digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Mac OS X 10.5 to Include BitTorrent client and a sharing-reward system?

macosrumors.com — According to Mac OS Rumors, Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard" will include a system-level "BitTorrent" filesharing client that can be user-customized to 'donate' upstream Internet bandwidth for things like Software Update, in return for rewards such as iTunes content.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Leviss, on 10/12/2007, -39/+10man if that were true id be all about it... but it seems to me it just woulent be cost effective enough... but i dont know, im no internet guru
    • wastern, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24how would it not be, it would save them a ton of money on bandwidth costs when pushing out updates
    • saifrc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34Apple, like most companies that provide online updates, currently pays through the nose for the bandwidth required to get updates to end users. It's especially bad at times when new updates or new software become available, and there's a mad dash to get the updates. If Apple did in fact integrate a system like this into the OS, it would distribute the cost and help Apple save a lot of money, while providing a negligible, or virtually zero, performance/cost hit to the participating users. From TFA, it seems that there would be a rewards system for users who choose to participate, which would help to offset whatever incremental cost there is in providing this service.

      My concern is that, if such a feature were inactive by default, very few users (the broader Mac-using public) would be aware of this feature and activate it, thus reducing Apple's benefit. If Apple were to have the feature be active by default, claims of bandwidth theft and Big Brother-ness would fly uncontrollably. I think it's a good idea, but I don't see it paying off immediately.
    • kazem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27Linux distros use this method right now. Of course it's a good idea.
    • wastern, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12saifrc


      a simple dialog box asking if you'd like to use it during the initial setup or during the first software update could get more people using it while avoiding the bandwidth theft claims. it would also let people know about the rewards
    • kingp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I believe that some companies already use this method, such as the updater for Neverwinter Nights (or is it for NWN 2?...can't remember).
    • timdorr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4World of Warcraft has used BT for patch distribution since the beginning. Of course, it's the biggest source of complaint for patch downloading, too. Frankly, I find it *highly* unlikely that Apple would do this. WoW users are generally more tech savvy, so they can put up with it. Apple's not targeting that market (quite the opposite one, in fact), so there's no reason for them to include such a confusing and troublesome feature.
    • Mac2492, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Bittorent downloads are fast if there are many peers and seeders. If Apple implements this, I'm pretty sure there will be many peers and seeders.
    • mrhahn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@timdorr - the difference is that Blizzard's system offers no real incentive for leaving the client open and using your bandwidth. Therefore few people do = slower downloads for others = complaints.
    • Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Why must every Apple-related article on Digg end in a question mark? If Apple made money off rumours, they'd be rolling in dough... moreso.
    • Nodren, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@timdorr

      most sophisticated bit torrent clients can work through firewalls and routers. the blizzard downloader doesnt. also, blizzard could easily host several seeders through its own network(and i'm pretty sure it does). apple could easily create a bit torrent client that works through firewalls and routers, to eliveate alot of the troubles that come with bit torrent downloading
    • mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Too bad the bloody Telcoms haven't yet given consumers the upstreams they promised two bloody years ago.
  • Nick_Circosta, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6that would be so cool :)
  • evilgod69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15free content from iTunes for helping apple with their bandwidth for big files, i'm in, solong as it is fully controlable, like how much speed and a play/pause button for when i don't want to share.
    • skyman375, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6What's the chance that this is how they intend to distribute HD media content from iTunes? If it used something like PKI to authorize the DRM...it could work, and save them a ton of money in distribution costs.
  • Odiumjunkie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19From TFA: "Uploads would use a unique port from other types of BitTorrent traffic so that network administrators can see it as separate and handle it accordingly."

    That is 100% bollocks. You can run bittorrent on any port you damn well please. If the article is referring to running the tracker on a non-standard port - you can run a tracker on any port you damn well please.
    • finkployd, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Yes. Yes you can.

      But I am guessing that if you want the perks of sharing (whatever those might be) from Apple you would use the port they want you to use. Is it really that hard to make the logical connection?
    • armature, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I imagine what he was saying, is that you can't identify bittorrent traffic based on the port it's using because trackers and clients all use any port you care to use (unlike ftp or pop traffic which use set ports as part of their protocol).

      Thus you can't say that the apple system uses a non-bittorrent port, because bittorrent has no fixed standard port.
    • sirsean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually I think the point of running it on a non-standard port is to help out against ISP's who think that only pirates use Bittorrent, and thus attempting to ensure that the Apple updates don't get blocked.

      I don't think it's a good idea, though. It would be much better to use the standard port and thus further legitimize the protocol (so it wouldn't be blocked at all).
    • deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"But I am guessing that if you want the perks of sharing (whatever those might be) from Apple you would use the port they want you to use. Is it really that hard to make the logical connection?"

      Rendevous/Bon Jour seems well suited to answer these questions.
    • finkployd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@armature

      And I imagine what I was saying was that Apple would set up a specific port to participate in their service. Again, logical follow through of what was in the article.

      I know it kind of goes against the grain to think ahead or read into something instead of shouting how idiotic something but do you really think the people who are coming up with the idea didn't think what he said and are working on a way to make it work?
    • kechambe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The port the traffic is on has virtually nothing to do with being able to identify it. Cisco's Network-Based Application Recognition (NBAR) has no problem detecting Bittorrent regarless of port. And the statement that you can't use FTP or POP on non-default ports isn't true either. You can use any application on any port you like so long as the application allows you to configure it.

      I can't see Apple doing this. There are 1000 reason why they would not. They want to sell a simple system, not something where users worry uploading data so they can get credits for a few free songs. It's not like Apple can just give away music at no cost. They have to pay the labels for those tracks. They have more important issues to inovate on, now how to save a few bucks a year.
    • KaosX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0But if theyre smart they're already running an SPI or DSPI firewall and that completely throws your comment out the window if they are filtering by packet type and not port number. Apple knows that this is what good sysadmins are doing, they code accordingly.
  • pzzq, on 10/12/2007, -10/+33mac OS rumors was, is (and will be) pure lameness.
    • magicite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18I second that.

      In fact, I'd go so far as to say that MacOSRumors' (not to be confused with MacRumors.com, a far more credible source) mere mention of this means that it won't be happening any time soon (if ever).
    • iamcam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I third that statement. Take *everything* from MOSR with a grain of salt. They've had a really bad track record over the last couple years.
    • deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2That's why it's called Mac RUMORS
    • benjamincanfly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I used to run a site called The Mac Junkie. One time as a special feature, my brother concocted some entirely made-up but well-written about a future Apple product code-named Rubicon, and sent it in to MOSR. They immediately posted it as part of their usual fare. My brother then wrote an expose called "How to be a MOSR spy," or something along those lines. It was pretty fun stuff, and got a lot of attention for a day or two. I think we were even slashdotted. Good times.
    • starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2huh? MOSR is about the oldest most reliable sites around. they aren't just some "rumor" site. if you have a problem and need some info to fix it... its one of 2 or 3 places you go to find it. if they say they got it from a reliable source on the inside thats probably exactly what it was... now we just see if its true. doesn't mean you can't make ***** up and trick them into publishing it...
  • LordSpam, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Somehow I don't think that it would be a true BT system as most think of it. Rather something to help get system updates out while lowering the impact on Apple's servers. I could see that. An BitTornado replacement? Don't think so. World of Warcraft uses a BT client to push patches out and so do other legit pieces of software. Somehow I doubt Apple (or anyone else) would reward you for helping seed the latest episode of Family Guy.
    • paleck, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Maybe they would include it with iTunes. Something like download a whole album and agree to seed 2 full copies and get $2 off of the album. Or some system like that.
    • MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Did you even attempt to read the article? It is in English, you know.
    • polumrak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Are you aware that Bit Torrent was created for such things some time ago? The fact that Software Update won't let you download Family Guy is as concerning as a fact that your fridge doesn't fight criminals.
    • ManiacFive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Your fridge DOESN'T fight criminals? :-)
  • ihate2regist, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4BT more like BS
  • ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1wow that didn't take long to get marked as inaccurate.
  • zaren, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Pffffft. The second I realized this link was on MOSR, I figured it had to be a load of crap. MOSR has been pretty much useless for a long time - I gave up on them way back when they totally missed the boat on the original iMac.
    ...
    Wow, 12 ads on the page, PLUS two pop-ups that got past Firefox's blocker? What a load. No digg (first time I've bothered to say that, btw).
    • wastern, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4i didn't get a single pop-up with Safari. this firefox you speak of must suck ;)
    • CatfishJones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That the page the automatically reloads every five minutes in order to swap out the ads is also pretty annoying, even with AdBlock on.
  • quoigonfishin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Someone should have told me to put on my waders before reading this one.
    • cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Exactly. It's always interesting to see my different pop-up blockers doing the kungfu voodoo that they do... but still.
  • noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That is a very cool idea, I like that. :D
    I hope it doesn't remain a rumor.
  • aplardi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Things like this are how America will utilize bandwidth for the better of the users. I doubt that something like this would work well on the Windows User Base but the Mac community tends understand these things better.

    Why not donate your bandwidth when not in sure for free music?
  • ohmar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If its true, that would be excellent.
  • fungifred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would like to see something like that but I am afraid that this is nothing more than a rumor that doesn't mean anything.
  • robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Uploads would use a unique port from other types of BitTorrent traffic so that network administrators can see it as separate and handle it accordingly."

    This is crap. Network Admins dont care what's in the traffic or if anything is actually being stolen; all they care about is its making their bandwidth bill much larger and so they want to throttle it.

    Marked as inaccurate.
  • benwaterworth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it would be good.
    but i seriously doubt that this will come true.

    prove me wrong...
  • theotheragentm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wait, I believe another organization is doing this? I believe it's called The Pirate Bay. Donate your bandwidth and get free music, videos, applications, and porn.

    *Please note sarcasm.*
  • MattH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The reason it wont happen is because their is a patent on p2p file sharing that uses an incentive scheme to reward users .

    Peer Impact a competitor to iTunes already has this p2p incentive scheme implemented so Apple better pony up some big dollars for the licencing fees or be prepared to let Peer Impact sell Fairplay protected content .

    http://www.peerimpact.com
    • jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think you can patent that, or would be highly surprised if it stood up to court review.
    • MattH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here's the Patent

      COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCING THE DISTRIBUTION AND REVENUE STREAMS DERIVED FROM WORKS MADE AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORM

      Abstract of WO2005038617
      Methods and computer systems for increasing the revenue stream from a work made available in digital form are provided. The methods and systems of the invention are particularly useful for musical, video, interactive game files, and artistic or commercial works that can be digitally copied and transferred or distributed, such as via the Internet. Embodiments of the present invention advantageously can form part of a greater system that provides access to digital forms of numerous works or groups of works, such as those that are copyrighted, to thereby extend the revenue-producing capabilities for the copyright holder of digital or digitized works to bona fide purchasers of those works. In turn, bona fide purchasers of a work who later provide copies of that work or other authorized works, or provide transfer or distribution bandwidth with respect to that work or other authorized works may receive incentives. Advantageously, no central warehouse of digital content is necessary with the present methods, and users may introduce authorized content into the present system in a controlled manner, through peer-to-peer systems, while realizing economic incentives for doing so. The present systems and methods also provide a myriad of embodiments of incentive and apportioning payment schedules, configurations and properties.
      Data supplied from the esp@cenet database - Worldwide



      http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO2005038617&F=0
    • jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Laughable. Won't stand up in court. Too much lawyer speak, almost feel asleep reading it, no wonder the USPTO just rubber stamps anything going their way. Anyway, it might not even apply. They repeatedly cite 'authorized work' being transferred that you own or just provide bandwidth, but Apple can contend it holds no non distributive right over the work, and freely allows and supports its distribution. Thus, you aren't being paid in more of what you're distributing, but a completely different work, that isn't being P2P distributed.
  • bwjacket, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Doubt it.
  • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This would be a great feature for Apple to add to iTunes. Users could download podcasts and even commercial songs from each other instead of taxing Apple's servers. All Apple has to do is ring up the cash register when the song is sold.
    • longofest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Podcasts are already downloaded through other servers. Apple just hosts the link, not the content.
    • gaudior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not Apple's servers that are taxed when a user downloads podcasts. It's the podcast host that gets hammered.

      That said, however, adding BT support to iTunes would be huge. The other pod-catchers out there blow, and having BT integrated with iTunes would rock.
    • pottsie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Would this yield enough revenue savings to allow Apple to give OS 10.5 away for free?
    • DrMobius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Would this yield enough revenue savings to allow Apple to give OS 10.5 away for free?"

      The only way you'll be getting 10.5 for free is pre-installed on a new Mac. Stand-alone copies of Leopard will most likely have the same $129 price tag as ever other version of OS X.
  • serpicolugnut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Complete and utter BS. MacOSRumors is a sad shell of the reliable news source it used to be. Since the return of SJ this site has been 100% inaccurate.
  • grayapple, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can see Apple doing somthing like this with iTunes (tracks people buy from the store, podcasts and the like), but can't really see it going system wide becuase in the long run it may cost Apple more, because they would have to foot the Music Store bill.
  • KillerX, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Dugg, just for the fact is pisses off the Microsoft Windows Butt Monkey Lemming Fan Dorks. :)
  • thegeekpea, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I was too distracted by all the advertising on this page... i think there are 5 ads alone for the same intimate dating site. You'd think MOSR would have tech advertisers at least.
  • bgentry, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Sounds like a huge security hole to me. Downloading software updates from other users? Besides that, if Apple can afford a new campus estimated at $1B I doubt they're worried about bandwidth cost. The trade off in security and reliability just doesn't add up for it to be a wise decision.
    • PhonicUK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Sounds like a huge security hole to me."

      It's called a checksum...
    • joelito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I downloaded my whole Operating System on Bittorrent.

      Besides, Bittorrent includes a series of checks to make sure the content being downloaded is genuine.

      And I have no doubt that Apple can afford the bandwidth, but in capitalism you try to reduce cost to maximise income, and this sounds like a good idea to do just that.
  • OandA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3mac os rumors is an old mac rumor page. It hasn't been accurately predicted anything or had any good info in many years.
  • jwest84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If they implemented this bittorrent type thing in iTunes for Mac and Windows, they could get a MASSIVE amount of users on it. Imagine if iTunes could do bittorrent downloads for you!!!
  • dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5*****
  • CasadeMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know about the truth of this. However, you know apple is getting into video and into the living room. It's only a matter of time. Distributing higher-resolution video can be bandwidth intensive (costly), and slow.

    This would lay a great foundation to start a whole new kind of distribution network for large-size video downloads...
    • skyman375, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Exactly. If the DRM/Authorization scheme is right, this makes perfect sense for their move into video content for computer displays (vs. iPod displays). A pervasive, DRM enabled (Intel coordination?) iTunes or OS integrated app would make this a real posaability. Maybe this is the media center concept mentioned at the shareholders call?
  • ericsenf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3new is cool... don't visit the site though, it is a spam-hole!
  • scratt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2bogus!
  • bennomatic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK, it wouldn't work for iTunes because they encrypt the music (with your account information as a key) before sending it down to you. They tried sending it down first and having iTunes wrap it up in a secure little package before saving it, but someone figured that out and started telling everyone how to get non-DRMed versions of their iTunes during the download process.

    So to think they would take a step backward and make a 'Torrent for any of their commercial, DRMed stuff, which would require that each participant's system be able to decrypt and send and each purchaser to be able to receive files in the clear is just rediculous.

    Now, non-user-specific stuff like software updates would certainly be possible, on the other hand.
  • snugsoho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even if this story wasn't likely to be complete bull am i the only one who thinks this would be a bad thing? i know i would just turn the bloody thing off straight away... i paid 90 quid for my copy of 10.4 Tiger, included in that cost are any updates up to the next major revision. I have a hard enough time managing my bandwidth usage though the day so my ISP doesn't ***** me over without my OS X munching my already limited upstream. It would be okay if i was getting something out of it like coupons to use at the iTMS for every 1GB uploaded or whatever but we all know Apple would never do anything like that.
  • euqinhcet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This essentially means selling your bandwidth to apple. My ISP does not allow a residential customer to resell their bandwidth to a third party, and I would guess this is typical.
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Obviousy Apple plans their own ISP for all the broadband refugees that lose their service for violating the TOS agreement with the regular ISP.
  • iWorks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2a rumor marked as inaccurate... heh
  • ntwrkguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great, so what's going to happen to those who subscribe to ISP's who give great downstream but f'in ***** upstream?
  • clicketyclicky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Although it is only a rumor, the idea is not bad.
  • hungarianhc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Doubt this will happen, but i'd like that. I'd like their iTunes podcast support to include bittorrent as well
  • 1337d00d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll believe it when I see it
  • Flyinace2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This will work as long as we still have net neutrality..... Better call your senetor if you want this feature to work.
  • starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2what if it went deeper than just a BT client. apple is building a data center for something pretty big. i don't pay a hundred bucks a year to use .mac but the stuff they have is really useful. ive set my mom up with moveabletype on my servers and helped her and customized it... and it still confused her. she can use .mac with no problem.

    what if they set up a system where web pages... my website on .mac was served up from a distributed network. that means it would be fast all the time. it would have a 100% uptime garanteed. that is something that business would love. their bandwidth needs would go to near zero... comparatively.

    then when you think that every mac has xgrid built in. so when a business switches to macs they also get a supercomputing node... its looking pretty strong for a switch to OS X. get tiger and dump the big iron.

    i like it. it would be very apple like to something like that. innovate. innovate. push the technology as hard as it can be pushed.
  • Z_Man, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2that sounds good...
  • starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i have another question. if my computer is part of huge supercomputing node spanning all of the OS X computers attached to the internet... is it one big computer... file system? i think you can give a technical answer of yes, it is one big computer. if that stands then is accessing any file on that computer really filesharing? i think it would need some new laws.
  • rootadmen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0is it just me or is this a fat ass back door??
    also, there no way they would promote sw that could take away from itunes income, though i wouldent mind it
  • howardsjackson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This is surprising due to the (somewhat unwarranted) reputation torrent has as a pirating tool.
  • mikes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is crazt, I gave it a digg because it was intersitng but realy, Apple giving bittortent away with their branded OS? It's realy crazy and no way is it going to happen
  • StarWarsFan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0People could use BitTorrent to illegally download Apple software for free. This just means less money for Apple.
  • Livewire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0what if you replace the file on your computer with a different song with the same name?
  • sambeau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is almost certainly ripped and un-credited from hrmpf.com:-

    http://hrmpf.com/wordpress/73/peer-to-peer-sharing-by-ichat/

    MOSR doesn't like folks to know that they got their 'inside info' off the web just like everyone else.
    The patent described on hrmpf.com is interesting though (but then diggers have visited hrmpf a few times in the recent past).

    Shame really.. it's an interesting idea and who-knows if it will make it into iChat, let alone Leopard. And as-to whether it could be adapted to an 'i here you' media center.. well, let's all wait-and-see (or blog and hope)..
  • rugby1970, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3True or not, it is still an interesting idea and I hope companies consider this idea in the future. It's about time bit torrents were brought out of the dark and made more of a mainstream idea. I think most people think of it as the 'Napster' of the moment but it's potential applications are much more useful than that.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.