Will OSX Build In Torrenting?

Cjattwood writes "Mac OS rumors has an article describing a possible implementation of a Bittorrent client into Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard", including a unique sharing reward system where the user can share bandwidth and get rewards, such as credit in the iTunes store."

Re:DRM?

[MrNougat]

Perhaps they intend to make torrents a legitimate method of delivery of purchased iTunes songs. So, you purchase an iTunes song, seed it as an 'iTunes torrent.' Then you get some amount of credit for more iTunes songs. Someone else who buys the first song you bought downloads it as a torrent from you (and others).

It's a way for Apple to expand their ability to deliver content without having to drastically upgrade their own network infrastructure. You get a little iTunes store credit for being part of the delivery system.

Precursor for iT-Movie-S

[doormat]

I can see Apple doing this for movies since they're so large size-wise. I wouldn't mind using half of my upstream to earn credit at the store. Good way to defray the cost of my internet bill - and since I'm on a comercial account my ISP doesnt say anything about me using a lot of bandwidth.

Hard to believe

[scrow]

I don't think that the legitamate uses of BitTorrent come close to equaling the bandwidth wasted on downloading pr0n, music and the latest blockbuster movies. So why would Apple build this into thier OS? Will it help legitimize BitTorrent? I doubt it. It would be interesting to see them distribute updates via bittorrent though.

Re:Nahhh

[nuzak]

> I don't care how many good uses there are, Bit Torrent will always be labeled as a piracy tool.

The name, sure. Otherwise ... it's just a goddamn protocol. WoW uses it for updates, and it's catching on elsewhere. They just won't call it BitTorrent, and it might not even be perfectly compatible. Just call it an "exchange-interlocked pareto-efficiency protocol" or something.

Man, every time RFID or the BT protocol comes up, slashdot gets its collective panties in a wad.

Re:Nahhh

[Luscious868]

Except Apple is the one that dictates what it is you'll be sharing. You're simply donating some disk space on your computer and bandwidth. The traffic will also occur on non-standard bit torrent ports so admins can tell the difference between the Apple feature and standard bit torrent traffic.

Re:Nahhh

[rhesuspieces00]

People said the same thing about CD burners.

P2P built into iTunes (the app) makes sense

[joeykiller]

I don't know if P2P built into the OS makes any sense, but certainly it makes sense to build it into iTunes (the application). Some people have claimed that Apple's margin on iTunes content is razor thin. I don't know whether that's true or not, but I certainly know that bandwidth -- when you want the best possible access to your customers, no matter where they are -- doesn't come cheap.

So adding P2P to iTunes could be one area where Apple could improve their margins. I guess the credit system would be a way to secure that people actually kept on sharing their files after they were downloaded/bought from iTunes (the store).

It's an interesting idea (if it's true).

Makes no sense

[paulxnuke]

The name "torrent" would scare off the few IT managers willing to play with Apple: they wouldn't dare put anything that even suggests P2P on a company system (their VP may not know what a torrent is, but he's heard the name and thinks it's bad.)

If Apple distributes this and then some sleazy congressman manages to make it illegal, they'll have a big media (if not legal) problem and have to disable high profile system services.

If Apple distributes this, it will poison their relationship with the gangsters who control ITMS content (whether it has any bearing on song sharing or not.)

What possible use is it? Apple owns Akamai. Their updates download faster than just about anyone's. If they use a torrent system it _will_ be slower (end user upload speed), not faster, and someone will sooner or later figure out how to upload trojans in place of updates and really wreck their day.

If Apple wants to hurt themselves, it would be easier and cheaper to just start donating computers to Al Quaeda.

Re:BitTorrent still has a better incentive scheme

[tinkerghost]

How much do they spend on bandwidth every time they push out a patch? I bet it's more than they will be issuing in credit.
When logic fails, check the $$

Please.

[Steve Cowan]

Mac OS Rumors has a long history of being the most uninformed, random Mac rumor site in existence. Its predictions are rarely accurate, and when they are, they have generally been mentioned on another site first.

This is a fairly typical MOSR pipe dream.

Apple does not need my unreliable, low-speed bandwidth. They deliver 100+ MB software updates to thousands of users without blinking. Given that most of their iTMS downloads (music, movies, whatever) are from Windows users, they would see little gain by offering software update credits to Mac users. In fact, for their paltry savings on the cost of bandwidth, they would have an administrative nightmare to face.

I file this one under bullshit.

Re:Precursor for iT-Movie-S

[ZachPruckowski]

Yes, but when 5% of its customers start maxing out your bandwidth regularly on a home line, the ISPs are gonna say something, either to you or Apple.

Re:Hard to believe

[oscartheduck]

As so many have already pointed out, the reason for this is to distribute things like software updates and the like. You tell apple "You may use my upload bandwidth, sure", they encrypt the shit out of something and send it to your hard drive, from there it can be uploaded multiple times while the bandwidth cost to apple was that of uploading it once.

In return for this defraying of costs, apple gives you a personal credit for a song at Itunes or some other incentive.

Re:P2P built into iTunes (the app) makes sense

[larkost]

OK.. business 101: assuming that you have the $.35 correct, that is not profit, that is gross margin. Profit is what you have when you have deducted all of the costs associated. Direct expenses would be things like the bandwidth and the credit-card transaction fees. And less direct costs would include all of the servers and personnel costs involved in developing and running the store.

After all that, profits are probably razor thin.

Re:Building things in the OS bad

[rizzo320]

The difference:

I can delete Safari from any version of Mac OS X it runs on. Can you uninstall Internet Explorer from your current verion of Windows XP?

What I am leading to here is that Apple builds features into Mac OS X, and then creates modular applications that take advantage of them, or allows you to disable these features in the operating system. Plus, other applications built by third party developers can take advantage of the features (such as OmniWeb with WebKit) as well. No one who installs Mac OS X is forced to leave Safari, iChat AV, Mail, iCal, etc installed on their computer. They can delete them and then choose to install Firefox, Thunderbird, Adium, and Sunbird, and there is no penalty to the user.

Again, try doing that to Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, or Microsoft Messenger, without a third party XP hacking tool. You can hide those applications to the user, but can never fully delete them.

If Apple builds torrenting into 10.5, I'm sure there won't be anything that prevents you from running the normal bittorent clients that are already available for your standard pirating needs.

And that, my friend, is the difference between good and evil :-)

Re:Translation:

[LnxAddct]

I think Apple is being even slicker with this move. This is Apple also building up its defenses against AT&T, etc... AT&T want to start throttling Apple's, Google's, Amazon's, etc... bandwidth. AT&T will have a hell of a time throttling the connections of all of their customers and any other IPs trying to exchange data with AT&T customers. It's one thing to throttle at a source, its a whole other problem to throttle a legally distributed network, and to do it without losing a good chunk of customers is near impossible. I think Apple is playing it smart and pretty much saying that, not only *won't* they, but they *can't* be extorted.
Regards,
Steve

Re:If M$ did this, you'd scream anticompetitive

[2nd Post!]

Of course, because MS has demonstrated anticompetitive behavior in the past. A link to a similar response to a similar post in this very article thread here [slashdot.org]!

The gist is: Microsoft threatened Compaq to pull their Windows license if Compaq installed Netscape Navigator. Apple has not done any such thing with their OS, so they aren't under scrutiny.

If you're going to complain about how people treat MS, at least understand WHY people treat MS differently too.

Re:Building things in the OS bad

[tonigonenstein]

Can't you see that there is no difference ? Sure you can remove safari, but can you remove webkit, no.

Re:Building things in the OS bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an Apple owner and the biggest thing that I absolutely hate about the Apple community are Apple evangelists. They are second only to Linux zealots in terms of making me want to punch them in the throat. You can't say hello without them insulting Windows and making "M$" jokes - it's extraordinarily childish.

Can you uninstall Internet Explorer from your current verion of Windows XP?

Why would I want to? I personally use Firefox when I'm browsing on Windows. Explorer doesn't do any harm when it's not running.

But application developers find it great to have a "known quantity" component such as a web browser installed on their target platform. It makes it possible to embed it into their own applications (which, via ActiveX, is often drag + drop) - and they know their application will now work everywhere.

When components are embedded, security is a non-issue since it's typically only viewing local, controlled content anyway (eg: Internet Explorer viewing documentation pages within the application). All I can say is: good luck embedding a web browser on OSX or Linux without compiling it in.

And that, my friend

I don't hate you, but I'm not your friend either.

is the difference between good and evil

But DRM is evil - except when Apple uses it in iTunes?
But suing bloggers over product announcements is evil - except when Apple does it?
So Internet Explorer is a commonly used and bundled OS component - and this makes Microsoft "evil"?

What does Apple have to do to be considered evil in your eyes? Genocide? Become successful and sell millions of copies of it's OS, gaining a significant proportion of the market share?