Slashdot Mirror
Real Cuts Prices for DRM-Restricted Music
Flint Dragon writes "A story on MSNBC details RealNetworks' next step in converting iPod users from iTunes to their own online music store. Not only can you play music downloaded from their site on your iPod now, you can, for a limited time, purchase music for 50% cheaper (.49/song, 4.99/album)! This is the price that I'm willing to pay for. Too bad it won't last..."
To get me to use Real. They'd have to start paying me, and even then it would take some convincing.
Cause we all trust real enough to give them our money even though we don't trust them enough to install their crap.
Hopefully step three is supporting Macs. For me, that's the ???? before step 4: Profit!!
I thought that these companie barely even made a profit at $1 per song. A limited time low, loss-inducing cost might attract customers for a while but the low switching cost between services means that they won't stay when prices going up, especially if your sound quality is not as good.
Some how I don't think their conversion-to-iPod feature is going to last, at least not once the new revision of iPod software comes out.
But I'd refuse to take DRM music even if it were free. The Audio Home Recording Act gives me the right to make backups of my music, to make compilations of my music, and to share those compilations with as many friends as I'd like, as long as I don't charge anything.
ANY system that interferes with those rights is unacceptable to me.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Bait and switch? It's called a "sale". A bait and switch ios when they're sell you sometihng more expensive than the advertised item.
Mod point free since 2001
Bait and switch, eh?.....um...where I come from it's called a sale.
Could someone tell me why Apple is so upset about Real being able to its music work in the iPod? Apple has said their Music Store is not meant as a profit center, so isn't it better for them (in the sense of selling more iPods) that the store's compatible with Real?
Of course this is of little interest to me since Real's not supporting Macs and I'm certainly not going to switch to Windows on their behalf.
I don't think Real stockholders are going to think much of the bleeding, and when prices go back to $ 0.99 each I doubt that most people will stay with Real, given their software's general level of obnoxiousness and hard-sell promotion. Apple, for all its faults, has a very classy and nicely done music store I think most people will prefer by a huge margin.
D
I find it exceedingly amusing, and telling, that RealNetworks, after years of pushing proprietary audio and video formats, is now fighting Apple's use of proprietary hardware. They have to market to iPod users because mp3 players using Real format music have been blown out of the water.
Its too bad their software was always ad-ridden garbage. They will have to do a lot more than a loss-leader sales ploy to get my trust back.
You mean Apple might sell more iPods? That's terrible news for Apple, because we all know they really make their money selling $0.99 songs.
so these people are *losing* quite a bit of money on this; or maybe the music industry is pitching in? I am sure they are not really happy w/ iTunes getting as big as it is.
MS conspiracy theorists will have a feast.
*somebody* has to be pitching in... isn't real a fairly small company?
-Facun.This is a great move by Real. I will definatly be a buyer since there are many albums that I have been on the fringe of buying but have now wanted to spend 12-15 bucks on, but would def be wiling to spend 5.
This move will help increase competition in the market and I think will be beneficial to the consumers in the long run. As much as I like Apple, I like good old competition more cause it means better products at lower prices! Gotta Love Capatalism!
My Web Site - www.ocean-liners.com
Amen, I personally feel that 10 to 25 cents a song is about what I'd pay for DRMed music.
Sounds too cheap? Well, that's a heck of a lot more than I'm paying for music now (hint: $0)
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
..then a new 'firmware' update comes out for the iPod and your new library quits working...
Until the dust settles I'd not buy anything from real in hopes of it working with my iPod. Not like they support my platform anyway (Mac)
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Real, have you looked at your player software?
And is there an easy way of downloading your free player without you trying to get me to download your non-free player every step of the way?
No matter if you as an individual have issues about either of these companies. This is a good example of the free market working as intended. Too bad all industries don't compete internally like this.
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
How much is RealNetworks losing money from each song they sell? The article mentions an analyst saying they will be losing money. How much of the $0.99 does Apple pay out to the record industry?
Real seems to be implying some kind of guarantee that their music will play on the iPod... Apple has already stated that won't be the case for much longer...
Will users with iPods who buy these cheapo songs be left holding the bag (a bag of useless songs), or will songs they buy and upload to their iPod now work no matter how Apple "updates" their iPod?
-- "A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg."
And still morally wrong and illegal to steal. How do we expect the RIAA, MPAA, etc to embrace technology when the most public geeks make comments like that? Sure music is overpriced and a lot is crap, but it's still stealing. At least iTunes and Real are going about this the right way.
That said, I'll NEVER install anything from Real on my system. It's as bad as Bonzi Buddy to get rid of.
Burn karma burn, slashdot inferno...
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
If so, What the hell are they thinking, charging $.50/song for _illegal_ downloads. If you're doing illegal downloads anyway (and you shouldn't) why not use Kazaa and just send me the $0.50!?!
is the fact that Real has already announced that they will lose more money this quarter because of this stunt. (Here is the link to CBS Marketwatch: http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7b 0A42057C-77BB-4F6A-AA44-3BAF401EFEC9%7d&siteid=mkt w&dist=nbs)
Take a look at their stock price today too and see what investors are thinking about this. (see it on the MSNBC link page). While I like the idea of cheaper music, this really smacks of desperation.
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
Who is going to buy DMR'ed music from a company that is struggling financially with no guarantee that the RM part of the DRM will function in 6 months.
Their ads should say...
RENT AN ALBUM FOR $4.99
ACT NOW, THIS FUNCTIONALITY WON'T LAST
What the heck is wrong with $0.99 per song? You pay more than that for a bottle of soda, for crying out loud! If you want to be able to LEGALLY download music off the 'net, you need to support valid attempts to bring that to you. As more money flows into these companies from Internet distribution methods, the Internet supporters inside music companies will grow in power (potentially overshadowing those who are trying to stop it).
Once those supporters are in power, the reign of RIAA terror may finally end. Or at least reach an equilibrium similar to the one that existed prior to MP3s.
On a different note, best 99 cents, ever!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Bah! Still ~10x higher than allofmp3.com. And they give you the real non-DRM non-proprietary crap... Even lossless if you like.
And their legality is just 'questionable'.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
Bait and switch would be if they promised 50 cents per song, but when you go to buy the song they say that they ran out of that song and you should buy a different song at a dollar. What Real is doing is called a sale. Every store does it (except Wal-Mart?). Sales are a way to increase awareness of your store. Real's latest sale seems to be working, they made it to the front of slashdot! If you were being sarcastic, I apologise.
Considering that in order to use Real's music you must transfer it using Real's Harmony software and any errors you get will be in that software... I think people would generally be more likely to blame Real rather than Apple.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
A penny a song, and perfectly legal, or so they claim.
Still costs $.49 more than Kazaa or Suprnova.org. Yawn.
Real's "Freedom of Choice" campaign is pure hypocrisy. What about my freedom of choice to use OS X or Linux? Where is Real's support for those operating systems? I guess they consider choice Windows 98, Windows 2000, or Windows XP.
lowering the price to $.49 or less per song seems more reasonable to me. people dont understand that by purchasing music online in mp3 (or equiv) format that they are ok with crap sounding music and if they are ok with that, what is going to keep record companies from spending less money on production when they know the music is headed for a compressed format anyway?
spend money here
"Real Cuts Prices for DRM-Restricted Music"
In a bit of a time crunch here, so sorry for not R'ing T F'n A. I just liked this headline. It put a picture in my mind like "Since the idea is to slow down piracy, we'll pre-emptively pass the savings on to you."
Can't comment on this particular article but I do wish that companies who do put in restrictive changes would consider lowering the price in order to make up for the cost of hte inconvenience. XP's licensing change, for example, would have been a lot easier to swallow. Instead, they (meaning everybody, not just MS)continue to claim piracy losses even though they've really tightened it down.
"Derp de derp."
It's like this.. Apple can break the iPod's compatibility with Real's Harmony software, certainly. Real then simply adjusts their software to make their songs more like Apple's songs are. At some point, Apple can't break compatibility without breaking compatibility with all their own songs as well.
Remember, Real is just converting from their format into the format the iTunes Music Store uses. If they get close enough to that format, there's nothing Apple can do to prevent them without shooting themselves in the foot too.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
After reading the headline, I thought, "Wow, for once this makes sense." What I mean is, they are selling an inferior product at a lower cost. This is standard business practice, and as long as they openly admit to the DRM, I've no problem with it.
Then I RTFA and changed my mind. This isn't giving the people a choice of an inferior product for a lower cost, this is a "sale" to try and win people away from iTunes. It's only supposed to last an undefined "limited amount of time." Probably until they feel they've won enough customers from apple. I guess it still makes sense business-wise, but I don't like it as much.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
when they're (possibly) out of business?
While better audio codecs have been advanced (MP3, ogg, FLAC...) it seems that the real audio format has maintained its position at the end of the pack. While I am not such an audiophile that I feel like researching expert information on audio quality, it seems that I notice a great difference when listening to an .ra file as opposed to an MP3. Getting half the quality for half the price seems like a wash to me. That is, unless they are either distributing music in another format or have advanced their own encoding process. However, even an advance in the Real Audio format seems negligible. While it is nice that the files are currently compatable with the iPod, it still seems Real is taking the "too propritary" road.
Now before I get tossed into the flamebait category, I do understand that iTunes, MusicMatch, and the rest of the competition is fairly proprietary in their own right. But iTunes, and to a degree MusicMatch, are quite a bit less intrusive applications than RealPlayer.
Further, does anyone remember the user privacy sagas that Real has been through? Does anyone really trust Real to safeguard your information? I don't know about the rest of you, but Real lost my trust a long time ago. They could give out $0.01 songs and $0.10 albums, and that alone would scare me away.
"Sorry, Downloads are only available on PCs running Windows 98 and up and with: * Internet Explorer 5.5, or newer * Netscape 7.0, or newer"
Just go here and download songs for mere pennies. No limited time BS. No DRM.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
You must like the iTunes Music Store, then, since their version of DRM allows all of that to be done. Right?
If you jump through a whole lot of hoops, yes, it'll do those things. The point is to be able to easily do them. DRM, in any form, doesn't make it easy.
I still use my ultra-cheap alternative: allofmp3.com. They operate using a Russian broadcast license...
Instead of 99 cents a song, you pay a penny per megabyte. Often you can pay as little as 5 cents for a 128 bit MP3. Other formats and bitrates are available.
Best part? Since it's a Russian "broadcast", the RIAA doesn't get any of it. Tasty!
I'm right there with you. I can already buy cheaper music that can play on an iPod. No reverse engineering is needed: the format is called MP3, you may have heard of it. The prices range from free to whatever. Finding something I like involves a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work... but I actually find that more interesting than being spoonfed Very Popular Radio Hitz complete with useless yet encumbering software designed around the premise that I am a thief. I keep a few bucks in a Bitpass account, a few bucks in my Paypal account, it's all pretty easy.
Another technologically advanced method I find usefull: I actually have the data in question mailed to me on a cunning media called a compact disc. It serves the same purpose as the download and acts as an archive to boot. Why it even plays on numerous standalone devices I happen to own. And since I again opt for the more unusual sources over the semidigested pablum that drecks all over the radio and tevee, I don't have any problems with DRM and usually pay around 50 cents a track anyway. It may be a minority but who's spending smarter money? I've had numerous opportunities to get free iTunes tracks. No interest. Why muddy up my collection?
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
I've always wondered what is going to happen when someone has put a large amount of money and time into a DRM wrapped music library and the player is no longer supported.
If you migrate up to the latest and greatest player do you have to re-purchase your library?
What if Apple changes the iPod transfer format and lets owners who bought music from their site have free upgrades...
The question is what type of consumer protections do you have with this type of music purchase?
RAN
My music growth stopped in the 80's and I haven't heard much these days worth keeping.
Real sells 192kbit MPEG 4 AAC encoded music now. The new encoder/player/thingy defaults to that format. Looks like they're dumping the crappy ra format, finally.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I still can't understand why I'd want to pay even $.050 for a compressed version of the real song. It isn't the song, it's a snapshot. If I want the real version I get a CD.
I tried iTunes, and found it easy. I tried Real and thoght it nice as well, but can't get over the lack of fidelity on either format.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
What the heck is wrong with $0.99 per song? You pay more than that for a bottle of soda, for crying out loud!
$0.99 for a soda is way too high. Jolt wants to be free, people!
And roses will spring from the ground wherever you walk, female nudity will become common in the workplace, and an honest, non-corrupt, black woman will be president.
And what equilibrium existed before? Before MP3s the music industry had everybody by the balls - the consumers, the artists, and the distributors. Why do you think they were convicted of price fixing?
Limit supply, and then have to lower your prices to sell it?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Like they say, you get what you pay for. I'd rather pay $.99 a song and get to keep it rather than paying $.50 for a crippled song that comes from a company with a dodgy past. Somehow I doubt this will cut into Apple's sales that much.
I agree with that completely. I have no problem whatsoever with paying 99 cents for a song and I do so when I hear a new song I like.
I'm suprised that the RIAA is allowing this. 4.99 an album is quite a bit less than the $12 or so that cds go for. If I am going to buy an entire album, I usually buy the cd. This might change that though.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
It's copyright infringement, not stealing or theft or any other damn thing.
I agree that it's a crime under the current laws, but at least get your terms correct.
Not only do I own an iPod, but REAL's products are quite possibly the worst I've used. In fact I haven't had REALPLayer on my machine for years. Horrible quality and resource eating.
? r4apple that was literally bombed by rabid apple/iPod fans. They took it down and now have the current petition link and it doesn't allow comments nor does it let you view the names which obviously disply that same messages as before just in one line.
What I find hilarious is on the site they set up for this stunt http://www.freedomofmusicchoice.org/ had a petition http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi
I'm no Apple fanatic (WinXP junkie) but I love my iPod and I love this digital music fuster cluck that's been going on since it became the 'it' item.
"It'll destroy you if you try to make it mean anything to anyone but yourself." - Henry Rollins
Ok, I'm sure this is all covered somewhere at the two sites but...
1. Can we copy the file we bought to different devices (i.e. PC/ipod/mp3 player)?
2. Will it allow us to modify the format to/from mp3/wma/ogg/etc?
3. What is the quality compared with "normal" downloads (from gnutella/limewire/etc)?
4. Can we "re-download" a song if our copy get destroyed/lost/mangled?
5. What other advantages/dis-advantages are there?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This is a reasonable price for downloadable music... They are saving the price of the media, the packaging, the shipping - all of the things that cost the real money and dont just line the recording companies pockets...
I was wondering why anybody would pay for anything in Real format, thanks for the info.
I would pay $0.99 per song if I got it in my choice of qualities, encoded from the original cd rip, in my choice of format. Until then, I got www.allofmp3.com. All the above features, at about 12 cents per song.
Loss leaders and limited time offers aren't about competitive capitalism. They're about misinforming consumers to trick them into buying your product. Once hooked, the vast majority will stay with you even after you raise the price. And the sad part is that most of those still believe they actually saved money.
It should be illegal to run a loss leader or to promote an offer that isn't valid for at least two years.
(More slightly off topic rant while I'm at it: It should also be illegal for car dealers/manufacturers to advertise "cash back". They should just lower the sticker prices back to "market value" instead. And for those of you who don't know, market value is typically about $2000-3000 less than the sticker price, even when they run "$1000 cash back" offers. The ones who come in thinking they're getting a free $1000 end up getting a bad deal.)
Copyright violation (unauthorised sharing via p2p) isnt stealing, its a different law.
Why is it legal to take someone photograph without their permission, but illegal to duplicate that photograph without the photographers permission.
Face it there is nothing moral or ethical about current copyright laws. Its about taking as much money from consumers and artists and giving it to the middleman.
Its immoral to obey an unjust law.
And don't give me that typical crap line of "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so I'm not depriving them of a sale." If you don't really want it, or can't afford it, that doesn't justify copyright infringement. And I fully support the RIAA's actions against you, because by your own admission, you are not their customer.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
While I have no intention of buying anything from Real (they don't support Mac OS X with this scheme), and I've never bought anything from iTMS (as I live in Canada), as an iPod owner I'm still somewhat excited -- this may be good for me as an iPod owner inn an indirect way.
Apple has in the last few weeks released two iPod firmware updaters (one of which was released in the past week) -- but both have contained updates only for the 4G iPods. I bought my iPod two months too soon, and thus own the 3G iPod, for which Apple appears to have no interest in providing any software updates for.
However, if things go as many here predict, Real may force Apples hand in pushing out firmware updates for the older iPods to ensure they don't work with Real's system. And to ensure users actually apply these updates, they'll have to offer some form of incentive in the form of new features or other improvements beyond breaking compatible with Real's Harmony.
So if Apple does do something about this, iPod owners (particularily hose of us who don't have the new 4G iPod) may end up winning anyhow :).
Yaz.
"Too bad it won't last..."
Too bad it's fscking Real Media.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Can someone provide me a link or any information that breaks down how and how much Real and iTunes is giving back to the artists?
I heard somewhere approx 60% of the mp3's that you buy now were the exact same ones that your got free from Napster a few years ago. So whose getting this money, cause lets not forget the whole reason why the RIAA claims to be protecting our music from ourselves, "to make sure the artists can still comfortably produce new songs".
It just seems a little fishy still, being that downloading music used to be a crime, but because someone started charging for it, its okay now.
You know if you buy a stolen car from a guy on the streets, its still stolen whether you or not you physically boosted it yourself.
Until then, I got www.allofmp3.com. All the above features, at about 12 cents per song.
You act as if you can reasonably compare the two. All of MP3 is a collection of lesser known and foreign songs. If you like that stuff, good for you. If you want "mainstream" music (i.e. the stuff that you hear on the radio and decide you like or don't like), then you have to be willing to absorb some of the costs of getting you to hear that song in the first place, and then delivering it to you over a well-supported, easy to use, and highly searchable interface.
I really have no problem with All of MP3 competing. That's what free market is all about. Just make sure you're comparing apples to apples.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I think of Real as more or less of a spyware / adware company that packages their crap with a marginally useful media player. To me, no better than KazzaGold. And, since it's marketed to the same crowd of users (i.e. the AOL crowd), I end up paying very little attention to what they are doing at Real.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I got this one song in .ra format and can't seem to get ANY program to let me convert to .mp3 - except, of course, Real Jukebox, which I would HATE to install just to rip one damn song. Anyone have an alternative???
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Gee, another wonderful (albeit DRM-laden) online music store where I could pay for my music instead of using Kazaa. Available only to US residents. How long is it going to take to move these store out of the US? iTMS keeps promising. There's only 2 options here, and none of them I like (proprietary software being the primary reason). *launches Kazaa*
female nudity will become common in the workplace
Maybe you work in a modeling agency, but this would not be a good thing for the rest of us...
Except for the fact that its in real player format and therefore sucks you can expect the music to allways stop playing halfway trhough untill you click on a popup that you promis to buy one of their sponcered products. oh and the software will make you download the OS ten times a week and allways redirect you to a new improved product costing an extra 29$ while hiding the actual product you want.
I think spending less money on "production" is precisely what a lot of music out there needs.
--- What?
Why would the RIAA care? Their share doesn't change based on what Real sells it for. Real is just a reseller. They will be the ones eating the loss.
Eh. Sucks for you. I work with at least a dozen hot woman and I am not in a modeling agency. Of course I am not in IT either.
People on the corner of 12th and Main are giving away free cocaine! Hurry now to take advantage of this exciting short term offer.
If you want to be able to LEGALLY download music off the 'net, you need to support valid attempts to bring that to you.
If you don't want to pay downloaded music, you can also consider moving to Finland.
All of MP3 is a collection of lesser known and foreign songs
Try looking at the allofmp3 collection before you say that. I, personally, haven't not found any song/artiste that I was looking for on allofmp3, including ALL of "The Beatles" that isn't even available on iTMS.
A very good explination why Apple does not want Real's music on the iPod is here: http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/2004_wont_be_lik e_1984
49 cents a song?
Does that mean I can download Beethoven's Ninth Symphony for 49 cents?
When my 10 year old penniless cousin downloads a song, she has caused no one any financial harm. If she stole a CD, though, she'd be taking a physical object that someone else could've otherwise bought--this is wrong, this is stealing, this ALWAYS causes tangible, financial loss, and anyone who refuses to acknowledge the fundemental difference between these two scenarios is a direct participant in RIAA's massive FUD campaign.
I'm not saying that piracy isn't a potential problem (and perhaps it does need to be addressed somehow, though personally I know of no one who downloads music but never buys it--my cousin and I included), but it's NOT theft any more than checking out a book at the library or fast-forwarding through commercials with your VCR (or Tivo) is theft.
Tell me: how are things in la la land? I hear you guys are still using BeOS on RISC chips to play your $.10 legal FLAC files. But that might just be a rumor.
Listen: for Apple and the other music stores to lower their prices so drastically, they'd have to be able to sell at least 4 times as many songs at $.25 as they do at $1. Assuming that the overhead would also be decreased by a factor of four.
But sales wouldn't increase four fold. Overhead and licensing charges would remain the same. So it's not going to happen. Just like they're not going to drop the DRM (because they wouldn't be able to convince as many labels, thus reducing the library without bringing in that many additional customers).
I'm sorry things have costs and restrictions. You just keep stealing and feel vindicated that no damned obnoxious artist is going to get your hard earned cash. Artists, meh. They're worse than the government.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
This advertisement was brought to you by the fine, upstanding members of the RIAA who brought you such great artists as Vanilla Ice, Milli Vanilli, Baha Men, and Bill Ray Cyrus. Trust us. We know what music you will like. Millions of screaming teenagers paying price-fixed amounts for CD's can't be wrong.
MacRumors is reporting they changed their "Freedom of Music Choice" petition because they didn't like the feedback they received.
rather than lowering prices to match Real or anybody else's schemes, I hope Apple instead offers higher quality files for the same $1(either higher bit-rate AAC's or Apple Lossless). This would be more of a selling point for me.
While $0.50 per track is approaching the right price point for this service, it still isn't quite cheap enough. Yes, it is much cheaper than an actual CD, but the quality is vastly inferior. Sure, you might not realize it if you listen to music through the crappy iPod stock buds or some nasty little Sony mini-stereo, but someday you might actually get some decent speakers or cans! On that day you'll realize all the lossy mp3's and AAC's you've accumulated over the years just don't hack it anymore.
High bitrate, well-encoded lossy files can be quite good, although never as good as losslessly compressed files. However, 128Kb AAC (iTunes) and whatever crap bitrate Real is using is just not good enough! (I'll eat my shorts if Real is using 256Kbps or higher, VBR or otherwise) While some small labels have lossless downloads available, all of the big online music stores so far all push the same crap. The amazing thing is, people are actually buying it! For some reason, people are paying 90% of what they pay for a real CD for a product that is inferior across the board. For most services, online music doesn't even win in the convenience category thanks to the headaches associated with DRM! (Although many won't realize it until their iPod dies and they have to use those DRM'd AAC files with some other company's portable music player or even Apple's future players. It's practically planned obsolescence!)
Why on Earth are consumers this stupid? The only thing I can think of is that most people simply don't appreciate the fact that the low bitrate lossy tracks offered by these online stores are grossly inferior to a CD. They probably just assume that because it's online and high-tech it must be better than the venerable old CD somehow.
"Hey, it's e-cool baby!" (*GAG*) Well, listen up chumps. You've been had. They're pushing crap and you're licking it up like fine chocolate mousse!
I must admit, I'm ready to give up. Beatiful, luscious new high-res sound formats like SACD and DVD-A come out, but 128Kbps AAC is out-selling them by a huge margin. Ands it's the damned net-geeks who are the stupid ones! What is wrong with this world!?
"Online Music Battle Escalates: Real Acts of Desperation Against Apple, Targets iPod Owners"o re/real_a cts_of_desperation_against_apple_ipod_owners
r e/point_ counterpoint_apple_should_open_the_ipod_itunes_mus ic
e /apples _jobs_reals_glaser_meet_debate_fight_at_macarthur_ park
http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/m
"Point - Counterpoint: Apple Should Open The iPod, iTunes Music"
http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/mo
"Apple's Jobs, RealNetworks's Glaser Meet, Debate, Food Fight At Palo Alto's MacArthur Park"
http://www.mac360.com/index.php/mac360/mor
Not that this is not necessarily against breaking DRM etc. as clearly stated, just inappropriate marketing and stifling of user opinion in their other petition.
Sorry for the bad English in the Second Paragraph.
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/notreal/petition.htm l
There are two shops, shop A sells a product for $2, shop B sells the same product for $3.
If i buy the product from shop A for $2, i am depriving shop owner B of a $1 profit.
This "free market" thing is a driving force of capitalism, its what drives innovation.
The music idustry is a cartel/monopoly and the free market doesnt exist, there is no choice. It is duty of government to protect consumers against such corporate abuse.
The music/movie industry has no ethics, they are screwing consumers for all they can get. While they are screwing us they are telling us to be nice to them.
Your getting screwed and liking it, dont expect others to be so stupid.
Let's all burn a copies of all of the songs we've "stolen" and send it to RIAA. Bam, the problem of music "theft"is solved!
Now the problem of music copyright infringment, on the other hand...
That's insanity! You're proposing that government should decide what people should charge for the products they sell??!?
Who cares if someone sells a "loss leader" product for a limited time? It benefits the consumers who take advantage of the deal, getting a product they wanted anyway at a cut-rate price.
Same with "cash back" incentives.... I mean, sure, buying a car at a dealership with incentives and rebates doesn't mean you're necessarily getting the car at a great price. Why should it? Dealerships have lots of overhead. It's not like the cars are just sitting out in a rice paddy someplace, and you pick one out, do all the required paperwork yourself, and just mail in the payment. Dealerships have to pay for the land they're using, the building itself, the utilities, and even things like washing all the cars regularly before they're sold. Cars that don't sell quickly enough start becoming a liability too, since they take up valuable space they could otherwise use for a better selling vehicle.
From paperwork I've seen at local dealerships, they earn an average profit of between $1500-3000 on each used car sold. (I never saw figures for new car sales, but I'm sure it's in the same ballpark.) When you figure the salesperson has to earn his/her living too - I don't think that's really out of line for a purchase that's typically larger than anything else people buy other than their house.
Not having fullscreen today in a video player is just unacceptable. But on the plus side the player does seem nicer/less bloated. I just checked and I'm still on 8 (whats currently avail in deb sid). So maybe the fullscreen option is finally there in 10. Btw, mplayer will play my realvid files but if you skim through the video it loses sync which doesn't happen in real. Any fix for that?
Apple jsut updated the iPod last Thursday. I'm guessing Micros$ft-style tricks aren't their solution.
-- Boycott Shell
But since they are probably selling songs at a loss around $0.49, I just hope for real (or should that be with a capital R) that Microsoft hasn't patented "Limiting downloads of popular content to 2.5 million a day (even if everybody needs them)" [penguins spared, ed.] yet...
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi? r4apple
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
-And then you don't have to worry about any of these backdoor shannanigans.
Destroy the DRM in the files, modify the software/firmware in the Ipod and make it what I would call a "white" system.
DRM on classified information belonging to the UN; that I can see useful. DRM on Justin Timberlake is another story. This is assuming that I would actually pay money for a song that isn't encoded at the highest rate that the codec can offer. Last time I checked, iTunes doesn't push the codec to it's highest bitrate.
Kudos to Real for trying to make a market for themselves. If Apple trys to crush Real with DRM moves, then Apple is no better than Microsoft IMO.
Have you looked at the allofmp3 database? It is very expansive and includes all the current hits that are playing on the radio in the US of A.
So allofmp3 is legal in Russia, because they have a license from the russian equivalent of the RIAA. But do the artists get compensated at all? I always wondered about this. Even if they just get 2 cents per download or something it would be a more palatable alternative to Kazaa without going to iTunes or something.
Anyone know if the artists are getting any of the money from the downloads? It seems like they should be, since it is a valid broadcast license.
This advertisement was brought to you by the fine, upstanding members of the RIAA who brought you such great artists as Vanilla Ice, Milli Vanilli, Baha Men, and Bill Ray Cyrus.
Don't forget Will Smith, Brittany Spears, N'Sync, and a lot of other garbage. Yet they also brought us Phil Collins, Billy Joel, 2 Unlimited, Bon Jovi, Shania Twain, and other artists who I (and many others) like. The sooner we wave money under their noses for REAL artists, the sooner they'll deliver.
Keep in mind that the RIAA and many of its members have very much made money their god. It's not about starving artists, copyright infringement, or rights protection. It's all about the almighty dollar. Personally, I think this thinking/religion blinds them, but there's very little we can do to get rid of these companies. They control the music industry, and the rights to nearly ALL of the stuff; good or not.
Thus it makes more sense to effect change from the inside out. Fighting them from the outside is only going to result in a long and bloody battle for supremacy.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
What's wrong with 99c per song is that it has NOTHING to do with what the market wants! $1 for a soda pop would be unreasonable, too, if everyone else was giving it away for free. This is not about supporting valid attempts to bring you music. Many systems of monetizing 'free' music have been proposed to the record industry, but the industry isn't showing any interest. Talk to the Wippet people, or Sharman, or any of the other hundred companies who have proposed models. So tell your local record company to support valiid attempts to bring the market what it wants.
**** You never REALLY learn to swear until you own a computer. ****
Actually, I have done end user support. And I've had to fend off calls the other way around, mostly, where the hardware was at fault and the customer is complaining about the error being with the software because the error is on the screen.
People tend to blame the program running when it throws out an error message, in my experience.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Theft is not copyright infringment, and copyright infringment is not a moral issue. By this I mean that, BY ITSELF, copyright infringment is not an immoral act. I could burn ten thousand copies of Metallica's latest album, then burn them (i.e. with fire) in good conscience. I have caused no one any real harm whatsoever, therefore what I did was not immoral--unless you want to talk about the environmental morality of burning that much plastic. Yet I have committed ten thousand acts of copyright infringment. I don't see how anyone other than a RIAA shill could look at such a compelling example and still turn copyright infringment into a moral issue.
The only moral issue here, if ANY, is that of financial harm to RIAA. But REALIZE THAT THIS MORAL ISSUE IS SEPERATE FROM THE LEGAL ISSUE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT, and there are many similar legal, non-infringing examples of such "theft." People "steal" TV shows from advertisers by fast-forwarding through the commercials (the same goes for web content and popup blockers.) People "steal" from authors and publishers every time they visit the library. Every time someone borrows anything at all they are, hypothetically, "stealing" by your twisted definition of the word.
Oh, you say that you wouldn't have bought that dictionary anyway? If you really don't want it, or can't afford it, DON'T USE IT AT THE LIBRARY. That'll teach ya for stealing from Webster...
Oh, you say that commercials don't affect your buying habits anyway? Well, if you really don't have the time or patience to deal with 'em, stop watching TV.
The only difference between these examples and (unlawful) filesharing is legality, but this legality has no bearing whatsoever on their MORALITY. All of them have the potential to reduce sales, and if one of them is absolutely 100% wrong then they ALL are.
I'd buy some if they were DRM-free files.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Interesting quote:
I hate to say it, but I don't think the AHRA is sufficient or really applies in this case. The article does go on to talk about amendments to the AHRA rather than passing new industry- lobbied legislation. It suggests some good ideas for amendments. Very interesting.
the iTMS songs sound pretty good on my Klipsch Pro Media 4.1's... about as good as a cd, i can't tell the difference.
besides, as i've said before, it's about being able to get something the way you want it. i'd rather spend 99 cents on a song that doesn't sound perfect but at the same time i don't have to buy a $10-15 cd to get that one song either. it's a trade off i and many others seem to agree about. stop yer bitchin and deal with it, if it's not right for you, don't use it... in the mean time people who do find it convienent will use it..
Kyle
http://www.unlogikal.net/
Forgiving you for some god-awful taste in music (Shania Twain for christs-sake?) You can't change the RIAA from within because the RIAA isn't a company. You would have to have revolutionaries inside each of the major labels. And since most of the major labels are owned by huge conglomerates these revolutionaries would have to not only fight the music industry but the entire corporate bureaucracy.
I am afraid it will only be a bloody coup that will overthrow the music industry and the first blows have already been exchanged and the industry barely got up before the ten count.
Hey! Wal-Mart has EVERYDAY LOW PRICES! They don't need a sale!
In any event, Wal-Mart does have actual sales.
You don't "buy" songs. You buy a licence to be able to listen to it at will. $0.99 is still too much for something (the licence) that doesn't cost anything to produce.
I agree that an artist (if he's good) should be able to live from its creations. But a system where Britney Spears can make millions simply by "singing" a 3 minute song is really fucked up.
Society (which means : me) should reward creation but an artist should not be able to control what I do with my CD burner. I don't mind paying to live in a society where I can listen to music but I'm completely against "intellectual property".
Yes the iTMS is selling slightly less than CD quality tracks. Most of the buyers are using those tracks on iPods. There is not a large percentage of buyers who want or need music files (of Brittany? 50 Cent?) in a higher quality than iTMS' AAC or CD provide. If there were, the market would adjust.
You can already buy CDs of whatever music you like instead, if you think you are missing out when you hear the word lossy.
Buyers of iTMS AACs will have no problem using them after some speculated upon apocalypse scenario where Apple and iPods no longer exist. iTunes happily poops out your library in mp3 or AIFF files for burning to CDs or DVDs.
Customers aren't stupid. The majority of people are satisfied with good sounding music at an easy to navigate store. Those that aren't can buy CDs.
It's hardly 'crap' just because you can perceive a difference on your $5000 speakers.
Please do give up, your prattle is tiresome. Last week you people were bawling that CDs were so inferior to LPs. The market largely disagreed.
What's wrong with 99c per song is that it has NOTHING to do with what the market wants!
Bullshit. If the market didn't want it, it wouldn't exist. iTunes has been steadily increasing its market share, currently owning 70% of the online music market (currently about 100 million songs per year).
$1 for a soda pop would be unreasonable, too, if everyone else was giving it away for free.
My local Kwiktrip sells any size soda pop for 69 cents. It's quite popular, but it hasn't eliminated canned and bottled soda sales. Why?
Well there are several reasons. For one, the soda is of a lower quality than the stuff in bottles or cans. For another, soda machines offer an instant gratification that's not available with a gas station/convenience store.
Same with iTunes. The songs are better quality, and there's less hassle in tracking down and purchasing what you want. That makes it a valuable service over P2P networks. That's not to say that people don't exist who'll keep downloading from the networks. I know people who'll drive 30 miles just to save ten cents on a single item. That doesn't mean they're the majority.
Many systems of monetizing 'free' music have been proposed to the record industry, but the industry isn't showing any interest.
Ok, I'm listening. Show me a viable model with a high chance of success and relatively low risk. iTunes has all of those.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Well, that's a heck of a lot more than I'm paying for music now (hint: $0)
So, enlighten us. Are you an intelligent buyer who's not participating in the music industry's plunder and pillage sales tactics by swearing off their crummy content, or are you a theiving little brat unwilling to pay for what you want?
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
How about I support changing the law instead? They can't put ALL of us in jail. Remember, even prohibition lasted four years in the US. NOBODY wanted prohibition, and lots of people DIED in the violence related to that little social experiment. I think we've come a long way as a society (some notable failures do exist) towards civilized discourse since those days, and I don't see any way that the balance of power can shift back in favor of the RIAA companies for the long term. The only question is how difficult they have to make it legally for people who are obtaining free music before everyone demands widespread changes to the current state of copyright law.
Law is a pendulum. It swings in one direction, and then it goes back the other way. Earl Warren's SOCTUS went way out in left field in the 60's with supplementing the rights of the accused, e.g. Miranda and Gideon v. Wainright. In the 70s, everything went back the other way, with law enforcement gaining more freedom to investigate hippies, crooks, and revolutionaries.
The late 90's saw a surge in laws friendly to copyright holders and big business interests. I am confident that the latter half of the noughts will see a corresponding rebound that favors the interests and rights of individuals.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
I am willing to pay .50 cents for a song, but I will not pay .99 cents. For .99 cents a song I'd rather buy the CD, at the same cost.. plus you get CD quality sound, not 128kbit, or whatever the quality is.
irc.enterthegame.com #linux
Plain and simply I will never buy online music until I can get lossless CD quality recordings for less than I can buy a physical CD.
... but I'll be able to listen to my lossless version on my home system and I'll be able to reencode if a better format comes out in the future.
I understand DRM and don't have a big issue with it when it comes down to it (I don't -like- it but as long as it gives me my fair use I'll live with it).
I'm simply not willing to pay for lossy encodings. I would rather pay $9.99 for an album that is CD quality than $4.99 for a lossy encoded version. I would prefer it to be like FLAC where it is a compressed file, but nothing less than CD quality. CD is the -minimum- I am looking for. However I should be able to buy for $4.99 + a small added bandwith charge.
Will I rip down to a smaller format for my portable player? Sure
Until then, since I buy less than 1 disc a month, I'll stick with hardcopy.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
It's a Russian "broadcast", the artist doesn't get any of it. Stupid.
GPL Deconstructed
Why send money to Russian software pirates for music you could steal for free on your own?
Don't say you think they are legally copying music with a valid license, and that the music you download is an honest transaction.
It's no different than buying a HDTV out of the back of a van for $100 and suggesting that it might not be stolen goods since you paid something for it.
You are simply a thief + a hypocrite. Better to just be a thief.
You're assuming that these companies are completely composed of executives who all think the same and hold the same opinion. This is not the case. As an example, Sony Music has been forced to be subservient to Sony Electronics because Sony Electronics makes more money than Sony Music does. Sony Music can whine about piracy all they want, but Sony Electronics is getting rich from all the MP3-enabled devices and memory sticks they're selling.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm a little confused as to why a lot of Slashdot readers are so supportive of the Apple/iPod thing. Attempting to force owners of iPods to buy their content through the iTunes store no better than the printer manufacturers who try to force you to buy ink refills from the manufacturer. It's the equivalent of Sony selling you a DVD player that only plays DVDs.
If I bought an iPod, and someone offers to sell me songs that will play on my iPod, and Apple then does something so that the iPod will no longer play those songs, why is that OK? Where's the slashdot overreaction to this unwarranted control of hardware I own?
paintball
Read the interview at news.com; Glaser admits to being an "Al Franken" style koolaid-drinking socialist.
/.ers can connect the dots here. Linux and capitalism and free markets jive together just like Microsoft, DRM, Real, and socialism do.
I hope that
that should read SONY DVDs.
paintball
I've bought a couple of CDs and a few individual tracks from the iTunes music store (not to mention all the freebies I've downloaded). They sound fine, even when burned onto CDs to play on the Bose in the car. It's a bit of a pain sharing them between computers (PowerBook and PC at home and PC at work), but hey, blank CDs are cheap.
Of course, in general it's still cheaper for me to buy CDs through a service like BMG or Columbia House. I order maybe 10-20 per year from BMG and end up paying between $5 and $8 per CD. Then I can rip those myself to whatever quality I'd like and avoid the ridiculous prices that most stores charge. Sure, there's the whole shipping delay, but I'm a patient guy.
That said, if I could import music purchased from Real's music store into iTunes (and from thence to the iPod), I'd jump on the $0.49 thing in heartbeat. But I use iTunes for everything now, and I'm not about to start running multiple different media players just for the grins of saving a few bucks. That's my choice, and I'm sticking to it.
Why not buy tunes for $.49 at Real while it lasts, burn them to an audio CD , rip them in iTunes, and transfer them to an iPod, DRM-free? Any real quality loss there? darobu
I agree with you and I don't. I agree that laws like the DMCA are bad. In fact, the more you can get these big companies to hang by a tiny thread of protection, the better.
But what would be the effect of abolishing the copyright system? What would be the incentive to produce good music and literature? We could continue fueling the economy for a short while from the media that's already produced. (The music industry is already doing this. Blech.) In the long run, however, promising artists and writers will be forced to take jobs to support themselves rather than continue to produce media. Some media will be used as a loss leader (as already exists in some areas), but content costs money to produce. There's no way around that fact.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
This whole thing is about DRM ubiquity. Real is scared to death of the Windows DRM so they go after Apple. Makes sense in a twisted sort of a way.
Real and Virgin are going after Apple for "not licensing Fairplay to them". The more likely scenario is that Apple wouldn't license Fairplay to them unless they used it exclusively and both Real and Virgin have their own DRM schemes and that wouldn't help them to get their DRMs into the market. Apple licensed Fairplay to Motorola. I'm sure that it is an exclusive contract that means that more users will be using Fairplay.
Real wants people to use their DRM and so does Virgin. So, they both complain that Apple refused to license Fairplay to them, when the more likely scenario is that Apple refused to license Fairplay to them without them agreeing to the contract, like Motorola did.
So, Real releases Harmony, which will allow their DRM'd files to be played on the number one media player, the iPod, by faking out the Fairplay DRM software to think that the Real DRM is the same as the Fairplay DRM. Whether this is legal or not stands to be proven. Then Real undercuts the standard prices by half and sets about creating FUD about how Apple is evil and won't let them play together and starts a "freedom of music" site designed to attack Apple only. Seems far fetched.
Virgin meanwhile attacks from their end, in France, and says that they've been shut out by Apple, the obvious monopoly (hardly) that they are.
This is a DRM war. The one that has more media that supports their DRM out in the market is going to win in the long run.
A couple of points that the Real site is misleading about:
1. The price to burn a track to CD is $0.79 not $0.49.
2. The price per album is 1/2 of what it cost before, as low as $4.99, so not all albums are $4.99.
Seems that they are trying to open the iPod to their proprietary DRM format, which isn't really open at all either.
Also bear in mind that Apple is guaranteed to release an update to the iPod software that will disable the Harmony software from helpiong to keep the DRM working on the iPod too.
iTunes also has over 1 million songs in their library while Real has almost 7 hundred thousand.
Who will win? Only time will tell. Seems to me that Real is playing dirty to try and make a minor inroad that won't pay off in the long run. How long can they support losing money in order to try to bring people over?
Sorry, I still do not look at this as stealing.
It's basically a more efficient method of what I used to do when I was a kid, i.e. keep a cassette handy and hit record stuff when I hear it playing on the radio.
Frankly, I got got *real* tired of struggling trying to find the stuff I wanted to listen to (mostly older stuff), only to end up buying some crap redone version or a bad mix.
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS HOLY.
Real has offered a crap-free version of their player for quite some time now, yet every time I read a story about real I hear people bitching about Spyware. Download it, try it, and shut up or don't use it.
Actually, I think this could be a neat way to get Real out of our lives, once and for all. Think about this -- if plenty of informed people bought songs from Real with the expectation that their breaking is a matter of when, not if, and raised a huge stink about it when it did happen (or better yet, got together some sort of class-action lawsuit), either demanding their money back or bad-mouthing Real incessantly to their friends, family, co-workers, etc., Real would either a) drown in legal bills b) drown in a flood of customers demanding their money back c) just give it up, fall back into obscurity and eventually just go the heck away.
I realize that morally, Real has no duty to refund your money when things they say will work, don't. They might not even legally (especially if they specify that the songs will only work on an iPod running such-and-such a firmware version -- if they didn't, then the end user would legally have a case, just as an end user of a telephone would have a case against the manufacturer if the phone only worked with SBC, but not AT&T, since it's the same phone, just different 'software,' and the phone doesn't specify what carrier it works with). But enough bad press, and they'll disappear.
Ack!
If Apple even deigned to respond to this (and I'm not sure they would go so far as to acknowledge its existence), all they would have to do is take out an ad that begins sort of like Real's ads, and then *BUFFERING*
can't u just burn the real downloads to a CD then rip them as mp3s with musicmatch or something. Then once they're mp3's you could do whatever the heck you want to do with them.
DRM is unfortunately the future. Piracy is a legitimate concern and the only real solution to it is technology, and then only if its updated on the protection end to keep pace with the rest of technology. The RIAA's actions as of late should prove how effective things like lawsuits are. The trouble with the Real situation is using their own DRM and Real isn't providing Apple with enough incentive to add support for their DRM as well as FairPlay's & Audible nor is it willing to try to license a DRM which Apple already supports. Instead Real has decided to take a backdoor approach. You also have to ask yourself how serious can real be if it's not providing service to the smaller but historically lucrative Mac community. After all iTMS was consistently outselling all of its competitors even before it became cross-platform and it remains the only online music service that supports both Mac and Windows. Apple has made significant strives to support multiple media formats for both iTunes and the iPod. They both support AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 (32 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible, AIFF, Apple Lossless and WAV plus you can add Ogg Vorbis support under iTunes and the Windows version of iTunes handles unprotected WMA conversion.
I don't know why everyone keeps saying the sound quality for Real's downloads is bad. It's actually *better* than iTunes, which is only 128Kbps. Both Real and Apple use AAC encoding (m4a, m4p). Let's ease up on the FUD, shall we?
Just go read the info on the different music stores. First of all, most don't distribute mp3's, and secondly, they get their music files from the record companies -- obviosly NOT the same files you got free from Napster.
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
You're assuming that everyone is an audiophile. Most people are casual listeners and casual buyers-- get a song in your head, buy it for a buck, listen to it in your car a couple times and eventually lose it in the shuffle. Or they really want to play a certain song at their party, or they need it for a mix tape for a friend... Etc.
Most people aren't "stupid", as you claim, as much as they would rather take convenience over the absolute best quality. Which is a bad idea when buying a car or a computer, but makes sense when buying a song they'll only listen to a few times. Yes, the sound is a little worse-- I think that's common knowledge. So what? There were plenty of people buying cassette tapes in the 70's and early 80's-- the quality was awful compared to vinyl, buy they were easy to pop in the car stereo, easy to copy and mix, easy to put in a dual-cassette deck and let play without getting up to turn the record over.
And you're missing one point of why iTunes is so popular... You can buy it by the track. It's actually a throwback to the '45s of yesterday. Of course it's foolish to pay $15 for a full CD on iTunes when you can own the physical object at better quality... But what if you're only buying it for the hit, and have no interest in the other tracks? Fifteen dollars for a "mix tape" of songs you know you want (and get instantly, I should add) is a bargain, considering the alternative ten years ago was buying fifteen full CDs...!
If you're going to spend $5 on an album, you might as well do it at Magnaturne. As previously covered on Slashdot...
The artist gets 50% instead of OWING money.
Current standard film still records at 24 frames per second. If you watch closely during any sequence that has any action in it you will see how poor and antiquated that frame rate value truly is. And yet because we have become accustom to it nobody seems to question it. (Except for that crazy Lucas guy who wants everyone to convert to digital video.)
Audiophiles similarly have become accustom to all sorts of crazy arguments about what you can and can't hear. CD's arn't as "warm" as LP's, tubes are better than transistors, high quality MP3's don't sound like the CDs. However I'm quite sure that if you were to sit down two people who had not heard any given track that was played on a CD and then on a very high quality compressed format they would be hard pressed to pick which was which. (Given that it's a 50/50 chance a more controlled method of testing would have to be done but I think you get my point.)
Now I still personally will never pay for any stripped down, DRM crippled, poorly encoded music but I don't think that using a compressed format, done right, is a bad thing at all.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
You can now buy a full song online for 1/4 the price of buying a lower-quality 15-second sample of the same song. The difference is that one is intended for your iPod, the other is intended for your cell phone. That's insane.
All Apple has to do is send out a warning that music purchased from other places not selling MP3's will not work, then throw the switch...
I think the majority of people would blame Real, not Apple - they know where they bought the songs from. It has the potential to be a huge blunder for Real with very little risk for Apple should they decide to counter.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
New hardware, longer battery life. They go hand in hand. There is no magic software bullet to make your iPod have longer battery life.
You don't get free updates to new stuff. You're gonna have to get over it. Even in the PC world where updates are more common than in, say, cars, my top of the line 3.0GHz P4 didn't turn to a 3.2 when it was announced.
encoded from the original cd rip... Until then, I got www.allofmp3.com. All the above features, at about 12 cents per song.
Allofmp3 claims that their stuff is encoded from the original CD, but I'm not so sure. I looked into using them a while back, and they were accepting uploads of mp3s to build up their collection in exchange for download credits.
"Apple has accused RealNetworks of using the 'tactics and ethics of a hacker'...."
That is high praise from Apple. RealNetworks should publicize this more..
Its been a while since artists have made money off of thier records, its all about the ticket sales. The smart ones end up forming thier own record labels. Oddly, these are the ones who are the most vocal RIAA Proponents. Go Figure.
Maybe all these hassles will bring about a restructured music industry. Instead of having record labels at all, artists make a website and give thier music away online. They charge minimal fees to radio outlets to play thier music. Since the royalties on music that didnt come from a label would certainly be reduced, it would get decent air time. If people liked the music the bands could tour and make plenty o' money, without the middle man.
Between radio and the internet, we dont need record labels to "Tell us whats out there". We can listen for ourselves. The only type of music that wouldnt flourish in this system would be the Music of the Month club, bubblegum pop. Im sure i wouldnt miss that.
Personally I just download albums, and if I only like one or two songs - then whatever. When I find killer albums, I go out and buy the CD for backup purposes and to support the artist.
Why would the RIAA care? Their share doesn't change based on what Real sells it for. Real is just a reseller. They will be the ones eating the loss.
Sure Real only resells it but they have to get it from the RIAA in the first place. The RIAA isn't going to give it to them without a contract. I would be very suprised if there isn't pricing information in the contract but I can't say for sure.
Perhaps the RIAA is doing this to break Apples dominance?
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
I'd rather pay $.99 a song and get to keep it rather than paying $.50 for a crippled song that comes from a company with a dodgy past.
/.
Why is this modded insightful? What you get from Real is *identical* to what you get from Apple! Except that Real offers a higher bitrate.
Sheesh. Rabid apple fanboyism is alive and well here on
Sony is just one relatively small player in this. Even if they full embraced non-DRM music at a reasonable price it would not tear down the strangehold that the rest of the industry has. If anything I am sure it would jeopardize their membership in the RIAA.
Enough guesses. Here's a quick summary of how this Harmony stuff works so we can all be on the same page. - Real does not change any software or firmware on the iPod. - Real's store tracks get re-wrapped in FairPlay, then transferred to the iPod. There's no way for the iPod to tell the difference between an iTMS-originated track and a RealMS-originated track. They are functioally equivalent. - Just like iTunes, you can burn CDs from the tracks you download from the RealMS. -The download quality from Real is actually BETTER than iTMS - 192Kbps vs. 128Kbps. This means that when you burn the tracks to audio CD to 'clean'/(backup/share with your friends/whatever) you will end up with a better sounding audio CD because you have a more detailed (higher bitrate) source file. Nuff said. If you don't get it now, you never will.
They couldn't drop the price low enough for me to use their service. DRM in any form is bad. I'll stick to straight mp3s thank you. This allows me to easily and seamlessly move my music around all of my home machines, Linux, Windows, and Mac, my portable Archos and Diamond players, and my work machine. Let me see anyone offering DRM solutions offer me that type of freedom.
Wow. I really am convinced that you live in another lala world. You really think that 99 cents is the fair market value? Do you really think that in a fair uncontrolled market that 99 cents would be the happy place that supply and demand meet? The music industry has already been convicted of price fixing and they haven't changed anything. People pay 99 cents because the only other choice is illegal or questionably legal methods.
And how is the iTunes method a viable method? It is only viable if you have another market where you can make money (i.e. iPods and computers). Only in the dot-com age was operating at a loss considered a viable business model.
OE is encoded from a 384 kb/s mp3.
VIP or FREE is a constant bitrate mp3 that you can't choose the encoding type.
It's supposed to be okay because they mail a small percentage of the pennies ...
When people use P2P the artist gets nothing and the user get sued. If the user uses allofmp3.com, then the user is given (a fairly small) protection from the RIAA and at least a few pennies will make it to the artist as opposed to none with P2P. It's also a $0.01/MB protection from getting sued.
Was reading too fast. You are right.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
I would be very surprised if there were pricing information in the contract because that would make some very nice evidence for price fixing. More likely the license that RIAA collects from Real is fixed and Real is welcome to charge whatever they want.
And why am I even talking about the RIAA. It is the labels that make the deals with the distributors - not the RIAA.
Burn the music to CD for backup... Really want to support an artist? See them in concert. That's where they make their real money.
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
At one point Real had a serious head-start on everyone else in terms of streaming audio and video technology. I remember the first time I used Real to listen to streaming audio and watch streaming video. I was blown away and everyone else played catch-up with them for a while. Remember that?
I've said it before: Real should have been the ones to create the iTunes music store and the software and maybe even the iPod, but they squandered their lead. Now they want to latch on to the company who beat them at their own game? They should stop hiding behind embarrassingly disingenuous claims of concern for the consumer. If Real were genuinely concerned for consumers, they would never have let their products become as crappy as they currently are and would never have tried coasting for as long as they did on what little innovation they managed in their heyday.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
While Real, Apple and Microsoft can afford to use digital music download services as "loss leaders" to promote their other hardware/software products (that actually make money), any companies that rely on paid music downloads for their revenue are looking about as viable as a comeback for mid-80's hair metal bands.
Do you have any evidence to support this allegation?
If you can burn it to CD, can't you just rip it back from the CD into a non DRM format?
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
And why am I even talking about the RIAA. It is the labels that make the deals with the distributors - not the RIAA.
You do have a point there.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
All these sites which offer music downloads, they arent compatible with players etc? Like in the article Real's [i]now will[/i] work with the Ipod. If im spending money on downloaded songs, I surely want a format which spans across as many players as possible.
I would be very surprised if there were pricing information in the contract because that would make some very nice evidence for price fixing. More likely the license that RIAA collects from Real is fixed and Real is welcome to charge whatever they want.
Especially considering that many RIAA members just settled last year a class-action lawsuit alleging price fixing via "Minimum Advertised Price" policies.
If Real reprogrammed their code to spit out un-DRM'd AACs, or MP3s, Apple would still have to support this format.
Apple's problem is not with Real producing files that can be played on an iPod, it's that they've locked those files using the DRM system built into iPods. This is about DRM, not file support.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Let's see.. $0.49 divided by 0.. is.. undefined. Why is this so hard to understand? Too much money on your hands? Donate some to charity, give a buck to that homeless guy you see once in a while - he may buy alcohol with it, but he ain't got much else to look forward to. But whatever you do, don't give it to Apple or Real!
Since when did production costs set price? It's always been demand driven. If people really aren't willing to pay $0.99 then the price would eventually go down (or the company would close it's doors).
I'd much rather pay the $1500 in materials costs for an automobile, but apparently enough people are willing to pay 10x that for a new car. Go figure, apparently to almost everyone a car is worth the price they are currently sold at.
and by this logic, apparently $15 for a CD was worth the price to most people, although with music CD sales falling this shows this price is no longer acceptable to some.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
"yeah, i stole that bike but it was only a huffy and i know for a fact that mr. huffman will see about 1% percent of that sale - those bicycle producers are crooks! now let me go."
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Oh noes! Someone call the Capitalism Police!
When I go to real.com using Safari 1.2, I get a page about RealPlayer 10, which makes no mention of, and has no links to, RealPlayer music store or Harmony. When I visit the same URL, spoofing as "Windows MSIE 6.0" (aka "TEH INTARWEB BROWZOR") I get a big promo about Harmony and the .49/song sale.
Pretty sure there's no Mac OS X version of this whole Harmony thing.
Does anybody know how this Harmony thing works? Does it import the songs into iTunes so you can play them in iTunes/sync them to iPod as normal? Or does it make you do a separate sync to put the Real songs on the iPod, restricting you to playing them only on the iPod and RealPlayer?
Oh for crying out loud:It's not that hard to figure out. The music companies spend money on advertising to make money. There's just one catch. In the music industry, they charge the cost of marketing back to the musician. So by demanding lower costs on songs, you're effectively bankrupting the very musicians you claim to be supporting! So, yes. 99 cents is probably fair market value. Besides, Apple set the cost, not the record labels.
Personally, I wish that Congress would pass a law making the chargeback scheme of the labels illegal. Not paying out money until profits are made is one thing, but why should the artist accept fiscal responsibility for a campaign he has no control over? Especially when you consider the percentages the labels' take for their "marketing service".
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Someone told me there was a way to crack the Real DRM, like they did with Apple's stuff. Is that true? If I can make Real's songs into a pure AAC file, i won't have to worry about it breaking in the future.
At which point, if Real has a large enough installed base, Apple's potential iPod buyers switch to Real-supported MP3 players.
At which point, I stopped reading - what makes you think somewhat cheap songs are going to make people switch players? Especailly when they already OWN the iPod to start with! If so, it would have happened already as other stores have cheaper songs today.
Let me illustrate a scenario:
Bob comes home with his iPod and buys a song at Real's store. Now Apple updates his iPod a week later and Bob's song starts working.
What is Bob more likley to do:
a) Throw away great $400 iPod in favor of far more crappy player, after a week of research to even figure out what other choics will work with REAL DRM.
b) Say "Screw you Real" and go back to ITMS.
Hint - people mostly take the easy way out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Try them on a good pair of headphones. Even on my Sony D66's, 128kbps AACs aren't that great. They sound like I'm listening to them through cloth, with a lot of the sharpness in the music removed. Certainly, they don't sound like the source CDs. For me, LAME's APS setting (~200kbps) is pretty much indistinguishable from the original CD.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
no they should not have tried to scam us in the first place, now they have to do more than just be decent to win that trust back...Why would I NOT use a companies PAST doings for judging them, any other criteria is flaming BS. If your logic was true why do we have 3 strikes laws, and keep conviction records AFTER a person is released...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Go to
? notreal/
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi
and sign
>> If people stopped downloading music, the RIAA would have no choice but to lower their CD prices. WHY??? It's the other way around. As long as you're feeding the RIAA, it'll do what it always did. If it weren't for illegal (not immoral;) ) downloads, there'd still be no iTunes and such. Now all we have to do is to keep the pressure on until the market forces the price to the consumer of downloading songs to approach its actual cost (ie couple of cents a song, tops);)
At this site they've set up a grassroots effort to promote open music files. (I've got a suggestion, start by killing DRM).
Earlier today the site linked to a PetitionOnline petition, the link was later removed.
Gee, I wonder why?
Way to miss the point, chief.
It's not as if she's the only one.
Look at how many big names who are going at it alone now.
The RIAA are as much criminals as any Russian crime syndicate. And TBH get the fuck out of here with that name calling. Just because something isn't from your part of the world it doesn't mean it's criminal. Even if the RIAA/APG/whatnot would like you to believe it - because they get a smaller cut of the cake.
But allofmp3.com pay ROMS which is the Russian music organization. How should this be worse than paying to the RIAA?
I hope the big five will be Michael Moore's next target really.
And I'll join NoFX in their toast when the dinosaurs will die.
That's more like the "real" question you should be asking yourself (pun intended).
Can't buy any of the $.49 tunes though in Linux or OS X. :-/
Real addresses the issue of upgrades like this:
"It is also recommended that you not start iTunes with your iPod connected to your PC because Apple may automatically install new software on your iPod that could prevent it from being able to play songs you may have already purchased from the RealPlayer Music Store.
" that pretty much says it all huh?The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
The problem with $0.99 a song is that the artist gets $0.05 out of it.
What an absolute load of Crap!
... go Apple
REAL had to disable comments on the Petition, with comments such as,
Hey Apple, don't break my iPod: DON'T ALLOW REAL TO SCREW IT UP!!!! UPDATE THE FIRMWARE AND LOCK THEM OUT!!!!!
I wouldn't even buy a song from real if you would pay me for "buying" one. Stop crying, get your act together, invest in R&D and develop something useful yourself.
Real is a dying company and will sell out their own mother to be part of a winning team. Don't believe the hype people... Real is NOT being altruistic here... they smell the money and it's YOURS. They also smell the slow dying stench of a company grasping at straws. iTunes is STILL the BEST player out there and you do have choice with it. MP3, AAC, convert WMA to AAC, and more
Almost EVERY comment was along these lines!
" Amen, I personally feel that 10 to 25 cents a song is about what I'd pay for DRMed music.
Sounds too cheap? Well, that's a heck of a lot more than I'm paying for music now (hint: $0)"
Thief. You have no right to steal something just because you think it's priced too high.
KAZAA: DOWNLOAD AN ALBUM FOR $0.00
ACT NOW, BEFORE COMPUTERS BECOME ILLEGAL
And you can play the mp3 files on any device.
I've been a RealRhapsody and Napster subscriber for a while, and have gotten annoyed with having DRM even after I purchase a song to keep "forever".
Recently I bought a few CD's from AllofMp3.com, which is a Russian company that lets you buy any song, which they encode on-the-fly to any format you want. You pay them one US cent per MB. So, your 4MB MP3 costs you *four cents*, with no DRM attached. A CD, encoded in 320kbps AAC, might cost 60 cents. Theoretically, this is legal, because they're licensed by the Russian equivalent of the RIAA. In case you're wondering, no, I haven't seen any fraudulent CC charges.
of course you know that if the artists actually cared about making art instead of making money for their gold plated shark tanks, then maybe just maybe, the signal to noise ratio of pop music would go down and the remaining few bands would make tonnes more money.
but i guess that requires thought.
you know music used to be made by people for the BETTERMENT OF MANKIND.
i pirate music i like.
i share the music with my friends.
we are going to see franz ferdinand because of filesharing.
i have an enjoyable life set to music, and the artist has the feeling that they actually produced something people like.
thats win win.
you insensitive clod.....
1: Use * to access the * music store and purchase DRM protected music.
2: Use * to sort that music into a playlist.
3: Use * to burn that playlist to a CD.
4: Use * to rip the songs from that CD in MP3 format.
Does the average person not realize that this is easily done? With a CD-RW, it's a free process. I just wish that someone would come up with a hack around this process so you wouldn't actually have to take the time to burn the CD and rip it back. They could just sell unprotected content to begin with... oh WAIT, wait, they can't do that. In fact, it's such a pain in the ass to do that I'd rather spend almost the same amount of money to buy the actual CD (yes, it's possible. Go to Best Buy on a sale weekend), get full quality unprotected music with the actual CD, case, and liner notes. Am I particularly emotional about the liner notes? No. But it's a cool bonus.
I feel like the record industry is trying to make people feel guilty for owning unprotected music. It's not like it transforms you into some copyright-abusing animal, recklessly giving the song out to everyone you know. It just makes it less of a pain in the ass to enjoy. Enough bullsh*t about not wanting to sell us unprotected music: you already are, except for the fact that you have decreased the quality (convenience of downloading the music is nulled by the fact you have to copy it to CD and rip it back). I couldn't believe it when I reformatted my computer and tried to play one of the very few DRM songs I had (purchased and hadn't burned/ripped yet): the damn thing told me I had to download the Napster client before I could listen to it. I looked around for whoever was playing the joke on me; I couldn't believe the thing was being serious!
Next thing you know, you'll have to wade through a credit card application and a Flash ad just to listen to the song that you payed for.
Real wants you to pay for their software, then they're evil. Apple wants you to buy songs from them only, that's ok. Why is real obligated to give users stuff for free?
paintball
I'm not defending their use of DRM. Myself, I always crack the DRM after purchasing a tune, and convert it to some other format that's not restricted. Harmony, in combination with my iPod and Hymn, lets me create unprotected AAC files with no loss, which is cool. It might not be entirely legal, but I'm not sharing the music so I really don't give a flip.
But it's not totally silly for them to give compatibility a try, is what I'm saying.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
If Real's format survives, every update Apple does will have to be evaluated against the possibility of breaking Real's version weighed with the PR flack this would cause.
First, understand that Real's music "format" is really irrelevant. What they're doing is converting it into something very similar to Apple's format.
So if Apple breaks Real by accident, they're likely breaking backward compatibility with old iTunes purchased songs as well.
Contrarywise, if Apple breaks Real on purpose, it'll be fairly obvious to those people capable of seeing how they broke it (and there's quite a lot of them... their DRM format has been totally blown open here, remember). They'll look into it, and give the detailed word. Hell, you and me are probably both capable of figuring out how they did it,if they were to do it. It's simply not all that complicated to do.
Finally, it's quite likely that the next release of the iPod software will try to break Real's compatibility. They did this in the last release of iTunes to try to stop Hymn decrypted songs from working. This was absolutely 100% intentional and not a side effect from some other change. Hymn was quickly fixed, but the point is that Apple isn't much concerned about PR flack when they decide to get bitchy about their DRM.
So, short version:
1) It's possible for Real to work around anything Apple can throw out there, or make the conversion so similar that they can't break it without doing damage to their own legit customers.
2) Expect Apple to try it once or twice anyway, followed by quick patches to the Harmony iPod plugin.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I am using my Apple Mac to transfer songs to my Apple iPod just like I did with my Apple iTunes.
Using Real's Harmony software with an error message popping up in a message box with Real's skinned theme on it saying that the Real software was unable to perform whatever operation it was attempting to perform. Contrariwise, iTunes will work just fine.
Who you gonna call?
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
magnatune.com
A growing, but very high quality collection.
Listen to everything for free in mp3 format.
If you enjoy it, pay for a download in wav, mp3 high bitrate, or ogg. You may pay from $5-$18 per album, your choice. Artist gets %50 of what you pay.
I am only posting as a fan.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
My first thought was "Sure, that makes sense. Healthy competition is good for the marketplace." So, I went to real's site to see what it was all about... I then remembered their myriad of links which all seemed to lead to nowhere in particular. The next thing I remembered was how terrible their software is, the Real Guide resizing itself for optimal advertising assault in full video aside displaying a huge wealth of worthless crap right up in my face, but giving you a convenient X in order to close everything except full-width advertisement that it loaded into the player without even asking... Yeah, I think I'd rather pay twice as much per song than have to use their nightmarish software. If I could purchase music right from their website that'd be a different story, or if it was somebody else then maybe I'd give it a shot, but it really does come down to one bottom line... This is Real Networks we're talking about. The company name alone pretty much sums it up, sending a feeling of frustrated, dreadful stress through my body. I believe in a competitive market, and I believe in more choice than Apple is giving us (ie: licensing fairplay), but to me, Real has never been a choice.
You are too far gone to even attempt talking to. Sorry.
There might have been a small consortium that started these formats but the reality was that there were other formats competing for the same dollar from the consumer. ONE COMPANY'S standard eventually won out and THEN it was licensed to others. It's not like you could play a Betamax tape on a VHS machine, why should you be able to play a Real file on an Apple machine? Apple has already "licensed" iTunes so you can play their tracks on ANY personal computer. It's obvious that once they sew up their format and DRM as the market standard they will license it to other portables as well. The reality is that there is still enough risk in the marketplace (re: Microsoft) that they can't just freely license things now otherwise they'd lose their revenue streams.
Legal, DRM free multi-encoded files, and cheaper than iTunes or Real. All at http://www.allofmp3.com/. I believe that it is the top comercial music download site in Europe.
The problem with $0.99 a song is that the artist gets $0.05 out of it.
Agreed. But lowering it to $0.50 means that that the artist gets $0.025 per song. So there's little point (from the artist's point of view) to lowering the price.
You have to treat the core of the problem, not the symtoms.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Im still using Sony Net MD Walkman Recorders
itunes on the PC and Mac
but if you check,ALL formats are NOT store ready!
except iPod!
so this is about an attack on itunes iPod!!!!!!!!
I just found out about this place yesterday. I haven't bought anything from them yet, but music by the pound in nearly any damned format I want sounds good to me!
Check out the Sydney Morning Hearld article for more info. I really can't believe we here at /. missed this in April!?
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
You are too far gone to even attempt talking to. Sorry.
Ah, I see. This is how they teach critical thinking these days. i.e. Ignore it and it will go away.
Have fun muttering to yourself "he doesn't have a point, he doesn't have a point..."
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
But lowering it to $0.50 means that that the artist gets $0.025 per song.
Oh, I was talking about what's wrong with 0.99 in a general sense. Not in a specific sense. I still use iTunes, though, because I don't really buy that much music (I think I bought one CD in 2003), and they make it easy to get just one song without having to lock myself in or commit to buying N songs before my pseudodollars run out.
How would an independant band get on iTunes? All I can find on Apple's site is "If you are not currently a signed iTunes label, but would like to be considered, please email us to request an application." which is hardly encouraging.
What we really need is something like Fictionwise for music. Or for Fictionwise to sell music.
"Another petition, but this time it's to get the truth out about Real's petition cover up"
? notreal&1
Sign here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi
There are plenty of iTunes users and iPod owners that have never bought, and will never be forced to buy, anything from iTMS. They just load their legally purchased music from Audio CD's. The iPod and iTunes existed long before the iTMS and back then I ripped many of my legally purchased music into iTunes directly from CD. Then I got an iPod and it was months of me enjoying my music library on my iPod before I ever purchased a song from iTMS.
I can copy the file to all my devices.
The encode quality is top-notch.
There are no expirations or other gotchas.
The artists still get paid.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
shouldnt they be raising the price to pay for apple's oncoming lawsuit ;-)
Let's also not forget that Apple has licensed the Fairplay DRM to HP also with the HP branded iPod.
How would an independant band get on iTunes? All I can find on Apple's site is "If you are not currently a signed iTunes label, but would like to be considered, please email us to request an application." which is hardly encouraging.
Apple put out an invitation to many indie labels several months ago. I assume that they all have the necessary contacts to work with Apple at this point. The one thing Apple won't do is work with individual artists. This is understandable, as it would cost Apple more in supporting them than they make off of their songs.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The one thing Apple won't do is work with individual artists. This is understandable, as it would cost Apple more in supporting them than they make off of their songs.
I wonder why it might cost Apple more to put a song in their database than it does for Fictionwise to put a book or short story in their database. Perhaps you have some ideas about that you'd like to share.
You might not believe this, but there is a program called Real Alternative (as well as Quicktime Alternative) that allows you to play RealAudio and video with a third-party client. I installed it the other day...it works, and it doesn't force a reboot like Real's player.
RealAlternative
Even liberal news outlets such as DemocracyNow.org, Fair.org's Counterspin, and Air America Radio have, or still use Real exclusively, leaving me to shake my head at how little the proponents of "freedom" understand the world they are now living in.
I think you misunderstand. Apple has costs associated per relationship. i.e. Each label or audiobook publisher needs relationship management and support. Supporting individual artists would be too expensive for Apple. They could solve the problem with lots of automation, but that could result in a drop in quality.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The answer is simple: allofmp3.com
Get all the music you could want, in any format you could want (lame mp3, AAC, Vorbis, FLAC, etc.) all for about $1/GB. Incredibly cheap, and legal.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Are talking about storing the AIFFs on disc? If so, here speaks* a man** with either 1) a small CD collection, or 2) a massive storage array!
(* Well, writes. Or at least, types.)
(** Or woman. Or child. Or, well, fill in the rest yourself...)
As for 5), if that bitrate and format matches the one you'd choose for yourself anyway, and you're not likely to change it in the near future, then it's no big disadvantage.
Of course, that's why sites such as allofmp3 have become so popular, as they generally let you choose your own format, bitrate, &c, right up to AIFF.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Absolutely Nothing will get me to give Real Networks money ever again. There isn't a single more annoying advertising platform than Real Networks and getting them to cancel your account is like asking them to donate a lung.
I could well be misundrstanding, so could you elaborate? If Apple is doing production work then their costs are per-song, and if they are not doing production work what are their "relationship costs"? And what do you mean by a "drop in quality"?
This is a poor argument. If you were making this from a manufacturer/producer point of view you would have a reasonable, if vague point. However, from a retailer perspective the cost is *not* the manufacturing cost, but rather the licencing fee, which could possibly be $00.491 and thus higher than the set price.
But, even if this arguement was sound, it is still beside the point:
One way to make sure nobody makes money is to start a price war. The price pressure in digital music is absurd considering nobody is making any money yet. Starting a price war prior to even being profitable is crazy. The inevitable economic outcome is that prices fall to where the few remaining producers can sell their product at a price equal to marginal cost and, quite literally, nobody makes any money. Maybe one or two can stay alive and meet payroll, but no big bucks. This lunacy extends to people expecting it for free thanks to Pepsi and other promotions. I half expect music products to be relegated to consumer incentives passed out with dish detergent rather than purchased as an independent product.
Real's strategy is particularly suicidal (at first blush with little information) because Apple, the incumbent, *doesn't* have to make money. They add value to to their entire product line, hardware, software, and particularly the operating system by owning digital music market share.
Starting a price war with a competitor who doesn't need to make money on the product to survive and has other incentive to stay in the game is a bet against the competitor's unknown tolerance of loss against their inestimable value of other benefits the competitor percieves they gain from the market share. It is impossible to have decent information on this, especially given Apple's legendary secrecy.
I'm sure Real is convinced they are on equal footing and will reap the same rewards by adding value to their entire product line, but their product line is less versatile, less useful, less profitable, and more narrow. It is hard for me to believe 2 things: 1) that Real has as much to gain $$ by acquiring the market share they are willing to pay dearly for, and 2) that Real has the resources to outlast Apple.
On the other hand, only companies like Real and Apple will have long term interest in this market, since nobody who actually wants to make money in a stand alone music play will stay in the game. Perhaps Real just wants to flush out all competitors who aren't convinced the digital music market share will give them indirect benefits which outweigh their cash losses and leave only a few survivors of which Real expects to be one. However, i bet all competitors, probably even Apple, are overestimating the true value here, only time will tell.
Smells like an albatross to me, or perhaps a golden fleece.
I ain't no audiophile, in fact most I own is mp3s...
..." of #2. That is a horrible sin!
But for the love of god, DO NOT burn lossy-compressed to audio CD, then re-rip into lossy-compressed again!!! That makes it doubly lossy!
You were suggesting just that in the "BUT
Stop polluting my ears people!
Digital == lossy compression, since A->D is lossy :) Certainly, you may record it at 24 bits or something like that way below the treshold of human hearing, but it is not like that has ever stopped an audiophile before. It is always fun to see double blind tests compared to an audiophile playing music on his own set "Listen to THIS!". You hear what you want to hear.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
In the long run, however, promising artists and writers will be forced to take jobs to support themselves rather than continue to produce media.
...As it's always been, and is today.
Apple has no right to tell *me* what *I* can or cannot do with *my* hardware and *my* music.
They all tell you they probably won't work with non-CDs (aka crippled discs). This is like the MPAA saying "You will let us play our discs on your player", the manufacturer going "Nope" and MPAA hacking it to play on it anyway.
Apple has so many good reasons to not let an unauthorized, non-tested, potentially non-compatible format that may (for all Apple knows, and has happened to CD players and broken CDs) BREAK the iPod.
The only real alternative is to have a "Real seal" that'll record if it was ever used to play a Real song, and void any warranty/support. That would be far LESS reasonable. And just so we're straight, Apple wouldn't need to intervene if not Real was telling YOU what you can and can not do. I'm sure the iPod has no problems playing a STANDARD mp3.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
if ( isFairPlay() && bitrate == 192 )
crapOut();
Voila. All Real music just went to hell.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It sets a PRECEDENT for hardware to clone iPods. That's what Apple doesn't want, a bunch of cheap knock-offs running iTMS tunes.
Why? Just ask everyone silly enough to send you a WMA file to use a proper codec or to get lost.
Not everything is worth watching anyway.
I thought 'Harmony' was just Real's reverse engineering of FairPlay, no? They advertise RealPlayer with 'Harmony Technology.' So won't their FairPlay songs play just fine in RealPlayer no matter what Apple does? But if you put it into iTunes or on an iPod it won't work. Hence, Apple's problem.
"Harmony" is Real's term for their ability to munge from their own DRM format into something that looks like FairPlay. Looks like FairPlay enough to work on an iPod or something.
It's like this.. If I was a non-computer-geek using Real Player to transfer songs to my iPod, and it gave me an error, I'd go try to use iTunes (the offical, supported thing which actually came with the iPod), which presumably would not give me an error. Thus, I'd blame Real. Correctly, in this case.
In order for somebody to be using the Real Player software to talk to their iPod, they had to have downloaded and installed it, and then installed the iPod Plugin within the software itself.
Whereas iTunes came with the iPod.
I just disagree that Apple will be getting any calls on this one. And furthermore, I doubt they'd care, since they charge customers $50 to talk to Apple on the phone *anyway*. They don't have any free support system.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
If Apple is doing production work then their costs are per-song, and if they are not doing production work what are their "relationship costs"?
Apple has to assign resources to manage each label. That includes talking with the labels about what's going on with iTunes, managing payments, setting up a method for receiving masters, verifying that complete information is provided, etc. There's a lot of work and expense in managing business relationships. That's why direct customer relationships tend to be as automated as possible.
And what do you mean by a "drop in quality"?
In a completely automated situation Apple could no longer control what gets added to iTunes. Thus:
1. Inappropriate music or audio files may be uploaded or mislabeled.
2. Files could contain incomplete information.
3. Recording masters submitted could be very poor.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Oh, yeah. I'm sure you can trust that this company in, what is that Russia, has paid their licensing fees and everything is legal and on the up and up. ROTFLMFAO
That includes talking with the labels about what's going on with iTunes, managing payments, setting up a method for receiving masters, verifying that complete information is provided, etc.
Apple manages to deal with developers on a 1:1 basis without their costs skyrocketing. I find it hard to believe that they can't deal with artists on the same basis.
In a completely automated situation Apple could no longer control what gets added to iTunes.
You didn't say "a completely automated situation", you said "lots of automation". There's a huge gap between these two.
Also, I thought you were talking about automating the relationship management. Not the importing of albums and songs. I'm sure they're using "lots of automation" there now, but if they don't have people responsible for each song as it goes in the database I'd be very much surprised. There's undoubtedly economies of scale for larger labels, but there's a lot of labels that aren't all that large, and there's a limit to how big (or how small) these "per song" costs can get.
I suspect there's at least as much "the big labels don't want Apple to bypass the label system completely" as any technical or business reasons for this decision, and the legal problems with Apple Records would tend to keep them from starting their own label and solving it that way.
Apple manages to deal with developers on a 1:1 basis without their costs skyrocketing.
Ok, I'm going to have to go on a tangent for a minute and ask, "What the hell are you talking about?" Apple is not a bottleneck for developers. They provide an OS and tools, and the developers find their own pipeline. If Apple treated every developer as a consulting company producing software directly for Apple, then their costs would definitely skyrocket!
Also, I thought you were talking about automating the relationship management. Not the importing of albums and songs.
I am talking about business relationships. Someone has to work out the details of how those songs will get delivered to Apple, on what timeframe they have to be delivered, and if Apple has the facilities to support their methodology.
I'm sure they're using "lots of automation" there now
I'm sure they do. That doesn't prevent Apple from having to review and organize the materials and data being delivered. I have several "automated feeds" that I currently manage at my company. I'd dread the idea of having to manage thousands of those feeds.
Basically, what I'm referring to is the law of diminishing returns. If Apple adds a large number of low profit relationships to their platform, they're going to see less and less return, and hidden costs will creep in. Here's the modern variant of the law that pertains to this situation.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"What the hell are you talking about?"
Apple provides extensive developer support through the Apple Developers Connection, even for cheapskates who just have free accounts.
Someone has to work out the details of how those songs will get delivered to Apple...
"Youse non-label bands? Youse use this here website. Youse don't like that, go talk to a label."
the idea of having to manage thousands of those feeds
How about one? You seem to be assuming that Apple has to provide the same access to an independent artist as to a major label, or else provide no access at all.
Apple doesn't do that with their developers. If you're Adobe or Microsoft, they've probably got a full-time agent on site. If you're Joe Freeware, you visit the ADC site and forums. Apple avoids the law of diminishing returns by dedicating different resources to different kinds of developers. Why should music be any different?
b) have to go back to Real for a new version of their music
No, because the music Real sells isn't in this format. It's similar, but not exactly the same. The way the Harmony thing works is that they have a plugin for RealPlayer that converts from their format to the "pretend to be FairPlay" format at the time that you transfer the music to the iPod.
So you'll never have to redownload all the music. At most, you'll need an updated plugin for RealPlayer.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
It has the potential to be a huge blunder for Real with very little risk for Apple should they decide to counter
Look guys... the worst case scenario is that Real has to update their iPod Harmony Plugin to fix the problem Apple creates.
There's no possible case where Apple can disable Real's Harmony system that Real cannot work around through a pretty simple update to their software. If you have the iPod Plugin already, it'd notify you to download the new one when it called home to check for updates.
I mean, it's not like the music you bought from Real will suddenly become useless. That music is in Real's own DRM format. The plugin is what converts it and makes the music compatible with the iPod.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Why should music be any different?
1. Because this is Apple's product, not the developer's product. Site's like Apple's software listing or VersionTracker are mixed bags when it comes to the quality of the merchandise. With iTunes, Apple is able to provide consistent quality across the platform.
2. Can you unequivocally state that Apple will make more money from independent artists (many of whom are really just garage bands) than they would put into developing and managing an interface for musicians? Not to mention the customer goodwill lost if poor "music" begins polluting Apple's platform!
3. Hidden costs. Let's say that Apple requires the CD cover for the album (which they currently do). Responding to ONE support request of, "but I don't have a CD cover" would easily eat away any profits that Apple might have made off of that artist. Taking it further, an artist might upload an inappropriate image for the cover (perhaps as a placeholder, or perhaps the artist thought it was cool) and suddenly Apple finds itself spending money on a public relations nightmare. Sure, they might have pulled the image, but that doesn't stop every news source from reporting it as "a threat to our children!"
Look, you can argue this until you're blue in the face. But Apple's decisions fall in line with keeping quality high while exercising the economics of scale. If you don't like it, create a competing platform.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
With iTunes, Apple is able to provide consistent quality across the platform.
...which sits in the input queue until the intern assigned to handling unknown artists gets around to pulling it up and checking it before passing it on to the iTMS. Again, you're assuming they would provide the same access to J Random Rocker as to Bobby McFerrin.
Heh. I will agree that Apple is mostly able to provide consistent production quality across the platform, though I've listened to a few 'live' recordings there that surely wouldn't have made it if they weren't by "names". On the other hand, the production quality of the software on Apple's software listings also tends to be very high compared with equivalent libraries for other platforms. There are other metrics for quality of course, but I would hesitate before applying them even to Apple's featured selections.
Can you unequivocally state that Apple will make more money...
No, but you seem quite willing to unequivocally state that economies of scale make it impossible for them to do so.
Responding to ONE support request of, "but I don't have a CD cover" would easily eat away any profits that Apple might have made off of that artist.
Why do you keep assuming that Apple would provide the same quality of service to individual artists with no track record as they do to labels? What do you suppose happens when an unknown developer with a free ADC account has a support request? Well, there's the knowledge base for documentation and FAQs, and there's the forums. Oh, and you can also provide feedback which Apple probably reads some time or another, but they are quite clear that they don't reply.
an artist might upload an inappropriate image for the cover
But Apple's decisions fall in line with keeping quality high...
I'm not privy to Apple's internal decision making process, and neither are you. There are many reasons why they have made these decisions, and you may be right about every last one of them. On the other hand, I believe that Apple has lots of experience dealing with all the objections that you're making on the other side of their business, and it seems to me that that Apple's decisions also fall in line with the idea that they've made agreements with the labels.
I do have to acknowledge that you have helped me come to this realization, and I have to thank you for that. And, by the way, I don't have any issues with Apple making those kinds of agreements if it's what it took to get iTMS off the ground.
No, but you seem quite willing to unequivocally state that economies of scale make it impossible for them to do so.
;-)
:-)
No, I'm just saying that Apple's decisions are understandable. Making a profit off of a large number of individuals is a VERY difficult thing to do. It's not a risk that Apple needs to take, so they don't.
Why do you keep assuming that Apple would provide the same quality of service to individual artists with no track record as they do to labels?
In this case I'm not. Every time you involve a human into the process, the costs go up substantially. After credit card fees and the amount that Apple sends to the artist, Apple may not make more than 5-10 cents per sale. At 10 cents a sale, you're going to have to sell at least 20-40 copies to cover the 15 minutes it takes for an $8/hr support person to answer their question.
What do you suppose happens when an unknown developer with a free ADC account has a support request?
I suppose that Apple has already made significant margins off of his purchase of a Mac, and will make more money off of his OS X upgrade purchases, then will make even more money from all the users who flock to their platform because of the software that the developer wrote.
This is the house that Jack built...
which sits in the input queue until the intern assigned to handling unknown artists gets around to pulling it up and checking it before passing it on to the iTMS.
Which again involves a human. We'll again assume that he's paid $8/hr, but we'll lower the time to respond to 10 minutes. This tacks another 2-4 sales per song onto the break even costs.
I do have to acknowledge that you have helped me come to this realization, and I have to thank you for that.
Glad to be of service.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Every time you involve a human into the process, the costs go up substantially
... or not. That's the level of "support" I'm talking about. Over on the music side, the only human in the loop is the one who takes the song, categorises it, and puts it into iTMS.
:)
WHAT HUMAN? Did you read what I wrote?
I suppose that Apple has already made significant margins off [the developer's] purchase of a Mac
You didn't read what I wrote, did you? When one looks for support on a "free" ADC account, there is no human interaction anywhere in the process. Apple has completely automated the "business relations" part of the cycle. Once the developer has a product they have someone check it and add it to the software listing
This can easily end up a smaller per-song cost than the labels require, and they could keep most of keep the label's cut and still give the artist a better deal. And that's where I started thinking that maybe the labels wouldn't want Apple doing it.
WHAT HUMAN? Did you read what I wrote?
Yes, I read what you wrote. Although I'm having difficulty understanding how you think that humans can be completely removed from the process. Even if you don't give a musician a support address or phone number, he'll still call the main number with his stupid questions. That will cost Apple even MORE.
A good example of this was when Doom came out. All the shareware magazines stated that it needed "4MB of RAM". Of course, everyone (including myself) was trained to think in terms of "640K + 3 MB EMS/XMS". So, we all did what any good consumer would do. We looked up the Texas number for Id and called them to ask.
Not long after that, shareware magazines started printing "640K + 3M XMS".
This can easily end up a smaller per-song cost than the labels require
It's not as easy as you think. Have you ever tried selling something? It's HARD. Let me whip out some figures here.
According to this link, iTunes currently has 1 million songs available. According to this link, iTunes is selling about 70 million songs per year. That gives an average of 70 sales per song. If we extrapolate based on the 5-10 cent figure I gave above, iTunes is only pulling $3.50-$7.00 "gross profit" on each song. Subtract the costs of getting those songs loaded in the first place, and Apple is dealing in VERY thin margins.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If it stops working, the user will have a pretty bad experience even if it is just a case of updating the Real plugin.
The first instance of failure a user will see is while away from the computer, using the iPod - thus will not be able to update for at least a while.
That's why I think Real has a worse position - they can make a lot more people mad at them than Apple. Just look at the recent story on troubles Real is ahving with online petitions.
Real also suffers from having people predisposed to hating them based on past behavior, and shaky songs that mysteriously stop working will not help the image.
I feel bad because I want to like Real a lot as I think that having another independant format is important. But Real makes it very hard to do so, and I sure would never buy music from them - even cheap music. It's just not worth the hassle they've set themselves (and the users) up for.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I guess I just have more experience with companies that have a more or less completely automated relationship with large numbers of people. Of course you can't eliminate the people who demand to speak to a person, but you can reduce it to the point where you're not losing money on each sale and making it up in volume.
This isn't 1990 and people today wouldn't flood ID software with calls to find out what the requirements for DOOM are. They're used to going to a company's website to get answers... in fact you'll find that increasingly people are going to the website and then only reluctantly dropping back to a slow motion human-in-the-loop delay. Especially the younger folks who Apple's clearly targeting with iTMS.
After credit card fees and the amount that Apple sends to the artist, Apple may not make more than 5-10 cents per sale.
The gross revenues from a sale are documented: iTMS makes 35c, the label makes around 55c, and if the artist's advances have been repaid and the label is honest the artist gets the rest. Now let's say Apple works directly with the artist and initially pays him twice what the label does... Apple gets 80c, the artist gets 20c. Assuming you're right and Apple's making 5-10c after credit card fees on that 35c, this would increase the gross revenues to about 50c per song.
I know iTMS is running on thin margins. But they're managing it because they have largely automated the interface with their customers. Have you ever called Apple with a problem with iTMS? Do you know anyone who has? And it's not because there's no problems with iTMS, god knows... I'm sure there's still a few people who still call them, and I'm sure a few artists would as well... but enough to even notice among the customers?
Like I said, I could be completely wrong, but I don't think the business case for sticking to labels only is anywhere near as clear as you're making out.
Whatever turns your crank, man, it's your money. I find the search to be fun but that's just me. You seem a little bit uptight, by the way. Relax, it's just music.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries