Slashdot Mirror
Apple Rejects RealNetwork's Pleas
TheJoKell writes "In a followup to a previous article, Apple has denied a meeting with Rob Glaser, Chief Executive of Real Networks, to discuss an alliance between the two companies. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Steve Jobs said, 'The iPod already works with the No. 1 music service in the world, and the iTunes Music Store works with the No. 1 digital-music player in the world. The No. 2s are so far behind already. Why would we want to work with No. 2?'"
It may be overused, but if there was ever a situation where the word PWNED was called for, this is it...
Jobs just PWNED Real!
Goo goo g'joob.
Real offered Apple zero in return, they just wanted to free ride on the success of the iPod. At least the HP deal will sell iPods and direct people to the iTMS.
I initially thought this was a good idea. Real gets a lot of credibility, and Apple gets someone else to sell songs for their iPod.
Then I started to think about the competing stores. It doesn't really do either of them any good to be selling the same songs, usually at the same price. I suppose it DOES give incentive to each of them to differentiate from the other store, but that's on TOP of the work that they have to do to offer more than the stores that use WMA.
I think Real's best proposition would be to somehow license the iTunes music store. Rather than set up a whole store on their own which is a huge waste of money - and arguably unsustanable - they could make it so it's possible to buy from the iTMS through their player. Steve would have to hand down some strict interface guidelines, but suddenly the Real player would have a lot of ACTUAL value added. Starting up their own store kind of looks like value added, but it's really just a gimmick when it's so hard to make money, do it properly, sell good music, etc.
--
If you don't like it, ignore it. All negative mods are meta-moderated 'unfair'. ALL OF THEM.
Sounds like crap.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
So, if microsoft says: why would we work with #2 and stop making office for macs? And if IBM says: why would we work with the #2 processos archeteture (powerpc)? ANd if users say: why would we buy those macs that are the #3 (linux is surpassing macs)? Man! Can't we please leran to get a bit humble?
I think Apple is making the wrong move here, sure iPod and iTunes are okay, but I don't think that's RealNetwork's market or audience, so there's nothing wrong in meeting to see what benefits both parties... but as you already know, that's simply IMHO.
Wow. I couldn't even consider them on a top 5 list...
Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
That's gotta hurt. The truth has an annoying way of doing that... When you're Real.
So does this mean Real Player will now be part of Windows instead of the rejected by Europe Media player?
When he comes back to Apple to turn things around, he's Mr. Humble Pie. Now that things are going (for now anyway) he's Mr Usual Arrogant Self. Remember Steve, you're only as good as your last quarter. While from today's perspective, that's a pretty good place, but it hasn't always been historically and there's a good chance there will come a time in the future when things aren't so great either.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I like Real's Rhapsody service a lot and wish that it integrated well with iPOD. Having said that, it is just a business decision that is both logical and obvious to follow. Why would apple who has the number one music delivery service bow down to real? Doesn't really make sense to me. Unlike most people in ./ I dont bear hostility against Real, I think their player is easy to use and portable across many platforms.
Activists United
coz we love to diss real, we just think of them as the #2 enemy too, or #3, man theres so many to choose from today between SCO/MS or BUSH.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Considering Apple doesn't make really make money on iTunes, and the real profit is in selling iPods - does this really make sense?
My enemy's enemy...
Karma: Terrible - and proud of it!
Arrogance does not bring you far. Microsoft is really pushing its own music service, and so are others (Wall-mart, Coke, etc). There are mp3 players out there (Dell, iRiver, etc) with hell of a lot more features and quality than overbranded iPod & iPod-Mini. Apple R.I.P. for its arrogance. Sad, but true.
Why would anyone want to team with them. Their software blows and is what I consider the most annoying non spyware software out there.
In addition would u partner with someone coming ramping to you almost begging? I didn't think so, unless you re the red cross or something...
By not allowing other people to use their OS on their own hardware, apple killed itself once. Not cooperating with "#2" and trying to be compatible is why Apple lost the #1 spot once. Glad to see they don't mind repeating mistakes.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Its not that we like Real now... Its just that we can recognize when Apple rejects business opportunity to feed Apple's zealous fanatics.
Slashdot is allied with Real. Slashdot has always been allied with Real.
It's arrogant to refuse teaming up with Real Networks? Is this Slashdot? Do we like Real now?
No, we don't like Real. We just dislike Apple's arrogance. Apple wants to be a monopoly, they go after everyone and anything. If they were somehow the dominant desktop, things would probably be much worse than they are now in terms of leveraging monopolies.........
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
I may have had too many beers to see the obvious, but why wouldn't Apple want to do this? If it only meant that Real would convert it's music to be compatible with Fairplay then wouldn't that mean any customers of Real's music service would need to buy an iPod to play their music on the go since .m4p files are only playable on iPods? Isn't that why iTMS exists, to sell iPods? What's wrong with another online store that would, essentially, help sell iPods?
Real's CEO is a committed progressive and has provided content delivery service to many non profit progressive organizations for free.
Activists United
Um, what does really have that Apple could want or even use.
Oh, wait Mac OS X boxes don't have any spy ware installed(I think there might be one or two spyware apps), Real Networks could help solve this really fast.
Sometimes it's fun to just lie back in the tall, cool grass and watch the great wheel of Karma turn.
And you know, it just couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of folks. </sarcasm> Real Networks can go straight to hell without collecting $200 from Apple or anyone else, as far as I'm concerned.
if karma exists, this i a perfect example. real has done so many "weasely" things, they have been due for some more bad news.
I can't say I blame them. Real Networks made such a crap product for so long they'll drag down consumer perception of any brand they're associated with.
A rotten apple in the barrel spoils the bunch they say.
/.) over their "free" player that's hard to find on their site. The "Hidden" options in the installer that you have to scroll down too see, and gouging stream providers on using their tools.
Real has been under a lot of scrutiny (especially here on
I think Jobs just didn't want to soil apples image.
I mean cmon...they have quick time wich is direct compition and better in my opinion...Quicktime is not perfect but much better than anything real haver ever come up with...if they go to microsot like they said they would they will get rejected even harder...im not try to start a flame war or anything but I never heard anyone saying anything good about real...just like all companys whos goods are not welcome they will eventually god out of buisness IMHO.
Yup. "Who wants to be an apprentice?" should have clued people in.
And see how much you like it when Microsoft is #1 and you've fallen behind to #2.
What, exactly, does Microsoft have to offer in this area?
WMA? Sure, it's the "standard" for all the other services--whose combined sales pale in comparison to Apple's. It's also the "standard" for the other players, whose--again, combine--sales pale in comparison to the iPod.
What about Microsoft's own music download service? As yet, it's vaporware. When and if it does come out, you can bet it won't hold a candle to the ease of use and quality of service of the iTMS. It will also use WMA--see above. By the time MS is ready to launch it, though, it's likely that most non-iTMS music download services will be failing, and the remaining ones will be consolidating.
Sorry, but in this case Apple has out-Microsofted Microsoft.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
News for nerds.
It seems to me as if Jobs is thinking of himself as to high up... he isn't invincible yet... (When you have to disperse cirtical updates every month or so... and still the major part of the computer market... then you can enable yourself invincible)... This deal would have actually assisted Apple in dominating the digital music market... Will Apple regret this move? All we can do now is wait for Microsoft's music program and see how that goes...
There he goes again. Everytime Apple starts to do something right, Steve goes and fouls it up with his big mouth. Apple could have held Real over the barrel and see how much change comes out of their nose. Once again, Steve lets his brovado kill the deal.
"The great thing about multitasking is that several things can go wrong at once." -me
...Microsoft.
Apple shouldn't be so arrogent when they are in the same position in a different field.
Why would Apple wanna do this? It means nothing but good for Real and there is the very real (every pun inteneded) danger that some stink would rub offa Real onto Apple.
I see a lot about Jobs' arrogance here: how about (until recently anyway) Real's arrogance towards their users?
Ya, I thought they did this before with the PC, didn't want to open up there hardware because they were the best... well, hum...
Apple Rejects RealNetwork's Pleas
... [BUFFERING]."
Actually, the headline here overstates it. Technically, Apple has not yet rejected Real's pleas.
Apple sent the following message to Rob Glaser:
"In response to your request of the 15th, Apple's categorical response is [BUFFERING]
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Who here honestly likes real format files, I've been unable to find anyone who actually likes them over any other format.
Apple as cocky as ever.
I wonder why Real bothered asking Apple at all, they should have gone for Claria (AKA Gator, for the rest of us) right from the start - that would be the alliance of the millenium!
My other Beowulf cluster is... er...
In short, teaming up with Real can only hurt Apple, or at least the perception of Apple.
I'm sure this page will fill up soon enough with near-flames about the arrogance of Apple and how it lost them the computer market last time and so on. What most of the people making those comments don't realize is that the Mac never had the market share that the iPod does. Apple really does dominate this market, and can afford to act like Microsoft for several years, at least. (That Microsoft is intent on entering the market soon does not necessarily mean they will be successful at taking it over, as the XBox has shown.)
Licensing to Real would have two negative effects that Apple should rightly be concerned about. First, this would at best steal sales that would otherwise have gone to the iTMS, and, while the bulk of the profits come from the iPod itself, the iTMS can only be helped by increased traffic. (In particular, economies of scale are probably rather important--certainly with respect to the infrastructure, possibly the underlying music licensing as well.) Secondly, Real has a long reputation as obnoxious crap that works poorly and pushes ads at the user all the time. Associating with them could taint Apple's image, which is a valuable commodity. If Real's store was anything other than flawless, it could damage the perception of how easy to use the iPod is, hurting long-term sales and brand image.
Because they might be No. 1 someday?
Like, say, Microsoft. Gates urged Jobs to license, but he didn't listen. And the rest is history.
I guess Jobs hasn't learned his lesson after all these years.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Outside the Apple music store, there isn't a lot of mp4 or quicktime content. BBC and NPR still use real, and many other good radio sites. I really don't know why. But if Apple and Real could get together and agree on a standard, even a closed standard, it would be very good for the market. In short, I hate being forced to choose my media player based on the file format of the content.
Excuse me? What business opportunity?
HP brought something to the table. Real Networks didn't. Apple's not a charity.
Those Real clowns are nothing but a bunch of biznitches anyway.
Art Schools Dietzilla
#2 + #3 + #4 + #5 + #... > #1
Did steve take math classes at all?
I just had this vision of Jobs saying that while grabbing his crotch in a meeting with Real.. LOL :) I got your AAC right here pal!
Isn't this some story where Gates came to Next computers with a plan to develop for the platform, and then they made him wait in the waiting room for ages or something stupid like that.... and then Gates vowed to never develop for the
Next platform? I'm paraphrasing here, but maybe someone can fill in the details.
All we'd see on the screen would be:
Buffering
Even though it's on the damn player, we'd still see it.
Two words:
Embrace, extend
Microsoft has a history of copying something really lousy at first, then flooding the market and destroying the competition.
Really, Steve Jobs can decide what he wants. But it's bad PR to be that cocky. He might as well shout out, "I'm king of the hill, try to knock me off!" Here's a hint in PR, Steve: act contrite and humble even as you crush your opponents. They won't realize what you're doing until it's too late. But if you are unapologetically domineering, you'll find you get three responses:
Hmmm. I wonder which one is Microsoft? And which one is Real?
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Because, Mr. Jobs, your position as No. 1 just isn't really guaranteed unless you're bigger than No. 2 - N combined.
Just ask micros~1. Seems to have worked for them.
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
Smell that..
Arrogance
IMO iPod users shouldnt have to feel vendor locked by not getting access to the service Steve Jobs dislike. If Apple got issues with people renting music, why not let a second music provider give consumers a choice?
Apple and Sony seems to be making the Betamax and mac error all over again by providing DRM format with NO industry support. It would be wise for Apple to team up with Sony and then with a subsription based music provider. Even better: License fairplay to any company willing to cough up the money needed
Actually, if they weren't so arrogantly idiotic, they could have easily been a monopoly by now. Hell, they're passing up an opportuntity to become a online music monopoly... I mean, why snub someone who wants to help make your standard the de facto?
Seems Microsoft will cook up something here soon, just to spite them... and they might manage that easily, especially if Apple is alone and outnumbered.
Its not even bowing down, its a partnership. Real is synonymous with poorly written software, nagware 'message centers' most people cant turn off, messing up file associations, hiding the free product on the website, etc. These guys are one step removed from penis pump spammers.
Apple's approach is user-centric and user friendly. Real hates the user and does *everything* it can to fool you buy their product when you just need the free one. They'll do anything to take over your system. They'll push 'message center' ads for a penny an ad.
In short: fuck Real. The sooner they go bankrupt the better off everyone is. There is room for a good company with a nice media player out there and Real has shown itself over the years that they are not this company.
All his caps would be worthless.
Real's CEO is a committed progressive
Good. Somebody should tell him that my PC is not an entitlement program.
Im not saying anyone is stupid or arogant, but you have to think along these lines, look at the product Real provides. Granted their player is a piece of crap or has been notorious for doing shady stuff, but they provide all sorts of exclusive video content out there. I mean, I dont subscribe to it but If you combine that video content with one of those video ipod dealies that were reviewed/talked about a while back, that could be a worth while product.
Think about it, you have real pass for cnn content you dock your video ipod to your computer and it downloads cnn content and wherver else want, you have all that stuff to go. I dont know it could be kind of neat.
eh wtf do i care, i personally fuking hate real. As a matter of fact anyone know of a package to rip realaudio streams to ogg?
Maybe Pixar leaving Disney was a good idea, maybe this is a good idea. But look at the Apple mouse; it still has one button. That's not business, that's stubbornness. And I think there's a lot of that still left over in how Apple does business in general.
Steve has every right to be arrogant toward the Real folks.
... BUFFERING .... BUFFERING ... BUFFERING ...
Glaser and his company are a bunch of scumbags with a shitty audio/video format and an even more shitty player that they try to trick you into paying for. Not to mention that they infest your system with a bunch of
Those are the kind of words, that one may live to regret.
Apple is a one man band again. They go it alone again. Apple once had the advantage and could have dominated the desktop market with their superior product, except they wouldn't let anyone else play.
The IBM PC became ubiquitous because it was an open standard. However, it is true, this didn't benefit IBM near so much as it benefited Microsoft.
For those using Windows, here is the Real Alternative. If you are running Linux, mplayer will play a Real stream just fine, thanks. Unfortunately for MacOS people, the only thing that will play a Real stream is RealPlayer. Or mplayer if you take the trouble to recompile the source code for Darwin.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
There was this one guy who was really good at it. The general rule was: If you allied with him, you'd (usually) be the last person he killed off... But he still killed you off.
Why work with #2??? Because they're that much less likely to string you up on a moment's notice, and you might have someplace to go when #1 decides that you're expendable.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
It is not arrogance. In what way is Real number 2 even? Things could have been different for Real, there was a time when they were at the forefront of streaming technology. They lost this spot in my eyes when the began to lose focus an instead of concentrating on technology and finding sustainable revenue streams, went for the cheap shots of getting people to pay for what others offered for free, making it very difficult to find the free version of their product, and above all loading people's desktop with tons of garbage. I have lived life without the Real player and when a site does not give me a choice, I show them my contempt by leaving the site.
Two comments above you.
When will you trolls ever give up. The parent post is such an obvious attempt to start a flamewar with the vast hordes of Real fans that hang out on Slashdot. When will you people realize how useless it is to try to bash a company that we all respect so much?
At least real doesn't charge 29.95 USD for the ability to play a videofile fullscreen...
That's always been the problem with Steve: absolutely no self esteem. ;)
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
this is a stupid arrogant move. the vole is coming and no one needs a lesson on microsoft's record of catchup. embrace and extend, the vole will conquer this market unless taken on with full force. apple had a chance to abort this and it blew it
Oh no.. Apple pulled a Sony!
The Betamax was a superior product, and Sony didn't want to license it to anyone else! I mean come on, theirs was better, right?
Too bad all the other companies got together behind their backs, developed interoperable products.. and it's those inferior products that became standard for a long time (and are now thankfully being replaced with digital.. consumers have paid the price!)
This seems to be happening again.. Apple wants to keep a stranglehold on the market.. but to misquote Leai (had to look that one up), "The more you tighten your grip, the more profits will slip through your fingers" .
DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
This is just a pissing contest. It started with Glaser insulting Jobs and calling him "afraid". Jobs just returned the favor by reminding Glaser of his place.
Lots of people are comparing this to licensing the OS or not. Of course that's a flawed analogy because
1) the OS is a whole platform that needs developers, etc... All the iPod needs is songs
2) it ignores the real reasons for the failure of MacOS which had nothing to do with licensing
The bottom line is that Real has nothing to offer at the table. So Glaser tries to goad Jobs into cutting a deal by offering insults and threats. Jobs is not the type to fall for that.
It would have made sense to meet with Real and work with them to make Raphshody use FairPlay. Jobs you've said it youself so many time - you make your money off hardware. You WANT people developing software to support the hardware. Why you don't get this defies bellief and reason. iTMS is a very low margin affair to the extent that having Real as a competitor wouldn't really matter. Hell you're in such a good negotiating position that you could have tailored the deal to your own liking.
Now you come out of this looking like an asshole, you leave WMA as a viable competitor (your real nemisis) - and a partner who could have done a lot of the heavy lifting in places where you aren't (many companies have deals with REAL that you do not) is left to go to Microsoft and similar. This was not a smart move and the attitude is so arrogant that I have a bad taste in my mouth from it.
Free MP3s + P2P are the *ACTUAL* number one music distribution service. Why would users want to buy an over priced music player from a dieing vendor who's products break prematurely or their DRM cripled music that prevents the rightful easy transfer of purchased music between third party buyers and sellers? ...man, Jobs lives in his own little reallity. The fact the Real has been so sucked in by it is just fscking remarkable. In my opinion, they deserve eachother and that match is nothing more than eventual.
Repost from previous article
see for yourself
Mac OS is "second place in market share." Windows OS is number two. There's a difference.
It's arrogant to refuse teaming up with Real Networks? Is this Slashdot? Do we like Real now?
Very good point. Lack of clones is what kept them out of most desktops. Lack of available parts and proper redundancy keeps them out of the server room. Apple is stupid, and it's not getting any better...
Seems Microsoft will cook up something here soon, just to spite them... and they might manage that easily, especially if Apple is alone and outnumbered.
No doubt they're working on it as is. I'll wait until there is an Ogg based Online Music Service w/ No DRM. DRM only gets in the way of people who buy it, most warez'ers use mp3...
Very sad that users who buy get less than users who don't.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
WSJ
"Consider the economics of the iTunes store. Apple charges 99 cents per song that is downloaded by a consumer. Of that 99 cents, Apple pays the record label about 65 cents for licensing rights to the song, estimates Charlie Wolf, an analyst at brokerage firm Needham & Co. Other analysts come up with similar figures. In addition, Apple incurs costs such as credit-card fees, which typically amount to 25 cents a transaction (which can include several songs), plus 2% to 3% of the amount charged. The result: On average, Apple earns less than a dime for each song it sells from the store."
CNET
"Apple said it doesn't have any illusions that it can make great profits from selling songs over the Internet: Instead, Apple is counting on the store as a key part of an overall music business for the company that can produce substantial profits--mainly through sales of its iPod digital music player. 'The iPod makes money. The iTunes Music Store doesn't,' Apple Senior VP Phil Schiller told CNET News.com...Schiller said the music store is close to profitability but is still losing money. Apple doesn't see the business as having much long-term profit potential either."
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like Howard Dean having a... YEEEAAAARGH!!!
PS: Good reason to totally discount a candidate. I'm so proud of my fellow countrymen.
"it won't hold a candle to the ease of use and quality of service of the iTMS"
Don't see how you can say that. The service doesn't even exist yet.
iTunes for windows is a me-too application that's not better than Media Player. The current iPods are surpassed easily by the Rio Karma. Why would I want to use a music store through an inferior application that only supports and inferior mp3 jukebox? Not that I have any interest in online music stores but there's no way I'm interested in the Apple one. It's pure vendor lockin.
The market is young and there's a lot of the game left to play. People are so ready to conceed victory to Apple on this but history shows that not to be wise.
segment because a decent competitor hasn't come along, YET. Apple doesn't have the muscle of MS and when something cheaper, well inetgraed with WMP9 and meets more closely the DRM wishes of the major labels it will be all over. I don't necessarily think working with Real is the answer, but people love to watch Steve Jobs eat his words and statements like this deserve to be served up on large platters.
It could well make some people think twice before purchasing a product that includes or *gasp* requires rp.
-k
Your mind moves quicker than a nun's first curry. - A. Rimmer
I Have To Agree That Microsoft Is An Enemy of Ours. However, I Do Not Think That Real Is A Friend Of Ours Due To The Fact That They Are Enemies. Please Explain.
Real's CEO is a committed progressive and has provided content delivery service to many non profit progressive organizations for free.
Yeah, I'm suprised he didn't just name the company "Progressive Networks" or some crap like that.
In what way is Real number 2 even?
Any media player whose version for Windows OS would install so much adware for so long is a piece of number two.
but a shitty attitude like this is a good way to end up with 3% of the online music market like they have with the OS market. Remember, Apple used to be No 1 in computers too.
"Divided we fall" should be the mantra of every single non-MS technology company.
I'd like to buy an OSX machine, but Jobs' crap attitude along with Apples exorbitant pricing keeps me away.
BC
Just thought I'd mention here that Steve Jobs had nothing to do with Apple's lock-out strategy. That was that ex-pepsi guy Jobs reeled in.
Jobs at the time was already fired for his hum arrogance.
I'd love to see Apple make strategic alliances, but rather with Sony than with Real. Anyway, although the guy has a big mouth, he has done some pretty amazing things, and a lot of Apple's bad business decisions had nothing to do with him.
He was making his own bad decisions at NeXT - where he made kick ass machines and a cool OS, ask the "inventor" of the internet (no, not that ex-vice president)...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
mplayer with rtsp support - write to wav, and then encode.
I think part of Apple's reluctance to team up with Real is because Apple want to make QuickTime ubiquitous. The latest stats I can find about media players place QT at the number 3 slot (WMP is #1 and Real is #2). Keeping in mind that Apple is trying to fortify itself as THE media creation company. For Apple to have more clout in the creative industry, especially in motion pictures and music, it needs to make sure its formats (even though they are all pretty much based on open standards) are the standards. And the only way to really do that is to have QT become much more popular than it is today.
Think about it. How does iTunes work? By using QuickTime. QT has had very bad rep in the PC world (flaky player, etc.), and many Windows users don't install it before. But now, with the iPod and iTunes Music Store, people are starting to install QuickTime again. iTMS won't work without it! Now if Real comes in and offers the same service but bypassing QT, people would no longer be installing QuickTime.
-B
Name one company besides Microsoft that's succeeded financially in licensing its stuff to others.
Name any publisher of sheet music. They license music to radio stations, to record labels, and to movie studios.
This is nothing Apple could not easily work out on their own. A partnership with Real would not add any value to the service.
As a side note, why does anyone care about, much less pay for, streaming video from CNN? If that's what you want to see, turn on the TV. Most broadband users have cable or satellite, so I'm not really sure what CNN is thinking here.
noone wants to use the media player that comes with your questionnaire anymore, good riddance!
If there is anything they have it's patience. DOS was one of their very few products that dominated from the start (thanks to a free ride from Big Blue). Windows took many revisions to catch on. NT was hardly competitive with Netware or Unix for years. Word was no match for WordPerfect for half a decade. Lotus and Ashton-Tate were once kings. Borland had great developers mindshare. Netscape anyone? Eudora/Pegasus mail? Of course Real is afraid, they can hardly be afraid enough.
Although I hate to see Microsoft lose more competition, this is what should happen when companies do everything but improve on their product/service to try and stay on top.
Trying to latch on to one of your competitors by threatening them is a sign of weakness that Microsoft is hopefully too intelligent to ignore.
This is awfully puzzling to me. Real wanted access to the iPod's DRM. Which would allow their content to work on iPods. Which would sell more iPods. It certainly wouldn't hurt iPod sales a bit... Real would be a weak competitor far behind the iTunes Music Store ----- which makes no profit, and whose sole purpose for existence is to sell more iPods!
On the other hand, outright refusing the deal is going to drive Real to Microsoft. Either they actually ask Microsoft to use WMA DRM, or they try to roll their own solution, get marginalized, and M$ buys the mout down the line. Either way, Microsoft needs no more help at all to compete against Apple in this arena. Billy Gates is just getting warmed up for this next great chapter of the titanic struggle that started in 1985, and Apple needs all the allies it can get.
I can't understand why any rational executive WOULDN'T agree to a deal of this nature. I can't understand why any rational executive would just plain slam the door on Real. But I suppose I can understand why Steve Jobs would.
This is yet another example of Steve's hubris, his greatest flaw. It's burned Apple before and it'll burn Apple again. Steve already pulled a Phoenix in 1998. Let's hope he doesn't have to do it again.
Save time now so you can waste it later
And iTunes is FAR behind eMule. I can get whole albums for free. The majority of online music downloads are not being paid for. So the real standard is kazaa/WinMX/eMule and the others, and the standard file format is mp3 because it's supported by EVERYTHING, and can't be DRM'd.
I will star paying for music when:
1. We get a download service for less than $.50 per song
2. The songs have NO DRM and are in an either mp3 or an open format.
3. At least $0.40 needs to go to the artists
4. The RIAA no longer exists.
Until then, I will keep downloading for free.
"Well, it took an hour to write, I thought it would take an hour to read."
It's the same crowd that likes bands when they're hip and "alternative", but hate when they "sell out."
That reasoning is *exactly* why Palm isn't the number one PDA anymore.
don't forget, though, in addition to being able to play the video full screen you also get rid of the "Go Pro!" pop-up. That SO makes it worth it!!*
Also, CMD-3 maximizes the window (still not fullscreen, but close)
*for those that didn't notice, I'm being sarcastic
As an astute observer of human behavoir, I have noticed that people to not respond well to threats, especially those like Steve Jobs. To write a threatening email personally to him is like saying, "Steve, I think you are like crap. No, you reek of it. Now, as a good little piece of crap, I'd like you to do XXX or I'll flush you down the toilet." I learned I never got anything by threatening someone (as Real did Apple with the Microsoft ploy) in a better position than me.
Real Networks acts like a child, and Apple happily refuses to grant them a piece of the pie. Maybe had Real asked Apple more nicely, as HP did, they might have had more inroads, although the deal still would probably fall through.
shall not go unrewarded...
There's a suprising amount of "Flamebait" moderations lately. My theory it is mostly freshman university students that are all of a sudden learning how terrible it is to say anything negative about anything else. It seems to come in cycles.
I remember back in the old days of the Internet. Every September the Internet would get an influx of new college students that had no idea of netiquette (when such a thing still existed.) They'd annoy the fuck out of everyone for a couple months until they got into the swing of things, then they'd settle in and become good netizens.
Until Windows 95 came out. We used to called the Windows 95 release "The September That Never Ended." Not exactly the same thing, but I'm just wondering what has brought this off-season September to Slashdot. What the fuck is up with the moderation system and the people using it?
Maybe we should remind Mr. Jobs that he is not even #2 in the computer world and Microsoft released Office and Outlook for OSX but MS already made it for the #1 Selling OS in the world and still made it for the #2-100 or whatever lower rank you think OSX might hold, anyways point being if Mr. Jobs keeps making comments like that all he'll be left with is an empty flask no partners and a broke company running off a now defunct OS.
they'd be out $25 billion or so, not just a measly few 100 million. How is it that Apple, Oracle, and others all get away with in your face crap like this (half the people above laughed at Real for it) and Microsoft catches crap for largely behind the scenes and at least publicly polite arm pulling? Heck, if you're nice to them, they'll even buy you out on their way to smushing you. Apple is the epitomy of what happens when you don't open up your business. Microsoft didn't take it, Apple gave it up or maybe even actively threw it away. Bill Gates didn't make Microsoft, Apple did. So why why why do people actually like Apple?
>As long as you define 'user' as being somebody wearing the latest fashion clothing who is eager to flash the plastic at an Apple Store.
And MS users are stupid.
And Linux users are nerds.
BSD users are uber-nerds.
OS/2 users are old nerds.
Thanks for the productive comment.
Foolish foolish foolish.
If you have the opportunity to gain market share at virtually no cost, why would you turn it down?
Apple has repeatedly stated that they are breaking even/loosing money on iTunes and they can't have very high profit margins with the iPod. Why not make some cash on licensing fees?
As a side effect, Real's marketing might bring additional customers. If Real succeeds, they make money in licensing fees. If Real fails, Apple can pick up the customers left behind when they fall.
This sounds to me as meaningless as the argument that if Macs of Linux boxes were more popular they would surely have more viruses.
The simple answer is: Apple is not a monopoly, period. If they were dominant, no-one knows what they would be doing. And so far I haven't seen any behaviour that would make me think they wouldn't play by the rules if they were dominant.
And seriously, what would Apple ever want from Real Networks? The guys at Real Networks are loosing a lot of customers for making their free player too hard to find, and by putting way too many ads around. Why would Apple want to have anything to do with them now?
Maybe the words were a bit harsh, but they did make sense.
Diego Rey
diegoT
That's pretty much my entire rebuttal.
Nobody in their right mind is going to establish a music download service where they make less than 10 cents per track.
Your entire justification for copyright violation is beyond absurd.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Because 1 + 2 = 3
DENIED! Burn on Real. That was the biggest pimp slap in the technology industry!
'The iPod already works with the No. 1 music service in the world, and the iTunes Music Store works with the No. 1 digital-music player in the world. The No. 2s are so far behind already. Why would we want to work with No. 2?'" Sounds like something Microsoft would say.
"The universe is my dwelling place and my house is my only clothes! Why are you entering into my pants?" - Liu Ling
My first thought on this statement was,"What a fucking asshole.".
Nobody stays on top forever. I can't wait to see Apple fall.
True, just look at what happened with Apple and the Mac, it was good for awhile with dominating the marketshare and all, but it was undercut by the cheaper X86 machines that came along. Same can happen with the iPod and it's competition. Sure, the other options may not be as good but neither was x86 as far as the user-friendliness and how well built the machine was it still won. There will be(and some already are) better than the iPod. The public just needs to discover them.
Maybe I'm wrong, but don't these devices need a computer to download music from the net and upload them onto the player? Probably a desktop box. Let's see, who's number 1 there....oh wait I know who!
Does Apple have good support for their player and format on Windows yet? (I'm asking, I don't run either.) Do they realize that their music business could be hurt if their software were to become flaky on windows for some unknown reason? Windows media player will ofcourse still work.
Now if both the Ipod software and Real's software goes casters up at the same time, that would be a little more fishy. (Not that I'm saying we've seen that happen on Windows before...) Plus Real could probably add Linux support easier. Then I might even care if either of those companies sink or swim.
"the iTunes Music Store works with the No. 1 digital-music player in the world. The No. 2s are so far behind already. Why would we want to work with No. 2?'"
The Lack of options to play WMA on iPODs, and allow other companies to sell Fairplay AAC files (to make sure only iTMS can sell files directly compatible with iPod without jumping through hoops) will eventually kill Apple's market in both areas. They haven't learned from past mistakes, which have doomed them to a less than 5% marketshare in the personal computer market. These new tactics to dominate the digital music market are the same tactics that caused them to lose the pc market. When will Apple learn? People will reject their products as cheaper alternatives in noth markets become more widespread and ultimately ubiquitous.
Vote for Pedro
The problem you are having is a result of you not knowing who the real enemy is.
aloof, assuming, audacious, autocratic, biggety, bossy, bragging, cavalier, cheeky, cocky, cold shoulder, conceited, contemptuous, cool, disdainful, domineering, ego trip, egotistic, haughty, high-handed, imperious, insolent, know-it-all, lordly, overbearing, peremptory, pompous, presumptuous, pretentious, proud, puffed up, scornful, self-important, smarty, smug, sniffy, snippy, snooty, snotty, stuck up, supercilious, superior, swaggering, uppity, vain (dictionary.com)
I know I'm probably too late, but if anyone else would like to call Jobs arrogant, if you could maybe use one of these synonyms I know at least I would appreciate it. Reading "J0bs |s s0 @rr0g@nt!" over and over again is getting really annoying.
That's not my Sweedish Penis enlarger... It's not mine!
Actually I think that a service can make quite a bit of money at $0.10 a song. Why should the service ( read distribute) receive $.40 and the musician $.10. Hell it is the musicians creativity that is being robbed here. This is an easy business. The technology behind what apple is doing is trivial. chump change code. half the people on this site could write the code to do music downloads. The over head is fairly small...a building and some computers to do the serving. You could pull this operation off with 10-20 dedicatied geeks running the show and the $.10 cents a song would easily make you all very rich for the rest of you lives. Do buy into the big business crap. It doesn't take millions of dollars to pull this kinda operation off. Why am I not doing it you say. Dunno...Good question....back back later I need to go thing about some things.
what?
While I agree that Mr. Job's response is a bit arrogant, you can hardly blame him for turning up his nose at an "offer" that was in the form of a threat: make a deal or else. Not real friendly like.
--- What?
According to their quarterly report, which was released earlier this week, the iTunes music store did make a small profit. I don't think details were released as to how much of a profit, but they did say it was.
Presumably, the more they can grow the user base of the store, the more money they can make on it. Allowing Real to set up shop in their turf with their tools would only likely decrease the user base of their store.
Real just wants a free ride, but Apple wisely won't give it to them.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
And there was me thinking the number 1 music service and digital music player in the world was compact disc!
:(
The real number 1 is the masses and their p2p file-sharing and as long as your music player plays mp3 who cares who made it? And given that all other DRM'd music formats can and always will be cracked or circumnavigated its like saying segway is number 1 against human legs!
I hate apple so much, but OSX rocks and so do their notebooks
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
This sort of arrogance is the main reason I have a growing hatred for everyhing Apple.
uh, it's not fairplay that's stopping the realplayer songs from playing as such. They are both AAC, so the only sticking point would be any DRM that Real is using. Is the article wrong, or are they saying that Real wants to license Fairplay?
Who does No. 2 work for?!
Who does No. 2 work for?!
Who does No. 2 work for?!
Yeah Steve Jobs, you tell that turd who's boss!
Nah, that's so last year. ZING! That's where it's at now.
and you're still a moron.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Arrogance.. It is the main reason why Apple has this small market share.
Dicussing with other companies in same industry and converting them as Apple's friend, and making them to use Apple's technology will make Apple computers future finantial status better.
If Apple grabs Real's hand, then they can push the MS better, and 3rd party hardware mp3 player makers will be able to support Apple's technology.
"Apple puilled a Sony!"
Right--except that Apple already supports an open standard (AAC), as well as mp3, for their players. Since no one is insane enough to make a system that doesn't work with mp3s, there's little risk that Apple is going to end up "Betamaxed". Different dynamic.
How many of you have bought SCO linux licenses?
...of Steve Job's going for the short term hubristic macho bullshit posturing PR stunt at the expense of longer term business sense. While it is no doubt that Glaser and Real are trying to negoitiate from a weak position, SJ's purile stumpy dick-swinging just never ceases to amaze for both it's juvenile tenor and infantile stupidity.
This isn't arrogance: this is a measured response to Glaser, a blowhard who called Jobs a coward and who threatened Apple just a few days ago.
"with the higher quality, more stylish product"
This is clearly up for dispute as Windows has over 90% of the desktop share and Linux is very quickly going to surpass MacOS X. Once there are cheaper alternative portable music players the Ipod will also lose its market share and then what will Apple do? Apple has very few friends out there and basically bury themselves even further everytime they make a stupid move like this.
I don't have an IPod, don't Want and IPod and certainly am not interested in ITMS.
Fact is I don't want to be locked in to any one vendor, and that is exactly what Apple wants. They did not learn their lesson in the past and lost the entire market to IBM (who then lost it to the clones the same way). Similar with the Newton. Is the IPod next. Besides I hear that ITMS selection is not all that great.
The Ipod hardware is pretty nice, nice design and all, but seems to me that it ends there.
So Hey Real!
Make the Ipod killer music player and I'll give it a good look and, if it really cuts the mustard, I'll buy it. You need to beat them at their own game.
He is damn near as fucked in the head as Ellison is.
"Conservatives, in general, are happy to confess their biases. Liberals like to think their biases are actually reality."
And let's see here, isn't the current administration a bit dogmatic? What about rightist pundits? They're pretty dogmatic too.
I'm not trying to defend the left here, I just think you're drawing a false dichotomy. There exist dogmatic folks on any and all "sides" of the political spectrum. To claim that "conservatives" acknowledge their biases and "liberals" don't (or are unable to) is mere trolling at best. God knows why I bothered to respond...
Well, Quicktime is not the only reason. It's about selling iPods and increasing the sales volume at the iTunes music store.
But, what is missing from comments on both sides of this argument is the tremendous increase in Quicktime distribution that has resulted from iTunes, the iPod and the HP deal. Remember iTunes-installed=Quicktime-installed. And, that's the primary reason why Apple does not want to make a deal with Real. With the HP deal, Apple now has the second largest PC manufacturer in the world shipping Quicktime on every one of their PCs. Striking a deal with Real would reduce the number of potential Quicktime installations.
If Apple can continue to their current success, Quicktime will regain the number two spot in the media player wars. In other words, Apple's iPod/iTunes success has created a Quicktime distribution juggernaut. It's saving Quicktime from it's floundering third-place postion. That's what scares the hell out of Real and that's why Jobs told them to take a flying leap.
> I'm not really sure what CNN is thinking here
This might be a foreign concept on slashdot, but some people spend their time doing this thing called "a job" in these places called "offices" where a mean guy called "the boss" prevents you from watching cable TV.
Kazaa is still number one. Or is it bittorent?
"Why would we want to work with No. 2?"
..having already convinced a fair number of people he's a visionary... Steve-o's always gotta have it both ways, ifykwIm.
Jobs reaffirms his reputation as a brat...
I wouldn't call this arrogance so much as pragmatism and heaps of conceit. There is a difference, somewhere...
If you fired me I'd tell my dad!
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
a Bitchslap! hahaha
Go away Real!
You know that Jobs was just pissed because his assistant couldn't find the link to the free real player on their website, and payed for the full version.
Because one day you may find yourself at #2.
Anyone who understands power knows that it is transitory.
Hubris like this is the stuff of Greek tragedies.
As far as I know (and as far as this article says) Rhapsody does use WMA for streaming. Real simply bought it, and, while they certainly do want it to use Real format, the upgrade is simply not there (also try go to their help section and enter "what codec" into question field -- result says WMA and is updated 01/08/2004 06:49 PM )
Which makes the fact that Real sued Microsoft even more funny, and wish to cozy up to anyone but Microsoft somewhat more logical.
Hyperom.com
Okay, let me get this straight.
Download.com. Sourceforge. Countless, countless other companies and web sites.
You can go to them and download files *much* larger then your average MP3, which is let's say about 4MB. Many of them live on advertising alone.
If you're trying to tell me that it's too expensive to provide a service where you make ten cents for every four MB downloaded, I don't buy it.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
because the other music store probably wouldn't use iTunes and it would delute the whole 'just works' with your iPod and iTMS.
Jisho - A Japanese English German Russian French Dictionary for the rest of us.
"Apple Rejects RealNetwork's Pleas"
Mmmm, nothing like the smell of fresh fanboy spin to wake you up in the morning. Yes, i'm sure Real was just begging on their hands and knees too...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Who left the reality distortion field on again?!
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
I uninstalled RealPlayer quite a while ago, because it kept hawking the paid upgrade at me, but I do find the occasional realmedia stream I would like to listen to, with no other options, so perhaps you could give me the URL of where they hide that elusive free version.
In return, I'll give you a link - right now I'm listening to Radio Paradise in streaming MP3. Best internet radio station on the planet, just now featured in Time magazine.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Between file sharing with BitTorrent, the occasional CD that's actually good, and a Pocket PC, I say:
Meh.
Ozwald.
Because, Steve, if your company would work with No. 2, No. 3, No. 4...No. N, your company could kick Microsoft's ass and Apple would become the Number 1 computer platform in use.
I'm a big fan of Apple. But if you folks don't push and shove to get your stuff out there, you'll still be "only" 2 or 3 percent of a huge market. Hell, if I were you, Mac OS would have been released for x86 a LONG time ago. Who cares about the driver problems and whatnot? Make it work with drivers from the various BSDs and from Linux. People who use x86 are accustomed to the bullshit; anything would be better than Windows. But noooooooo... That would mean stooping too low for Apple.
So maybe No. 1 should get off its high horse and work together with any and every company it can to blow MS out of the water.
What makes the iPod even better now is that it works great with the number one media player:
Winamp.
Oh yeah! We got plug-ins for everything.
And Apple doesn't?
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
It's arrogant to refuse teaming up with Real Networks? Is this Slashdot? Do we like Real now?
No, we don't like Real. We just dislike Apple's arrogance.
Slashdot is not a single entity with a single opinion. Do not try and speak for it as such.
I'd love to see your numbers. Especially when they disagree with you so.
Mac's are the BetaMax of the PC world. Better than the competition, exclusive, used only by _____philes, rather than the "rabble". Real is more of a "joe average" type technology, and Apple has no need for such lowbrow stuff.
Shut up.
I am a huge apple fan, love my ipod and powerbook to death, and i really dont care to see real and apple team up. but maybe its just me, but the comment from jobs seemed kinda arrogant
Why would we want to work with No. 2?
"Who... does... number... two... work... for!?!"
"That's it buddy, show that turd who's boss!"
Oh really? When I'm in Windows and have to use their movie players, I honestly see no difference between Quicktime and Real. Both are ugly, heavy, loaded with advertisement, and nagging me to "buy" something. I don't know which is worse. Both are a nightmare. I want my MPlayer.
And no, I never used the iTunes stuff, and I'm not going to. It's outright funny that they want me to give them money for music which I cannot play on any player I like. It's an obvious scam - binding the music and the player together and profit from player sales. I hate lock-ins and "smart business decisions" like this. And now with that "we're #1" attitude... Fuck Apple is all I can say.
Refer to the comment by gad_zuki! (70830) on Friday April 16, @09:14PM (#8888310), and you will notice that this was COPIED AND PASTED. How about giving the original poster the plus 5 instead of this clever troll?
Way to waste those mod points! May you get metamoderated to shit.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - it ain't all about cost. My time is worth a Hell of a lot more than the time it takes to download off of P2P. And I use Poisoned, an OS X client that searches Gnutella, OpenFT and FastTrack (Kazaa) simultaneously. iTMS is still a better value. And since I managed to get a copy of PlayFair before it got yanked (even the new host in India has pulled it) I can strip the DRM.
Now, a question for those in the know; something I've been wondering about. I know that one loses quality when a lossy format is burned then re-ripped. Here's my question - can one minimize this by re-ripping back to the original format and bitrate? In other words, if I take music that I purchase off of iTMS, burn it to cd, then rip it back down to 128kbps AAC will it sound completely crappy?
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
hubris (hybrs) also hybris (h-)
n.
Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance: "There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris"
What he's saying is probably true. But to put it in such a way is pure stupidity.
I know Real isn't exactly a major player in the online media arena any more, but when I remember the Apple of a decade ago I couldn't imagine such a superiority complex. Granted the iPod and iTunes is amazingly popular, but it isn't the saving grace for the company when they break even most of the time. It's things like this that show the only difference between Microsoft and Apple is market share.
The Betamax was a superior product, and Sony didn't want to license it to anyone else! I mean come on, theirs was better, right?
There were many reasons for the downfall of Betamax, but that is not one of the major factors... in fact, it's mostly a myth. Sony *did* license Betamax, and they did it early on too.
Between two of my Betamax fan friends, I have seen early-model top-loading Betamax VCRs from Toshiba, Marantz, and Sanyo. By the early 80s there were about 6 or 7 different brands selling front-loading Betamax decks. If you include the clones (some companies licensed not just Betamax, but entire Sony VCR designs... such as Zenith and Pioneer), there were about a dozen Betamax VCR makers by 1983.
Japan had even more Betamax VCR builders, which is one of the reasons why the format dominated for a longer period of time in that country.
1. Individual consumer lock-in. Once you start using iTMS on the iPod you there is a barrier to switching to another player/music store.
2. Market lock-in. Once a technology reaches "critical mass" (like linux has, at least on servers) means that certain economies of scale have been reached. If Apple can get a large enough installed base, then the iPod and iTMS won't be going anywhere quick, even if a "better" service and player come along. The power of inertia. (Think Intel vs. AMD rather than MS-DOS vs CP/M in terms of market share effects)
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
I'll be honest, I used to hate Real, but now that they seem to be making a genuine effort of reforming, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. It seems that when it came to the worst of Real, I never had to deal with it that much. However, a partnership with RealNetworks just doesn't make much sense from Apple's standpoint.
:)
Apple currently has the #1 slot, in both mp3 hardware and music store terms, not to mention mindshare. This is going very well for them. Kudos
Real, on the other hand, has more of a mishmash of options. They have their music store in RP10, but it's not promoted very well, and most people probably won't think of it when buying music online anyway. They do offer their subscription service, Rhapsody (which IMO is much better than napster premium), and last I heard was doing quite well for itself, but it's also in a different market from ITMS (subscription vs. individual files). I would not be surprised if rhapsody was the #2 service.
But this "deal" doesn't concern rhapsody. It concerns their music stores, where Apple doesn't have much impetus for sharing right now. Technically, it shouldn't be too hard, as RP10's music service is just 192kbps AAC with a Helix DRM wrapper instead of FairPlay. But, what incentive is there for Apple to join with Real? Quicktime's approach to streaming is quite different from that of Real's, so that isn't it. There's no access to a vast new user base, those users probably already heard of, know of, and installed itunes anyway. In fact, the only incentive for Apple I can see is just another way for users to buy songs from Apple (using RP10 instead of iTunes) and another marketing push for the ipod to those same users.
What does Real get out of it? They get the huge advantage of saying "tapped into the #1 music store" and the potential to access a huge new user base just by saying "try our service, compatible with ipod!"
I wish RealNetworks the best of luck in their effort to improve their product and adding more value. RP10 is already a good first step (developing a good positive trend and keeping it up will help). For them, it certainly couldn't hurt to ask (though they should've dropped the accusatory tone). But for Apple, this deal just isn't balanced for it to be worth it.
...That this comes out the premiere of Kill Bill.
So much alike, Jobs and Bill.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
When Microsoft takes that attitude they whine and complain. Apple is every bit as bad as Microsoft.
--pete
Once there are cheaper alternative portable music players the Ipod will also lose its market share and then what will Apple do?
There are already cheaper alternatives. Doesn't seem to have hurt iPod sales.
Now. if there were alternatives that were equally elegant, easy to use, stylish, and cool, then Apple would have a problem.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
This is assuming that consumers will buy Micosoft DRM. Microsoft could theoretically blanket the globe with stores and players, but if their product isn't as desirable, it's all wasted effort. Apple already has the most lenient DRM and it's clear that Microsoft's will not be as free. Nobody will want to buy more expensive tracks that are locked down by the RIAA and don't play on the best player.
The iPod and iTunes also already play non-DRM files very well and it will be a long time before another company meets that standard. I think the pressure for Apple to license FairPlay or open up the iPod is far overestimated. They have the best product, will protect it, and it's what customers want now and for the foreseeable future. It's rare you get such a potent mix and such a great product this early.
To crush number three, you fucking dolts. Have you learned nothing from the Redmond Beast? Pulverize your competition, and when the pulverizing is done, the cornholing begins. Wake up, Jobsy. Religion only goes so far.
Steve Jobs said, 'The iPod already works with the No. 1 music service in the world, and the iTunes Music Store works with the No. 1 digital-music player in the world. The No. 2s are so far behind already. Why would we want to work with No. 2?'"
Ironic such a thing would come from the CEO of the No. 2 home OS.
Actually in the latest version it doesn't say "buffering", but says "loading".
But I found the happy medium... :-)
I buy music with iTMS. I've also discovered that RealPlayer 10 will play m4p protected AACs purchased from iTMS! Where does this make sense? I own a Sony NetMD minidisc player. (Very cool, not to mention cheap, gadget !) Sony's provided software is psycho-DRM riddled crap (the limitations of copying YOUR OWN FILES are ridiculous -- this was done to appease the Music division of Sony, obviously); however, the Sony NetMD plugin for RealPlayer allows unlimited and hassle free copying from your PC to the device.
Where's this come into play? I buy the music on Apple's store, and use Real's app to transfer it over to my device. Works like a charm! I can drive for hours listening to my Apple-purchased music, and not have to pay a ridiculous amount for an iPod.
To put it in perspective:
Price:
iPod: $350
Minidisc walkman with 6 minidiscs: $69.99
Battery life:
iPod: 8 hours
Minidisc walkman: 50 hours on 1 AA
Replacement battery:
iPod: $255.00
Minidisc walkman: $0.50
Storage:
iPod: xx GB
Minidisc: Unlimited
The iPod is a cool toy, but not practical. If you drop it on the floor, you'd freak. If I dropped my MD on the floor, it would probably keep working, but even if it exploded into a million pieces, I'd only be out $70. You can use the rest to buy a nice high-end set of earbuds and a steak dinner!
Death to all spyware bundlers! Why would anyone make business with such companies?
Exactly, so why is it still marked flamebait?
"Well, it took an hour to write, I thought it would take an hour to read."
F*** Real!! I got rid of it after a while and if i miss the radio program on the radio, i miss it. i don't go back to it again on the web 'cause i know they'll just be leading me to download Real. F*** its adware/spyware c**p!!
These days i'll only use Winamp with only 1 MB to play my mp3 files and that's the old version 1.9 at www.oldversion.com and it doesn't give me half the trouble of Real.
Real is the last place I'd go to get info about or buy an i-pod. Apple is right on the money and real neads to "get real." hehehe
* weedshare.com 50% to artists, webjay.org iuma.com CDBaby.com Epitonic.com ampcast.com
Does this mean that Apple are taking the piss out of a shit company?
Real must really want Apple to have a chance in the streaming audio/video market. They were so kind in trying to make a deal with Apple (because they don't need Apple's help to fight against Windows Media codecs). I think Steve Jobs has made a Really bad mistake here. Without Real, Apple is doomed.
Who is Real?
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
Last time I looked, most geeks don't have hundreds of thousands to shell out a month (I have no idea on the numbers) for hosting. We're talking.. say you sell 11 million songs a month (just a bit better than Apple currently) and let's guesstimate the average per song is 4.5 MB. Their library has 500,000 songs so a group of geeks can financially maintain and support 2.25 TB of storage for the songs, 200GB for the previews, and a WHOPPING 49.5 TB of bandwidth usage per month (that's just factoring song downloads- not browsing and previewing). Now remember you can't have just one array with all the storage cause thousands if not more users will be browsing/previewing/downloading at the same time. And that ten cents a song? a tiny 1.1 Million (don't get me wrong, I'd love it!) a month in income. I don't think so. (by the way if my math is off, sorry- too tired and no caffeine!)
Be True, Unbeliever
er, the numbers show that Palm is the largest single manufacturer, but the biggest platform is MICROSOFT. Your logic sucks - it's like claiming that because only one company makes betamax and 500 make VHS, the fact that the betamax company sells more than the single largest VHS, betamax is more popular.
Simple maths:
Palm = 40%
Sony + Dell + Toshiba (all these are wince devices) = 45%
Others 15% - 90% of these will be Pocket PC devices form Microsoft as well. And ZERO will be palm
It's rather ironic to call it "FairPlay" and then refuse to "Play Fair" with the licensing.....
... But Jobs is too cocky
But I agree on the decision, Real has nothing to offer here
Go ahead , mark me redundant
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Those who are most compatible and most competitive win. What stops people from switching to macs? Macs aren't compatible. Flat out, no matter how many geeky excuses you come up with, macs aren't compatible. Users don't care why, they just want it to work.
It's the same thing here. If I'm one of the 95% majority of users and I want an iPod, it wont play WMA or Real files. A player that can play ALL of the major formats (WMP/Real/MP3/MP4) will succeed, the iPod will die.
Steve jobs doesn't want Apple to have major market share. If he did then Apple would be doing ALOT more advertising (I haven't seen them make a single commercial for the Apple Stores, explain the logic in that) along with lower pricing and increased compatibility. Adding Real/WMP support into QuickTime would be a major boon to all parties involved. So what if people use a service besides iTMS to buy songs, iTMS was only created to drive iPod sales anyway.
Start with ARROGANCE.
End with DEFEAT.
I guess Jobs didn't learn much the first time around, did he?
Quality of the user experience is the only trump card Apple has. Apple isn't interested in licensing out technology if that means they're unable to control the quality. But if they are able to retain that control, they can deal -- look at the HP iPods.
"Freedom to innovate" in the consumer space largely means the freedom to see how badly you can fuck a customer over and still get away with it. If Apple was to license their music tech with no strings attached, the licensees would quickly exploit all obvious avenues of cost reduction: negotiate worse (for the customer) DRM terms with the labels, drop features from the portable player (two-row display is enough, right? a 2.5" hd is cheaper, and not THAT much bigger, right?), spend less on QA and software development.
From a business perspective, it's easy to argue that Jobs' unwillingness to compromise on user experience has led to the "failure" of both Apple and NeXT. But it's equally obvious that his customers are thanking him for staying the course.
Marko Karppinen
I've used realone player before... Lemme tell you it really is number 2.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
The answer is zero or one.
Once a day (or reboot) if you play it with the Quicktime player. You click "Later" and it's gone. It's not so bad, I've seen suckier splash screen.
However, if you view your movies within Safari (which is, I believe, the default operation), it doesn't even come up once.
My father is a blogger.
However, Jobs' response was childish. I found it unnecessary and inappropriate. A simple "No, thank you." would have been much better on so many levels. In fact, I think it would have been a much more significant brush-off. Instead, Jobs' response just shows him stooping down to Glaser's level. Jobs' won't likely be able to stand as tall in my eyes again. But then, I've always respected politeness. Most people don't these days.
But because of Apple's proprietary copy-protection standard Fairplay...
Somebody needs to work on the definition of "standard," it would seem.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
Where have you been for the past five years? Or is the famous Steve Jobs Apple Distortion Field in effect?
Microsoft has a long history of losing money on a product simply to attempt market domination. In fact the only products they have that don't lose money are Windows and Office.
The X-Box loses hundreds of millions of dollars per year, yet Microsoft carries on and is even developing a second generation. Why do you suppose this is?
Now given this information, who do you think would win if it were Microsoft vs. Apple in a tight market?
-JemReal, well we know they (also?) arrogant twits, with suspicious morals (based on past behaviour). And Apple, well everybody knows they always charges 10 times more for a product simply because its called "Apple"
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Am I the only one who's heard "job" used as a metaphor for shit/having a shit?
You made a typo there "They just can't see that the DRM ISN'T the future"
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
While I also dislike Real, I think it's pretty, erm, stupid to say that they're no one. Chances are when you go to some streaming media site, there are two formats: Real & M$. Sure, they're spyware bitches, but if you think that all these sites that use their servers to stream stuff are gonna just disappear, think again. I'm reminded of, for instance, Car Talk (great show) that dumped Real cuz they are a bunch of clods in favor of M$ streaming server. They later added Real back in cuz Real begged them to. Maybe, this is a turnaround for Real as they know that the monopoly is ready to give them a ass kickin.
I tend to believe, somewhat, that Real actually does have a 60% market share in streaming, and yes, as usual, the Mac/iTMS has some single digit number. And as much as I love my Mac and iTunes, I'd have to agree with Rob that Apple should license Fairplay to Real. It's not like you'll have people in droves leaving iTMS for Rhapsody - not by a long shot.
No, what's really at stake is the branding and marketing <shudders> messages here. And they are this: Apple and the iPod might be great, but with them you have limited choices. And this is totally true if you're not thinking of buying an iPod - which, some, er, small percentage of people are. Yes, the iPod is the most popular mp3/music player out there and because, yes, it kicks ass. But, I think Jobs should put his ego in his pocket and think about this a little more.
If Apple licensed FairPlay to Real, what would it gain? Three things:
1. Another licensee, which would equal some sort of more money. Who knows how much, but some is better than none.
2. Another avenue for music sales. And we really have to be honest with this one cuz as many people have said before, iPods are what really drive the sales here (as we just saw in their latest financials) and not iTMS. So, if someone using Rhapsody could also have the option of using it with the iPod, then, hmmm, that sells more iPods.
3. Water for the fire. M$'s arguments that choice is being limited would be reduced as not only would the iPod work with iTMS on Win/Mac, but also with Rhapsody, and Real, having some significant marketshare would represent another choice and would further propel AAC as the music standard.
Apple would not have to do anything else for Real. Sure, maybe Glaser is looking for anything to grab onto in the downhill slide. But Apple should learn from its historical mistakes and commoditize AAC just as M$ has the OS. At some point, it's all about the file formats (can we say Office?) and not about the delivery. Sure, iPods will still play a big deal cuz they're just great gadgets, but at some point, someone is gonna make something just as good or better and if it's not Apple and they're tied to something that doesn't become a standard, then once again, they might have a great product, but be marginalized in the end.
This might be ok for some people, but seriously, after a while, one kinda does get tired using the best product but somehow feeling second rate.
Think about this: when Apple attempted to license its OS, it sales were immediately cannibalized by its licensees.
Yes, but Apple is not licensing the iPod or its OS. They're licensing only part of a file format that was invented by someone else - Dolby.
So this is totally different. Real will not start making iPods, but, the Creative Zen will play the same stuff as an iPod. Hmmm, a standard...
While I buy stuff off iTMS, I either playfair it or burn to cd and re-rip as I know MP3 will still be around and decoders will exist for a long time on any platform I decide to use. Not sure about AAC. However, if AAC was ever as widely accepted as MP3, then it would be a different issue.
It's all about the file formats.
And don't forget the 95% who have gotten most of their collections from Napster!
The resurrection of Napster is not worth even talking about. If you're talking about the Napster of the late 90's--the best music database the world has ever known--those files play perfectly well on the iPod.
the cognitive dissonance between that and a $1500 Mac is going to be too much for even the most loyal Mac Fan to swollow.
What you're missing is that the machine is not the issue, the operating system is. $500 to use any version of MS Windows is like 500 bullets through the skull.
I don't know why you quote "lesser" like it has a different meaning to Jobs than it does to you and I. You say yourself that Real has no legitimacy in software and is a joke as a company. If that's not "lesser" I don't know what is. Truth is a defense in libel, and the only thing possibly untruthful about calling Real "#2" is that it doesn't go far enough. This isn't elitist, it's the way it is and you're shooting the messenger who carries what everyone has long memorized. Calling a spade a spade, and all that.
The only way I could see Apple dealing with them on iTunes or iPod is if Apple bought them outright... Unfortunately, Real doesn't have anything to offer to customers to stay in the game. MS has Windows, and Apple has iPod... Real has none of that. The only "advantage" to including real would be using none iTMS sources for music and not using iTunes to play it! Now if they did something useful like made a full featured Linux/*nix player that could play all the DRM stuff legally they could make a killing... They gotta find some leverage...
A bit off topic maybe but I'm working on an article for an Independent Study course that I have - I finish it, I graduate MS/MIS - and one of the companies profiled is DEC. I came across this interesting tidbit:
"In late June" of 1991 ",John Sculley, then Apple's CEO, inveited Kenneth H. Olsen, Digital's founder and president, to dinner. Sculley had a proposition: Apple's Macintosh computers were starting to run out of gas, and he wanted to do a complete redesign with Alpha at the heart of the new Macs.
"But Olsen had doubts about Alpha. His unshakable faith in the VAX computer, which had turned Digital into IBM's most formidable competitor in the 1980's, made him reluctant to phase it out too soon in favor of Alpha. Olsen asked a team of Digital's top engineers to extend the computer's design for another generation -- and he rejected Sculley's proposal." (Judge, Paul and Reinhardt, Andy. "Why the fastest chip didn't win", Business Week. April 28, 1997. Pg. 92.
For those that don't remember, the Alpha was a 64 bit processor that had clock speeds doubling those of Intel's 32-bit offerings at the time. Imagine what life would be like for both companies now if Olsen had gone the other way.
Not saying DEC would still be around - they had a lot of problems. But who knows?
By the way, for those of you who saw the movie PCU, these paragraphs were my "Bridge Too Far."
I talk about stuff.
Don't waste them modding me up or modding the anon down, GIVE THEM TO THE GUY WHO DESERVED THEM WHOSE SCORE IS STILL LOWER THAN THIS ANON COWARD'S.
May you still get metamoderated to shit.
Steve Jobs said, 'The iPod already works with the No. 1 music service in the world, and the iTunes Music Store works with the No. 1 digital-music player in the world. The No. 2s are so far behind already. Why would we want to work with No. 2?'"
:(
Gee, I don't know... Perhaps to prevent number three from becoming number one?
Come on Steve, we appreciate you for cocreating and running a cool company. Don't start going mad with power on us now! Look further ahead!
In fact, in addition to looking ahead, you should also learn more from the past, as well. Remember when you reversed the decision to license the Apple architecture to clone manufacturers? Look where that left the Mac's market share today!
But then again: what do I know? It's not like I have ever been the CEO of a multibillion dollar enterprise...
"Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
Real controls about 19% of the market. This seems like a fairly nice chunk of people to to after. Steves ego has gotten the better of him which is not surprising. I think you would have to be stupid to turn down the possibility of increasing your user base. Steve didn't even seem to consider the posibility.
Do you own a Mac? If so, then congratulations, you just lost any hope of your music format becoming the next big universal standard. The iPod is the only device that will play this format. iTunes is the only place you can buy it. And it's going to remain that way.
And before you go off on how Apple has been embracing true standards with OS X and various applications, remember that they only do that when they're fighting Microsoft's highly-funded proprietary alternative. The minute Apple is on top, they pull the same stunts as Microsoft.
Jobs is trying to keep everything in house because he wants Apple to be the all-in-one digital media system that people buy. But he's already sacrificed that goal by making the iPod and iTunes work on Windows. All he's managed to do is lock Mac users into Apple products the exact same way all those Mac users were afraid Microsoft was going to do to Windows users.
The profit margin on the iPod is LOW -- Apple needs all the sales it can get. And the music store was losing money until last week, when it reported a "small profit." An agreement with Real would have sold more iPods and lessened the impact of the loss Apple is taking on the music store. It would have also brought in revenue by selling the license. Were I a stockholder, I would demand a better explanation of Jobs's actions here.
I said "realized"; since MS hasn't started a store yet there's no way to judge how well their approach will work.
There's a definite market difference between selling a music player and an Xbox, since the Xbox has its own games, but iTMS and MSMS will sell most of the same music. I can see going down to 79c, but at that price I don't think most people will care very much. It would probably depend on whether whatever player MS makes is as good as the iPod (and doesn't violate any of Apple's UI patents on it).
Why won't slashdot let me change my terrible username
You still don't get it. What if Microsoft gave the (DRM-protected) music away for free in order to sell their WMA-based (or something newer) player? Couple that with a big media blitz to sell the Microsoft players and then it would be goodbye, iPod.
The only players that would survive would be those that support many different formats: WMA, the iTMS format whatever it is, OGG, WAV, MP3 and whatever else. Some players like the iRiver H120 can already do that (well, mostly as far as I can tell from their site).
-JemRDF must stand for Reading Disability Field, and you must be under one. He said "Apple is about the only one who realized that you can't make money by selling songs only."
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
if you've ever used an alternative or open source player (even for simple mp3's not too long ago) you could easily see you have a false premise. The other products, though not everyone's cup of tea, don't usually display the same crappy quality as a Real product, and at least not with such consistency.
Consider this: When Real was rolling out product for the past few years, which user base got the fruits of their efforts last?
Mac users, that's who.
So Real has been flinging poo at Mac users for a long time, then when Apple is suddenly the in-crowd, Real wants to jump on the bandwagon.
Simply put, there may be more to Apple & Real's relationship than we know. Perhaps in the past, Glaser has dissed Apple? We don't know... but Jobs may be a bit vindictive, and this is a nice way to kick Real while they're down, 'cause I do recall RealPlayer being slow to support MacOS with updates and features.
Yes, Jobs could have been more political in his comments, but I think this is all to make a point to prospective partners: Apple wants partners who bring something to the table (see: Hewlett-Packard) that doesn't dilute the value of an Apple brand. Real would dilute the iTunes brand, and bring competition that may, in the short term, give choice, but in the end, weaken the "franchise" making it easier for a loss-leading M$ effort to take over in the long run.
We all know the pattern...
1. Come up with a cool idea...
...
2. Dominate the market...
7. Watch Microsoft crush you into oblivion with a freebie included in Windows!
"The profit margin on the iPod is LOW"
OK, I'll bite:
iPod gross margin 23% this quarter
iPod mini gross margin 20% this quarter
Now you show me an mp3 player with a higher profit margin.
In fact show me a product - any product - from say Dell with such a profit margin.
Were you a stockholder, you'd have a more informed opinion.
Cheers
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Apple used some fucked BSD NFS code that can't authenticate with a Linux NFS server. You have to set the 'insecure' option in your /etc/exports if you have a Linux server.
Hmmm, and 99% of statistics are made up on the spot ;)
iPod sales were around 35-40% of the market (per unit, with closer to 60-70% by cost/profit) last time I checked (from reputable news sources such as Yahoo, the BBC, etc.) and you can guarantee that Microsoft have managed, via their monopolistic practices on the desktop, to make sure that practically *all* portable players support WMA as the de facto standard (with the associated per-player licence fees, licencing from streaming servers, etc.).
So that's 60% WMA, 40% iPod. Hardly "pales in comparison to the iPod".
As for the music stores vs. the iTunes music store... you do realise there's a market (world) outside America and it's much bigger than the US? iTMS is US-only (no fault of Apples I'm sure, more the greedy/difficult labels), while music stores/distributors such as OD2, Destra, MyCokeMusic and others are all peddling their WMA wares in various other countries. While the competition may not be shipping the 50 million units that the iTunes store has in the past year (though they're adding up, with OD2, for instance, managing 1 million downloads in Q1) you can bet that they've been able to get a better profit split than Apple could manage against the mighty RIAA monopoly (which amounts to a paltry 10-20 cents per song for Apple). So if startups know that they can get a better deal by using DRM'd WMA (such as the Walmart store which reopened again recently) rather than DRM'd AAC (as Apple aren't even licencing FairPlay) and guarantee that the majority of the market will be able to play these files both on their desktop and portable (unless it's an iPod) then the financial (not ethical, mind) case for WMA is still tempting.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan at all of Microsoft's WMA or their Media Player tactics but Apple's position, while currently very strong, is by no means safe from them.
This may have been one of the reasons why Real offered a partnership - they're currently still fighting against Microsoft's Media Player/WMA/streaming in Europe (yes, I know they've been fined already but it's not over by a long shot, and Sun's now pulled out of this) and may have told Apple they'd keep up the fight against their common enemy in exchange for interoperability. However, Apple aren't stupid and know that Real are going to have to fight *anyway* and couldn't see much else of benefit so told them to go sling their hook.
Regarding the wide issue of downloads as a whole, personally I find charging for them them pretty unappealing:
---Label/Store---
no CD overhead
no warehouse overhead
no shipping overhead
no distributor cut
reduced advertising costs (online & via media players)
So lots of benefits for the sellers.
---Consumer---
low quality music (compared to CD)
no physical medium/artwork (backups? CD-Rs lifespans are very limited compared to a true CD)
bandwidth issues (such as if on dialup)
copy protection/DRM restrictions
convenience?!
Benefit for the buyers? Convenience at a cost of everything else.
Quite frankly I can't see the appeal esp. considering you can rip that new CD you just bought into iTunes/whatever at *your choice of bitrate and format* and also keep the physical medium, for what amounts to a couple of dollars more. Obviously there must be some appeal (convenience) indicated by the success of iTMS and others but I can't help the feeling that downloads are vastly overrated, may contribute towards the destruction of the album as a format (consider for a moment the tracks on the albums you own that you disliked at first but now love - you probably wouldn't have bought them if you could mix and match) and that they'll INEVITABLY end up costing *more* than a CD once the major labels and stores see the potential profits and get greedy (take tape->CD and video->DVD as examples).
As both a consumer and co-founder of a small record label I won't be part of that - downloads should be free samples tha
I diagnose you with.....serious problems. Yeah.
....things like this don't exist.
How could it be a repost of a message that was posted later? Has it ever occured to you that getting your kicks out of messing up other people's discussions is, well, not quite normal? There are much worse things you could be doing, I realise that, but still maybe you should mention it to your doctor; he might be able to refer you to a specialist. Just a friendly suggestion.
There is no general answer to that question. It depends on the codec. For MP3, the quality loss was much worse than the expected cumulative degradation, IIRC. Thus, it was far better to reencode with ogg, etc., which would just produce additive loss. By contrast, with ogg, the degradation is supposedly minimal for decoding and reencoding, since almost exactly the same information gets thrown away as in the first pass..
As for whether AAC degrades gracefully under recompression, I'm not sure. Try it and find out. It may also partially depend on the implementation.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Thanks for the response. I think I will try it when I have a little more time. I wonder if anyone has compared analog waveforms of ripped vs. reripped. Time to Google...
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
I don't think even MS could afford to give away free music (or very cheap), but even if they did, people are stupid and attracted by shiny objects. MS hasn't shown themselves to be as good as Apple at industrial design, so they'd have to overcome that.
Why won't slashdot let me change my terrible username
You're leaving out the fact that iPod is the number one music player at the moment and has a strong user base... Good luck to MS at trying to convince millions of satisfied iPod users that the Microsoft music system and portable audio player is a better choice. I personally can't see people coughing up 200+ more dollars for another media player just because Microsoft says it's better.
"REAL"ly, why should Apple give these turkeys what they want? They don't innovate, they don't take risks. They are competitors with Apple's music store. I'm suspecting what Real wants is their copy-protection system implemented into the iPod. Apple should tell them - wisely - to go fuck themselves.
If you're trying to ride your competitor's coattails, you're in more business trouble than you'd want to report to Wall Street...