004 compared to their 2003 non-Linux revenue.

So just because *you* have not figured yet how to make money from open-source software, this hasn’t stopped others from coining in it.

And people are now even using the open-source model for hardware design and implementation. The only way is up, baby!

Finally, let’s not forget Apple’s open-source Darwin project. Kudos. If they did the same for the iPod the world, and the iPod, would be better for it.

Posted by Demosthenes on December 15, 2004 at 9:51 PM (CST)

49

“How dare you tell me what I should or should not buy. That is my choice to make, not yours, and similarly it is my choice as to how I can improve or modify that which I own. If that concept seems alien to you, if you truly believe you have no right to modify things in your possession, then you have nothing to lose but the chains in your mind that shackle you into compliant servile consumerism.

Posted by hokka in Sydney on December 15, 2004 at 11:48 PM (CST)

50

“I just spotted it was you, dear Hukka (sic), who wrote this earlier. MySQL gives their database away for free, yet sees revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars a year in support contracts. SUSE Linux, now part of Novell, brought them a change of $150m of profit in 2004 compared to their 2003 non-Linux revenue.

So just because *you* have not figured yet how to make money from open-source software, this hasn’t stopped others from coining in it.

Posted by hokka in Sydney on December 16, 2004 at 12:01 AM (CST)

51

Why would I want to pay someone to “support

Posted by Demosthenes on December 16, 2004 at 7:40 AM (CST)

52

move to a 3rd world country and stop all your pain

I’ve seen Africa and Central America firsthand. Have you?

Posted by Demosthenes on December 16, 2004 at 7:41 AM (CST)

53

Demo -

“You know that’s weird because last I heard, the Real thingy and the iPod worked nicely together… until Apple broke it.”

If you mean the process of:
1. Downloading the song
2. Finding the song on your hard drive
3. Dragging the song over to your iPod via hard disk mode or dragging the song into iTunes
4. Resyncing your iPod.

Wow, that’s really hand in hand.

iTMS to iPod.
1. Download the song.
2. Connect your iPod. 
3.  THERE’S NO STEP THREE!!! (Enter Jeff Goldblum).

“I still can’t quite understand the point of claiming that denying the iPod the ability to play back a wider range of music and formats is a good thing.”

Real’s service is NOT A FORMAT, geez.  It’s a product they’re trying to sell.  Man almighty, take a business class and learn something.  Apple makes money off of iTMS.  Any service that directly works with the iPod steals sales away from the iTMS service.  Again, this is why Real made Harmoney, TO MAKE MONEY.

The presumption you make is that the more services there are, the more iPods will be sold.  This is not true.  People buy the iPod because it’s the iPod, not because they want to use a certain music service.

People think hardware first, service second.  Why?  Because the music service is NOT the most important thing.  Why? Because people can get music from almost anywhere! 

Here’s how most people populate music on their iPods:

1) CD’s
2) Free File Sharing
3) Music Service - iTMS

Music services are the third option.  When someone goes to buy a iPod, they ask “So I can music from my CD’s, right, and put it on here?”  and “What about thousands of songs I already have from, well, elsewhere?”  I highly doubt any person has decided not to buy an iPod because it didn’t work with Real’s service. 

Posted by ipod21 on December 16, 2004 at 9:35 AM (CST)

54

that’s really hand in hand.

Download, import, sync. How difficult is that for anyone except the mentally challenged? My favorite software automatically handles any download/updates and sync without active clicking, so for me it’s a one-step, no-brainer process.

Real’s service is NOT A FORMAT, geez. It’s a product they’re trying to sell.

And this is is different from all other formats, sorry services, how exactly?

Apple makes money off of iTMS.

There’s some cognitive dissonance here. Some people say Apple makes lots of money from iTMS, hence the rivals. Others (like, for example, Steve Jobs) claim Apple makes little or no money from iTMS. They can’t both be right. So either Apple is sitting on a gold mine, or a turkey. Which is it?

this is why Real made Harmoney, TO MAKE MONEY.

Of course this is true! Nobody would deny this. Why are you shouting? My contention is that when companies compete to make profits, we benefit. Do you deny this?

the music service is NOT the most important thing.

Again I agree with you. I have stated on many occasions that iTMS is not a primary driver for the iPod. iTMS is good for column inches and exciting journalists, and marketing, and it brings in some chump change, but in the end at the current stage it’s mostly smoke and mirrors. Every month between 1 and 2 billion mp3s are traded on the p2p networks. Compared to this, the monthly downoloads from all the licensed music stores put together is a rounding error.

Posted by Demosthenes on December 16, 2004 at 9:52 AM (CST)

55

I highly doubt any person has decided not to buy an iPod because it didn’t work with Real’s service.

You’re making a leap here. Just because something is no immediate utility when making a purchase decision, who is to say that it would not proive attractive afterwards? We’ve already established that Real offers AACs at higher quality and lower cost than Apple’s store.

If Apple succeeds in locking out Real then the possibility of competitors to iTMS is removed for the near future.

But if Apple doesn’t, then you can expect to see more and more competitors for iTMS emerge over the next few years. Instead of a single source of licensed downloads for the iPod we will have many. This can only be a good thing in terms of the availability of tunes, keeping costs low, and driving the quality higher. Having a vibrant ecosystem of music services available could and should provide a definite advantage for the iPod over the next few years.

Why can’t you see this? It’s really baffling to me. Do you understand the nature of competition? Monopolies are bad, m’kay?

Posted by Demosthenes on December 16, 2004 at 9:53 AM (CST)

56

From another iPL thread, “ipod21” said this:

Bring on “The Complete Beatles” or “Rolling Stones” and here comes 300 million… (tilts head, looks up to the sky, and dreams…)

Most of the Beatles discography is available on Real’s Rhapsody service, and Real is also in contention (with Microsoft) for the the Beatles download rights. Apple seems to be out of the running because Apple and Apple Music have been pissing each other off for a generation now.

Anbd you still say you can’t see any downside in Apple disabling the iPod’s ability to play back AAC downloads purchased from Real?

So here we are - competition means that both the Rolling Stones and the Beatles are available from Real and not iTMS. And you still contend that more choice for iPod owners about where they can buy music from is a bad thing?

You said that CDs were the primary method of importing music to the iPod. If that is true for you, then do you limit yourself to a single chain of CD retailer?

What if you had bought a Sony Discman a few years ago and one of the license requirements was that you could only shop in Sony’s own stores? That the cd player refused to play CDs bought in any other retailer?

If you can’t see the analogy then you are a lot more obstinate than I give you credit for.

Posted by Demosthenes on December 16, 2004 at 11:33 AM (CST)

57

God, everybody argues about lack of “choice” with the iPod, yet there are hundreds of other mp3 players on the market. Just like in life, not one thing will satisfy everyone—so get over it.

Fishes,
narco.

Posted by narco in Burbank on December 17, 2004 at 2:10 PM (CST)

58

I don’t really care about iTMS or any of that cr*p. 128 kbps is substandard anyway. All I need is EAC/LAME and my cd collection.

Posted by factor in Canada on December 24, 2004 at 7:31 AM (CST)

59

Is Real Networks working on freeing up the ipod photo?

Posted by crowpod on January 26, 2005 at 12:42 PM (CST)

Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy