“With the release of iTunes 4.9, Apple included the first edition of a long-anticipated XML document type definition (DTD) for RSS 2.0, that will enable access to podcasts. Apple aims to build podcast support directly into both the software and iPod, but leaders in the RSS community, including the standard’s own creator, are taking Apple to task for developing an ill-advised DTD without seeking input and guidance from the community,” Scott Fulton reports for Tom’s Hardware Guide.
Full article here.
“Creator of the original RSS standard Dave Winer is accusing Apple of attempting to make the iTunes DTD proprietary, and a Podcast’s inclusion in the iTunes catalogue exclusive to Apple,” Macworld UK reports. “Tristan Louis, one of RSS’ earliest proponents and editor of TNL.net, believes Apple may be trying to re-invent the wheel just so the final product can be theirs and theirs alone. He told Tom’s Hardware Guide: ‘The situation is reminiscent of the browser wars of the 1990s where basically you could develop your own tags that could work on your own browser, but then there was no guarantee that the community would support those.'”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Our favorite part is in the Tom’s Hardware article where Tristan Louis, one of RSS’ earliest proponents and editor of TNL.net states, “Apple has made a number of mistakes that show that they don’t truly understand a) how XML works, b) how RSS works, and c) how the RSS community and community process works.” It seems to us that Apple understands exactly how XML and RSS works, doesn’t it?
There is NOTHING preventing podcasters from making their podcast available to iTunes AND broadcasting standard RSS from their website.
In the realm of using XML in this application, maybe Apple isn’t following the structure. Remember, this is *EXACTLY* the thing we RAIL against Microsoft for doing. Follow the damned standard and the structure as layed out by the creators, don’t modify it to suit your desires then use your goliath marketshare to stuff it up everyone’s asses.
Now understand, I do not personally have the XML or RSS backgrounds to decipher how Apple is using them and decide if they are proper or not. However, tomshardware does, and before we blindly jump to defend out favoriet company, let’s see if some honest input is valid.
We screamed when MS ruined the web with IE, we screamed when MS ruined java runtime with JVM, let’s not scream “they hate Apple!!” if a well researched forum shows Apple to not be playing by the same rules we hold so dear in our own sermons.
Make way, here comes the iSteamroller
Yes, I believe a better total explanation is needed before anyone can be judged.
MDN, please clarify your statement “it seems to us that Apple understands exactly how XML and RSS works, doesn’t it?”.
A .net user is accusing Apple of using a proprietary standard. ROTFLMFAO
Apple increased podcast subscriptions by 1000% overnight. Ignore Apple’s standard if you wish. Isn’t podcasting all about getting listeners?
Ya know, it’s ironic. Microsoft recently met with Winer in how to best implement RSS/XML into Windows, and Winer came out praising Microsoft for adhering to standards and actually supporting the standard while supplying community reviewed extensions for future inclusion.
Apple goes ahead and steps all over the spec by using proprietary “iTunes” extensions without any input from the community, and as such gets a black eye.
Apple deserves whatever heat they get.
audioboy, spot on!
Apple is becoming the M$ of the online music technology.
Something tells me that the originators of the standard may know a bit more about the RSS protocol than MDN or ANY of the posters here. If they have some concerns about Apple’s implementation of it in 4.9 I am more apt to consider them than MDN’s very weak rebuttal of their assertions.
“It seems to us that Apple understands exactly how XML and RSS works, doesn’t it?”
Very convincing. Actually not so much.
Maybe Apple is going about this the wrong way. I love Apple, but they are not infallible despite the fact MDN seems to believe they are, quite naively I might add.
Well for what its worth, I’ve found it quite cool that I can simply drag podcast feeds from websites such as WTOP into iTunes and the subscription is magically managed by iTunes. Seems that it’s working well with others in my experience.
Dave Winer is a whiner and the primary reason why the movement behind Atom has grown. The biggest issue he has seems to be that Apple didn’t consult with him before implementing their additions to RSS. Now there is the legitimate concern that Apple is using a trademark name in the RSS namespace, but that’s easily modified; and doesn’t effect the feed whatsoever. The other issues are more about should you have titled this field that.
Besides from what I’ve read there have only been two complaints about Apple’s use of RSS, and one was from Dave WIner. That’s not a community blasting a corporation, that’s a my ego didn’t receive proper stroking.
Since most feeds are included regardless if they’ve adapted their feed structure to Apple’s recommendations (most haven’t, yet), its a bit of a non-issue (for now). But that’s not to say that if Apple does want its implementation to be a standard for podcasts, that they won’t have to make some adjustments.
The first we knew about these RSS extensions was when iTunes 4.9 was released.
Yet there were dozens of Podcasts that conformed to the new specs.
Why?
Because Apple clearly had used the modifcations to give these guys (with whom they have commercial partnerships) a head start and make them look professional within iTunes compared to the rest of the podcasting community who had no proper categorisation, no description and no image come up in iTunes.
This is outrageous.
Apple has done something wrong, very wrong, for the reasons that people criticise Microsoft.
My understanding is that there are three competing standards in the RSS world (1.0, 2.0 and Atom). The X in XML stands for extensible. The markup is really quite simple and newsreaders are generally coded to understand all three “standards”. RSS is young and rapidly evolving. Apple has the capacity to have a very large impact. If they do something that people like, it will be adopted. If they put forward something stupid, it will be rejected. To me this sounds like a lot of noise over nothing (except, perhaps, bruised egos). The situation is not really like browser incompatibilities, because the code for the newsreaders is implemented by a relatively small number of people unlike web page publishing which has a huge impact on a very large number of web designers.
MW: “get”, as in get over it.
Sadly I have to agree with the majority of posts so far. Simply put: Do not mess with standards. Dave has a point regarding Apples use of RSS. I use Macs for over 15 years now and I hope that Apple does not start to “enhance and embrace” like M$ usually does. Seriously.
Which came first the chicken or…
Was he a “whiner” first or a ‘Winer’ first.
If the so called “community” doesn’t want to support Apple’s DTD, they have that right don’t they? Because this “community” put out a format it should be the “standard” for all comers?
The fact that Apple has packaged the whole podcast experience into their usual elegant and easy to use way has got some people’s feathers ruffled. I wonder what their agenda is?
Ah, Rock on Steve!
I agree that we should hold all software companies to the same scrutiny.
As Apple gains PC market share and maintains its dominance in the multimedia realm, it might seem attractive for them to start using closed standards. I think Apple not licensing FairPlay was a necessary move to keep ITMS and iPod sales strong. But, I do not want to see this Microsoft-ish strategy employed elsewhere.
Remember that OSX, Safari, and other Mac applications have evolved from open source software. I hope Apple keeps kicking a**, but I also hope they play fair.
To say that the RSS community is blasting Apple, is a stretch of the truth. Sure he’s concerned about some changes they’ve made, but it’s not like Apple has highjacked the thing.
Isn’t it okay to modify a design if it doesn’t work for you? Why isn’t it okay for Apple to modify RSS 2.0?
Keep in mind, Apple tends to improve just about everything that touch. I can’t imagine that this will be an exception…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Piko
“The situation is not really like browser incompatibilities, because the code for the newsreaders is implemented by a relatively small number of people unlike web page publishing which has a huge impact on a very large number of web designers.”
Many of the discrepancies in web browsers emerged when a relatively small number of people were using the Web. Once a precedent is set, then for the sake of legacy apps, etc., it has to be retained. At least that is how it often works.
Whether Apple has done wrong here, I don’t know. But messing with a potentially important standard can create major problems later.
audioboy, I might agree with you if we were talking about software that was used in a way which goes against a standards body. A browser, or mail client, or even an ftp client require the use of standards. iTunes on the other hand is Apples proprietary software. It is a product to support the iPod. Apple is not trying to hijack podcasts from anyone. Have they done anything to interfere with the production of, or support of competing podcast software? Does Apple require podcast creators to use undocumented, proprietary software for the creation of content? No. If you want to gain access to iPod users for your podcast, and use iTunes as your delivery vehicle, then you will have to make some adjustments to your feed to work with it. This is a far cry from M$’s attempt to make the internet prorietary by forcing webmasters to follow undocumented and/or copywrited features in IE and purposefully breaking other browsers.
I guess it’s okay that Apple messed with the AAC, another open standard, by wrapping a proprietary DRM around it?
From what I can tell, Apple has added some features- descriptions, genre, etc. It doesn’t change the content of the feed itself. I can still add whatever feed I want in iTunes manually if it is not in the iTunes durectory. So I don’t get all the “extras” that only serve to provide more upfront info on the feed. Big deal. I know what feeds I am getting- I picked them in the first place!
I does sound more like bruised ego to me.
A difference in this scenario is that Apple does not buy content “yet” which means that everyone podcasting if they are unhappy with Apple, can just criticize it right under their noses with their podcast itself.
Improving presentation is one thing,high -jacking a format and making it proprietary is another. I rather free access than pretty access any day
Damn, ‘C-weed’ also rocks!
Way to use your cortex dude.
This is not like Apple forcing standards so that it can force its own Apple Podcasts onto the market in order to kill all other Podcasts and Podcasters to claim Podcasting as its own product and its own market.
Besides, if Apple becomes a tad heavy handed to shape a few segments of the digital industry, so be it. At least Apple moves things forward instead of squashing everything in its path.
doPi, too bad M$ products are neither free (i.e. open) or pretty (i.e. doesn’t look like shit).
Rock on Steve!
These freakin cry babies. Shut-up already. The KDE thing was understandable but this… STFU! Thank you.
Didn’t I read something on slashdot.org that MS plans to “extend” RSS capabilities. Aren’t they planning their own proprietary format.
Catalyst
“Ya know, it’s ironic. Microsoft recently met with Winer in how to best implement RSS/XML into Windows, and Winer came out praising Microsoft for adhering to standards and actually supporting the standard while supplying community reviewed extensions for future inclusion.”