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?'"
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.
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
The way you have it laid out gives no real benefit to Apple. Of course, if Real licensed their format in a quicktime wrapper . . .
harmonious design
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.
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.
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.
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 &
for the last fucking time:
IF YOU WANT A MOUSE WITH MORE THAN ONE BUTTON, GO BUY A MOUSE THAT HAS MORE THAN ONE BUTTON.
One button arguments only show that what an asshat the person arguing is.
GO FUCK YOURSELF!
That's exactly what I was wondering. What is the benefit for Apple? Music players are a dime a dozen. Why partner with the most hated name in player software when they could come up with their own very easily? Unless Real comes up with a new business model that actually adds some value to the process, and offers something that their competitors dont have, they are finished.
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.
Can you name one CEO that's not an arrogant SOB? To get to the top, you've got to make yourself the number one priority. I'm no Jobs fan, but I find his intolerance much more annoying than his arrogance. Jobs has zero tolerance for anyone with an IQ under 120. I'm sure he would have his own, "final solution", if he had the power.
The problem with that is Apple has already stated they are only breaking even on the iTMS. It is the iPod sales they are really after. iTMS is a value-add option for the iPod, and makes the whole platform much more envyable. By selling music to others on different platforms, they get sidetracked from what they are really doing.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
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!
So....Apple is hammered on for years barely hanging on. Jobs comes back, stabilizes the company, gets it moving again, delivers a great *nix OS and a sh&tload of great apps (iPhoto, iDVD, iTunes, Final Cut, iMovie) plus the most lusted after digital audio player coupled with an online music store that hits the sweet spot, is getting great buzz and people love it.
Finally....Apple has a competitive advantage in *something* and you get after him for being arrogant!?!
Oh pleez...
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.
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."
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.
which he is in this market fool.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Actually in the case of MP3 player sales it's
...*
... ) * 2
apple > #2 + #3 +
And in the case of music downloads it's
apple > (#2 + #3 +
Do you actually read marketshare numbers?
* based on revenue
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.
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
That reasoning is *exactly* why Palm isn't the number one PDA anymore.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
I shudder to think how crappy the mac would be had the licensed off their technology. You know they tried it once. Power Compuing, Star Max, all they did was make Macs as a whole worse.
Apple wouldn't be making the powerfull elegant machines they are today had they licensed their platform and had to compete with the lowest of the low cheap ass oems.
Things are fine with Apple, and they're going to stay that way for quite a while. Unless Jobs dies somehow.
He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
No, it doesn't. Microsoft never, ever passes on an opportunity to expand its market share and sphere of influence. A deal with Real would mean just that.
Steve Jobs, on the other hand, is an opportunistic megalomaniac. When he's on top, he'll do everything cowboy style, pissing off everyone - when his success begins to falter again, he'll start making aliances. He's (and I say this with great admiration for what he has accomplished) an up-and-down rollercoster kind of businessman who forgets that he depends on other people as soon as he feels confident enough.
Jobs was kicked out of Apple right after the Mac shipped. Even when he was there, he was *not* the CEO and was *not* in charge of those type of decisions. In the 80s, Jobs was never the president or CEO of Apple once they got funding. He was the chairman of the board and the largest stockholder and he had enough power to be able to contribute to some projects (Apple III, Lisa, and the Mac), he was actually *kicked off* the Lisa project before taking over the Mac project. You're blaming jobs for a decision he didn't make and had no control over.
Personally, I think that if he had been given absolute control over Apple in the 80s, things would probably have turned out better for Apple. I have no evidence to back that up obviously.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
"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?
You dont go around making threats to your superiors, at your job or at your business. Soon you would have neither.
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.
Hey, it's your money and your 'utility' whether the iPod or the Zen suits you better.
Hold an iPod, and then hold a Zen, and make your own decision. The iPod isn't winning awards because it's more expensive than the Zen, smaller capacity than the Zen, or uglier than the Zen, it's winning awards and accolades because it's user experience is better (weight, UI, size, integration, usability).
If those things don't matter to you... than they don't matter to you.
They just happen to matter to a lot of the population ^^
GPL Deconstructed
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.
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.
$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.
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?
-JemSteve 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?"