Slashdot Mirror
Ask RealNetworks CEO Rob Glaser
RealNetworks has always been more Linux-friendly than other streaming media purveyors, and is now moving closer to the open source camp with its Helix Community effort. More recently, Real has made a big media splash by selling downloadable tunes in an iPod-compatible format. Does any of this matter, considering that world + dog seems to be jumping on the downloadable multimedia bandwagon? Can Real once again become "the" streaming media leader? Will Real's 49 cent "limited time only" song download price force other music download vendors to cut their prices? We have no idea, but hopefully Rob Glaser does. He's promised to answer your questions personally (rather than have PR people speak for him). So ask whatever you like. We'll forward 10 of the highest-moderated questions to him by email and post his answers soon after he gets them back to us.
Since RealNetworks is all for "compatibility" and getting their stuff to play on the iPod, when do they plan to offer support for Macintosh users in the Rhapsody music store?
To have so many people hate your company/product? And I mean really hate, with a fiery passion?
Cheers,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
"Considering Real's brand has been so badly trashed by being 'that obnoxious spyware' company for so long; and your name is closely associated with it -- have you ever considered changing the name and resigning so the company can start focusing on the positives?"
If Apple continues to make a
Buffering....
Buffering....
fuss about this, does Real have any plans
Buffering....
Buffering....
to develop a competing portable music player?
Rob, why doesn't Real drop all the pretense of desiring to have an interoperable solution with the Ipod and actually use one for their downloads site? The Ipod supports a few standard file formats and one DRM encumbered one. If Real were really about customer choice, they'd sell non DRM encumbered files and then be able to shout from a mountain that their music works with the Ipod as well as almost every other digital media player.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Can you please release a free .rm -> .avi converter. Please!
Given the ongoing struggle for control of content distribution via proprietary formats, do you see any hope for more vendor neutral formats that don't tie customers to one particular 'technology'? It seems that constantly changing formats often have more to do with vendor lockin than genuine technological differentiation. What is Real doing to improve this situation and are other vendors likely to cooperate?
Boy, this question is really flirting with the line. Real has become one of those companies that geeks put in the catagory of "wouldn't piss on if they were on fire". How are they trying to fix those mistakes? Cutting the price isn't enough when people feel tainted for even using your product.
Never confuse volume with power.
Okay, please leave out lame cliches like this when posting to slashdot. It makes me sad.
Why does Real player force you to install 100 things you don't need and place icons everywhere, add bloated background tasks / services, insert an item into the task tray, popup daily "real news", take over major formats, etc, when many people only use it to view videos that aren't in any other format? Why don't any of the major software companies offer a lean clean, cruft free version of their software? If REAL offered that, I'd pay for the minimal version before the expanded one!
Will your company ever stop the spyware attacks on users of your products?
Why should we believe anything you say?
One of my biggest frustrations with the HelixPlayer as it stands today it its use of the Gnome HIG (Human Interface Guidelines). I don't care whether you use GTK2 or Qt, or what licensing you prefer, or anything like that. My question is this: using the toolkit you deem best, on the licensing terms you deem best, are you ever going to release a HelixPlayer for non-Gnome desktops? If not, do you see this lack of integration with many (perhaps most) Linux users' desktops as a liability? Are you counting on "community support" to add this feature, or would RealNetworks commit resources to it?
Real has gone from a company that I once recommended to being viewed as antagonistic with its customers. From webpages that misdirect people to the non-free Real player, to the ever bloated software, spyware etc. Now it seems as Real is going down the "me too" road, and instead of creating a product people search for, is just another pea in the iPod (sorry about the pun).
Why exactly would I look to Real for anything? What is better (other than price) about anything Real has to offer, compared to Apple, Microsoft, etc? What compelling reason do you offer for me to again look at Real?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Just so we can move on to the serious questions, please put all "Buffering..." jokes below this post.
What prompted the creation of the Helix community? Does Real see open source as a way to differentiate themselves from Apple and Microsoft, or where there other considerations?
As it is, RealPlayer is universally despised for several reasons, many of them valid. the few that grind me are:
1. It's more than one click away from the main website.
2. It tries to take over your system as a default media system and sign you up for all kinds of spam on install.
3. It's BUTT ugly. It looks like the rejects from the XP UI team were hired to design it, when the rejects from the QuickTime UI team would have been a better choice.
4. I can't DL the content of RealMedia, like I can with mpeg or quickTime.
5. It's a bit [buffering 10%] too eager [buffering 25%] to send media [buffering 40%] before it's [buffering 75%] ready. And scrubbing [buffering 85%] is nearly [buffering 95%] impossible.
Fix these problems, and people might take Real Seriously. So the question is:
WHEN are you going to fix these OBVIOUS deficiencies that have plagued the player for YEARS?
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
What would you do if the next version of Quicktime could play .rm files, even ones with DRM? Suppose that they respect the DRM, and only play on authorized computers. Suppose Quicktime Pro were capable of creating .rm files with DRM.
Why shouldn't Apple do this?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
hi
could real allow people to create and sign their REAL media that they created at no cost ?
so allow people to create their own online stores rather than sign up to itunes or MSN
this way you just sell server software to ISP's and streaming people (profitable)
regards
John Jones
A long time ago, when Windows 3.1 was new, I appreciated RealPlayer for it's cutting edge technology and highly-optimized video/audio codecs.
But as time went on, Real became a company I distrusted due to their spyware-like behaviour and the fact they tried to hide options to disable said behaviour in their software.
It has gotten to the point where MANY computer users I know simply refuse to install ANY Real products on their computers anymore and even boycott web sites that offer content in Real-only format.
So, why should I trust your company now? How has any of that changed?
Thanks.
Disclaimer - The preceding may have resembled a flame or troll to those who cannot tell the difference between an honset question and a troll.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Are you concerned at all that Apple might sue Real under the DMCA for basically hacking the iPod to allow compatibility between Real and the iPod? If Apple does do this, what measures are you taking to make sure that the files people buy from Rhapsody will continue to play on their iPod after Apple locks Harmony out using a firmware update or something similar, and would you offer refunds to people with iPods who purchased music on Rhapsody?
Remember when you fired us all with no warning and stole all our stock options through a technicality?
That sucked.
Buffering... 38%
Buffering... 12%
Buffering... 24%
Why was Real unable to license the FairPlay technology from Apple? Did Apple simply refuse, or were their terms unworkable?
I am the maverick of Slashdot
While I find it wonderful that Real has embraced Linux, your subsidiary, listen.com, seems antagonistic toward Linux, making it quite clear that they have no plans at this time to move their Rhapsody player to Linux. This tells me of a bit of a dichotomy in your company. Are there plans to resolve this?
This sig no verb.
Why is the free version the hardest version to find on your website?
Why must I choose a custom install and play a game of "catch-em-all" to avoid some of these issues?
Why does Real assume I'm interested in news, updates, libraries, or any of the nonsense that it is configured for by your company?
In short, why does Real feel the need to be so Obnoxious? These are "real" questions posed by "real" users, like here and supported by your own employees!
I'd seems to me very clear that with big players entering market competition will be too high to get profit/significant market share. :)?
Does Real thinking to join resources with any other companies providing similar service?
MS, for example, was always big enemy of Real, but isn't time to forget and cooperate
I think company on this market needs to have hardware backed support. Apple have it, Sony can have it, MS definitely have it. Real?
Strategically speaking, Real doesn't look to be in a very promising position. Its technology, once unique (RealAudio), is now ubiquitous. Its marketing has been, by any account of which I am aware, a disaster. Now it seems like there is no area in which Real has any real strength or over its competitors - RealMedia is eclipsed by Windows Media, iTunes rules the day in downloading and Microsoft is entering that market as well.
Rob, what advantages does Real bring to the table? What can Real do that no other company can do? Why does Real exist? What the hell are you doing?
If other companies come down in price and either meet or beat Real won't that leave them trailing? How do they plan to compete with the others (especially in the future)?
I say we just grow up, be adults and die.
Off-topic, but since when has Real been so friendly to Linux? Not trolling, I genuinely hadn't noticed that. I mean, if open source is the only criteria then QuickTime Streaming Server has been open source for years.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Many questions will center around this topic I'm sure, but hopefully I'm asking a unique question here:
In your PR for Harmony - you stated that this was a ground up software approach.
Was there ANY reverse engineering?
I also find it VERY hard to believe that you didn't borrow some code from HYMN to produce this software - will you emphatically and categorically deny any code borrowing or reverse engineering?
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
There's a lot of spin going on at Real's new Freedom of Music Choice site. Clearly, Real was not expecting such a profound and immediate backlash. It must be frustrating that Apple gets to be both an underdog and a monopoly at the same time. But despite the feel good claims on your Freedom site (did you really write those?), your price drop, reverse engineering, and activism are hardly riling up the public. What have you learned from this?
Real products are bloat stuffed with ads, since when did people start paying attention to them? Did they give you money do this?
Harmony!=FairPlay
apple could keep upgrading Fairplay [just like yahoo and msn keep upgrading their authentication scheme
of their IMs to keep away third-party IM's like gaim and trillian]...
would Harmony keep up with Fairplay just as well ?.
fifteen jugglers, five believers
I'm not trying to be facetious.
I presume it has something to do with charging for access to premium content, such as CNN, MLB, ESPN, etc. So you're in cooptition with AOL, VIACOM, etc. Once they figure out how to hook their streaming servers into LDAP (Darwin/QTSS) or Active Directory (whatever M$ junk there is) for authentication and access control, where are you when the contracts run out?
It also has something to do with both client software and server infraware. So you're competing with Apple (which owns the decade(s) old standard Quicktime) and Microsoft (which owns the desktop).
Your server software is crap compared to Apache + Darwin/QTSS in terms of scalability and security infrastructure (authentication and access control in RealServer is a nightmare). As much as I hate M$ software in general, they at least integrate their streaming junk AFAICR.
Your free client software is impossible to track down on your website, and the quality compared to MPEG4/3GPP? Questionable.
There's an awful lot of rocks and hard places you're caught between. How do you anticipate not being crushed?
Revisionist.
Microsoft used to own Real.
I like the idea of Real Movies and would love to be able to use it with my Gameshark Mediaplayer. When or will Real support Linux and other alternative platforms such as PS2/Gameshark Mediaplayer with it's Real Movies/Starz Ticket products?
Like many of you I too used Real in the begining. They had a good product and were one of the only players. Now the image of Real is horrible. One of my users asked me about Real and I informed him that I would do my best to FIRE any employee using Real Player at work.
So, what are you going to do to remedy all the hate people have for your company? Do you think that selling music for half the cost of others is enough for people to put up with your sub-par software?
Is is just me or did anyone else shed a tear when Winamp was devoured by AOL.
Regarding your little PR war with Apple: Did you ever consider the stunning hypocrisy of your publicly complaining that Apple doesn't offer its users choice of online music stores, and then turning around and making a music store that only supports computers that run Windows?
How successful os the Real Movies partnership with Starz? I am a paid subscriber, and so far the service has been pretty impressive - I can download a 100 movies at any point, and 25 new ones are added each week. Are there any future plans for the Starz/Real partnership?
Will you offer the movies that currently play in movie theaters for additional fees? Will you offer the movies that just came out on DVDs?
Will you promote independent movies and if I work for an independent studio, how can we strike a partnership with Real Networks to distribute the content to your subscribers in some affordable way?
Why do you think that by offering cheap downloads, people will want to use Real's bloatware? Real used to be the leading edge, along with Microsoft's sleek old version of Media Player. Will Real ever go back to the old days?
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Mr. Glaser, What is your stance towards the reverse engineering of codecs and encryption schemes meant to create a glimmer of profitability in an industry plagued by pirates? What would you do if a competitor such as Microsoft reverse engineered the Real codec to turn a profit?
Please open source these formats because I don't what to install a different mediaplayer for each format - it's boring.
----
While all the topics presented at the beginning of this thread are interesting, I think most slashdot users (and real users in general) are much more interested in the various foolish choices made in the design of the real player client. Why is the "express" installation so horribly unusable and why is it made so difficult to turn off all the various disruptive features of real player when you do a custom installation (i.e. setting it up so that it doesn't hijack all your file associations, make icons everywhere, etc.). I mean, come on, nobody wants to view JPEGs with real player and hardly anybody wants real player in their quicklaunch tray. Furthermore, since I know Real has addressed these issues in the past and promised a less hostile installer, what the heck is keeping you guys! And on a more aesthetic note, I think it was a silly choice to make real one use a non-standard window. It just looks stupid.
Real continues to lose money. you're running low on cash. How long can you last before the Apple/Microsoft juggernaut crushes you?
When I order a whopper, I get it with the things I want and without the things I don't. They've never tried to sneak in anything I don't want and they've always been open and honest about where things are.
Real on the other hand (this is still Real folks, call em whatever you want, but they're still bad) sneaks in spyware that you didn't ask for when you install their "free" version, if you can find it on their website. They may argue that this is all legal, sure it is, they've hidden all these underhanded activities within their lame-assed long-assed terms of service.
Anytime since they went south of Hades with their business practices (1998 ?) I've asked everyone I've met that distributed content via the real format to try and install a clean free version similar to what their visitors/customers might do.
I don't recall any of them that didn't have an alternate format available within a few months.
All this in mind, will you peckerheads still treat everyone else this same way?
Not that I'd trust real again ever, kinda reminds me of a gal I met with crabs, sure it was fun at the time, but I sure paid later eh?
Dear Mr. Glaser, If you could push a button knowing that simultaneously a person in another land you would never meet were to die and one million dollars were to be deposited in to you bank account of choice, would you do it?
Do you hope that at one point in time Real's position on open-source will encourage hardware manufacturers of portable music devices to port their drivers to linux (i.e. Dell's Jukebox) and use a Real program as a music library program? In other words does Real hope to push the linux perspective into the media market? As a linux user I feel a little left out of the hype because even though it's growing it doesn't seem like enough corporations bother to notice it.
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
I would think that it will be impossible for you to compete with Microsoft and Apple in the long-term both regarding streaming media (MS will never let you own this) and music downloads (besides, I take it that Apple is MS's fig leaf of choice with the anti-trust people). Why will you survive and are you really just looking to sell the company to the highest bidder - e.g, MS or Apple?
Do you regret putting spyware/adware on people's computers. How do you plan to regain our trust?
As in incite. Simple error, anyone could make it, really.
My question to Mr.Glaser is this: Real has made much of its Opensource initiatives, but why is it that the OSS Helix Player is not available for Windows?
Helix must build on Windows as its the basis for all your software, but Win32 users are forced to use the RealPlayer, which some may find undesirable... while other platforms have the option of Helix without proprietary codecs. Is this really choice ?
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
I've noticed that there have been a lot more movies in WMV format ever since Microsoft released the Windows Movie Maker (which, like iMovie, saves movies only in the company's format). Why dosn't Real do the same? I'd love to be able to play my friend's home movies on my Linux box with RealPlayer.
Many techies consider Real Player (Windows clients) an unfriendly application (resource intensive, invasive, and hard to remove) and avoid installing it whenever possible. Is Real aware of the poor image in regards to this? If so, what steps are they taking to fix the problem.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
From everything I've read, the margins in the paid music downloads business are razor-thin, since the overwhelming majority of the money goes to the record labels, and most of what little is left apparently just pays for costs (Apple's major motivation in offering the iTMS is reportedly simply as a way to promote iPod sales). Is all this true? If not, what is a more accurate breakdown, and if so, why bother? Obviously there are lots of companies offering downloadable songs for small amounts of money, but hardly anyone seems to be making anything from it. Real in particular has gone to fairly considerable lengths to attempt to offer DRM'd downloads that'll play on the iPod, and to sweet-talk or arm-twist Apple into allowing it. Why? What's the attraction, if there's so little money to be had from song downloads in the first place?
It's well known by now that freedomofmusicchoice.org is just an astroturfing attempt. It has generated a lot of backlash. Were there any ethical debates about launching such a site? What was the internal reaction at Real to the backlash?
How can you claim to be pro-open source and pro-Linux, but maintain a website (according to former webmasters) where the free and linux versions of your player are intentially obfuscated and hidden?
Do it for da shorties
Whatever you may think about the company, real audio and video has been for me a way to enjoy good and free content for a long time. From BBC and French news report to on line concert streaming, I probably listened more than a real stream by day. The release of the Linux player was a good thing, but I really miss two functionality, the "play in real player" which I use to play video full screen, and the play list with which RealPlayer would probably be my player of choice under Linux. So my question is, how long until I get the same functions in Linux and in Windows?
I hate how when they ask you stuff you want to install just after the visible window all the stuff is checked off and the underhanded tactics they use. Their applications are so close to mal-ware it's crazy. Real can burn for all I care.
When is Real or any other music service going to be offering content in lossless file formats? I find that listening to compressed audio hurts what the Musicians intended when going to these expensive recording studios to get that "high end" recording.
Now that broadband consists of 52 percent of the United States internet connections, when will my needs as an audiophile be met?
Like many people, I'm stuck in a conundrum. I don't want to buy CDs any more because I think music should be cheaper due to cheap electronic distribution. I buy occasionally from iTunes, but fears about "losing my music" when my iBook dies and I forget to back it up often enough or some other weird technical thing renders me music-less because of DRM scares me. And I spend a lot of time listening to music on unsupported players. I like xmms, and I'm going to keep using it, so iTunes means I have to burn+rip to convert stuff. (I finally compiled hymn, but need my key off my iBook, I'm lazy, and xmms's aac player module seems to not compile...*sigh*)
I have basically all the money I want to spend on music. But whether tracks are $.39 or $.99 or $1.99 means nothing to me if I'm worried about just losing them. Some of this music I've already had ripped ot mp3 for like 7+ years now, and I can't even count the number of computers I've gone through, and it's nice and portable.
I think at some point, a brave label or two will band together, open their own store, and just offer raw 160+kbps mp3s for something cheap - probably $.49 to $1.49 for singles (probably based on the buzz level), $2.99 to $9.99 for a cd (again, popularity based pricing)... and will open the floodgates. They will do so much business they will be absolutely stunned. Ever music consumer will be amazingly spending 3x what they use to be. Record companies will be delightfully rolling in profits; consumers will be awash in music and ecstatic... everyone wins. Artists who couldn't sell CDs in the bargain bin will find audiences who will pay $2.99 for their albums, and the music industry as a whole will launch into a new era of growth.
We can only hope they realize that peoplpe hate hurdles, and DRM stops more customers from buying than it stops pirates from buying. Anyone with a clue should realize that a lot of music pirates will NOT buy music regardless of whether its free or not. If it is, they'll get it; if not, they won't. But either way, they won't pay. But many customers will pay for unencumbered music but will buy minimally or not at all from the DRM bin.
Would you consider Steve's rejection of your proposal more of the hubris for which he is famous and does it ultimately doom Apple to being a niche player?
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
You took great pains to make it hard to find the free version of your player on your website.
You made an application that ignored my wishes and took over the playback duties for certain file formats, when I specifically chose otherwise.
You made an application that sneakily hid pre-checked subscription boxes, to trick people into getting on your junk mail lists.
You made an application that put annoying, blinking icons in the systray that wouldn't go away permanently without me editing the registry to make them stop launching.
Whether or not you still do any of the above, all that matters is that those things were done at one time and as a result, there's still a great deal of lingering ill will toward your company. What makes you think Real has any credibility left amongst the users it has mistreated and attempted to deceive over the years?
Real has done a fair job at supporting Linux, but does Real have any plans on doing music/video delivery systems to embedded platforms such as Tivo? I would imagine one way to boost useage would be to be supported in the Xbox, PS2, or Tivo to force more content to be publish in Real's formats.
STFU, Mercatur
Most questions here are tech related, but what about the business side of Real? Here's the question I'd ask:
Real doesn't seem to understand brand value (or at least doesn't seem to care about it). Their player went from RealPlayer to RealOne and now back to RealPlayer. Helix is a mishmash of community, DRM, and servers. There's no easy way to specify which Real product you're talking about at any given time. From a history of difficult-to-find links, to bloated software, to intrusive advertising, to lack of new innovations, to a run-silent PR strategy, brand equity in the Real name continues to reach new lows.
Real obviously does not understand branding. Does Real intend to learn here?
Give serendipity a chance.
As has been posted in countless other Slashdot bitch-sessions, Real has offered a "cruft-free" version for quite some time now:
http://forms.real.com/rnforms/products/tools/red/
The name "RealNetworks" causes most people to run for the hills. Reading some of these posts and you will see why. Until they rebrand themselves they are going to be screwed. They can have teh oober media but as long it is RM they are fucked (and I guess you are too :P).
Rob, Why didn't RealNetworks agree to work with Apple on iPod support when they came to you 2 years ago? (MusicMatch was Apple's 2nd choice)
As much hated Real is, I haven't heard the whole story?
Why does your company suck so bad?
Hi Rob,
I'd like to know why www.real.com is so difficult to use? At my college we offer streaming RealAudio content and recommend to our visitors downloading a FREE RealPlayer to listen. However, I can never point them to a specific webpage for that FREE RealPlayer! Adobe.com makes it very easy for webmasters to point visitors towards a free PDF Reader. Why can't your company do the same??? The slick marketing is really getting in the way of useability.
Thanks,
Luke
This is a stupid question, don't waste an interview question on something like this.
The answer is as follows:
To compete with Napster 2.0, MSN Music and iTunes, Real needs to have a similar amount of music available to them, and a similar amount of big names.
The big names are, for the most part, only available through labels that are members of the RIAA. You can gripe about this if you want, but the fact is that the artists *signed* the form to grant the label distribution rights, and that's exactly what the label is doing.
For Real to get these big names, they need to deal with the RIAA. The RIAA has shown in the past that it will not endorse any music that is not restricted in some fashion... either streaming, or DRM. If the best Steve Jobs could do was 7 playlist burns, you can bet that Real can't do any better.
There. I just answered the question and I'm not even CEO of anything at all. Poof.
Comment of the year
blah blah blah, APPLE IS SOOOO MUCH BETTER THAN YOU! blah blah blah OPEN-SOURCE SUCKS! blah blah blah BUFFERING JOKES FROM WHEN WE USED DIAL-UP AND FORGOT THAT WAS THE CAUSE OF BUFFERING blah blah blah I LOVE APPLE I HATE YOU blah blah blah BUFFERING JOKE AGAIN blah blah blah BUY APPLE PRODUCTS NOW!!! blah blah blah ETC. ETC. ETC.
Now look at the thread and tell me this isn't accurate.
Though the Helix initiative is an EXCELLENT step forward, I'm curious if Real will be providing open-source, backwards compatability encoders and decoders for previous versions of RP. A lot of companies have stuck with older versions for various reasons, but it would be nice to have a drop-in replacement for existing technologies rather than having to upgrade everything (including older movies/streams.)
-What have you contributed lately?
Rob,
= zd nn
Is there any difference between Apple invoking the DMCA on Real's reverse engineering of FairPlay and Real's prior DMCA invocation against Streambox?
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-517481.html?legacy
Also, what is your favorite kind of pie?
Taking all of the questions about your installer that drops unwanted icons and adware into account, why do you rely on consumer choice? It seems that RealPlayer is forced on us the by content providers who choose it, and we're dragged along, often unwillingly. Why not implement a transparent plugin for Windows Media Player? It's worked well for XviD and DivX. All I want is RM files to play in my existing media player. I don't want my computer to become a billboard! Real's really success depends on the content providers; allow them to easily use your format!
Rob, What will you do when Apple breaks your downloaded files with an iPod update? Will you refund the customers money if the files do not play. Since you have burned your bridge in licensing fairplay what will happen when your reversing engineering rises to the level of code theft?
And as a side question, How come your company sued another company reverse engineering your codecs? Seems what should be good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Yes, because he wouldn't have to audacity to forward our questions to his PR people, and then reply with their responses, would he?
Slashdotters and open-source types are just a new target market for them. I think they view us as Honda views street racers - not a significant enough chunk to make money from, but damn, does it give you street cred if they like your products. Every public response they make to us will be vetted to appeal to that demographic.
-j
Guys, this is old, wrong data. Go to www.real.com on either your windows or linux box to see the new experience. Its staight forward.
Let's not waste questions on old data but ensure the strategy questiosn get mod'd up.
How long has it been since you visited the site?
If you go to real.com using a linux machine you should directly go to the free linux player page. Likewise on windows.
Please do check for yourself.
-V
--
As a result, I've given up on ever wanting to install any Real software on any Windows computer again for that precise reason, and have so advised my friends when they ask about using Real Player. Instead I get by on WinAmp, WMP, and an older version of QT.
What do you have to say to someone like me?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Do you agree that the pricing of Real server software solutions and pay per connection licensing has compromised your client's popularity due to content providers choosing more cost effective solutions (i.e QuickTime Streaming Server) ?
Helix/Real Player can't become *the* Linux media player without supporting more formats. How come you don't create a GStreamer plugin and a new fresh Real-designed GUI?
So Real is complaining about Apple not opening up the iPod? This is from the company that: 1. Misdirects site visitors to sectioned sites of their homepage over and over and over again trying to hawk their paid player. 2. Still hasn't produced a Mac encoder worth 2cents. 3. And while they want Apple to let them in, they still keep Macs out since Rhapsody is Windows only? Let them burn. I can't wait to see the spin on his replies. Jobs Distortion Field will have nothing on Glaser's....
Finally, do you feel that the OSS community sometimes is so dogmatic that it actually ends up eating its own young?
Are you trying to get bought?
Thanks for the update. It is much nicer now!
I was so turned off by past experiences with Real (hidden links, excessive ads, etc) that I haven't kept up-to-date with the latest news.
It's nice that it's much easier now to download the free client.
-c
Do it for da shorties
Real is one of the few companies left that controls a common file format and doesn't also publish an OS. And they're everywhere, from Amazon to NPR. Spyware? DRM? Distractions. This is the ball game. Nothing else matters.
Since RealPlayer is available for Linux, I went to your online music store to download some music. It informed me that the tracks are available for download only to Windows users. Is this going to change?
Does he secretly dream of having a homosexual relationship with Steve Jobs?
In this time of ethics (and their lack) at the corporate level, how do you feel Real measures up in having EARNED (not just claimed) customer trust.
Do you compare yourselves to folks like Google who even my mother trusts totally?
I ask this in light of your consistent corporate behavior, which has included:
- You used to spam me to no end. And this spamming was EPIC, I still can not believe how much junk you, and how impossible it was to stop getting it.
- Your player started taking over my system, including "important" pop up messages in my "message center" that were nothing but commercial pitches. Do you have any idea what is important in people's lives? Not buying more goldpass/superpass combo's!
- This behavior was clearly calculated, and the options to disable this bloated junk was extremely hard to access or enable (it poped up a warning dialog).
- The fact that corporate help desk folks shudder when end users express install the end user version of the real player virus on their PC's.
- The fact that when I visit older folks I inevitably find that their system has been taken over by Real, and that in addition to the desktop, system tray, message center junk, the associations they have selected (IMAGES in Realplayer? please) make no sense.
Have you focused on serving your customers, or screwing the folks who installed your software for as much cash as you could get from them while hiding behind claims of "features" and "benefits".
Before you claim trust, you have to change the people behind the claim.
...be including any windows media support, in particular the ability to play any of the latest .asf files?
How is new music is added the Music Store, and can individual artists add their music without major label backing?
Why do I have to call your company to unsubscribe from premium services (ie. SportsPass, Starz, etc.). If I start the unsubscribe process on-line, all I end up with is a phone number. I have a feeling this is done so that when a customer calls, the 'sales rep' who answers can offer them something free in exchange for not canceling. While this may help your bottom line, it is not a great way to engender loyalty and happiness in customers.
It seems that if I can sign up for it online, I should be able to cancel online.
So now that Real is all about Open Source and all that, what would keep Real from offering the option of Vorbis for music downloads?
The Free desktop that Just Works
Can you imagine it? The scene: Real HQ - the players: CEO Rob Glaser, Marketing person M1...
Scene 1: The office
Rob Glaser (for it is he!) - Our sales are dropping off - we need to be number one!
M1 - Let us set up an itunes knock-off site, and try and get the unwashed masses to buy our stuff rather than itunes by enlisting "community support"
RG: It's cunning, it's fruity, it's the vogue - let's do it!
Scene 2: The same office - 3 months later
RG (face pale with continued dropping off of sales) - You know M1, this hasn't been as great as I'd expected
M1 - Yes, you know what would be a great idea to support our strategy of enlisting the great unwashed masses? Well let's go on some hip website and offer ourselves to answer any questions they like?
RG - And what would that accomplish?
M1 - Well we can amaze them with our strong rhetoric about bringing down the evil corporate masses - that's bound to increase sales!
RG - Hmmmm... OK then
Scene 3 - the office, 30 minutes later
RG - Why is everbody posting questions asking why we are so evil and why everyone hates us?
M1 (exhant, stage left!)
RG - M1? M1! This is awful! We are doomed!
To be continued...
If Real is so interested in Linux support, why doesn't the Real Music Store support Linux? Open-source browsers?
From the Music Store page:
"Downloads are only available on PCs running Windows 98 and up and with:
* Internet Explorer 5.5, or newer
* Netscape 7.0, or newer"
665: The mark on the forehead of Satan's slightly less evil brother, Stan.
1. If (according to Real) companies intelectual property is free and open for all to use why has real not allowed other companies to use their 3rd rate codecs for compatability?
.49 cent song sales?
.49 cent downloads will really stick around (let alone keep your software installed on their machine) once your price goes up?
m l Petition against Real's disinformation site.
a ses/press_release.2004-08-16.4611152974 Moronic company that for some reason supports real (paid off)
2. Have you considered the low carb diet fad?
3. Have you considered finalizing your contract with the devil early by killing yourself?
4. Why is it so difficult NOT to include privacy invading software with your other mostly "crappy" products?
5. Why were all the PUBLIC'S messages removed from the freedomofmusicchoice.org site?
6. How long are Real's investors willing to lose money due to the
7. Do you REALLY think that the abusers of your
REAL HATERS UNITE!
http://www.petitiononline.com/notreal/petition.ht
http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/press-rele
Real Networks is a 3rd rate company, that makes 3rd rate software, and is ran by a 3rd rate human being.
How can you live with yourself? Specifically, how can you even pretened to be an ethical person when your software is all about manipulating people (in the most insidious ways possible) into signing up for shit they don't really want?
For specifics, see this site, in particular the following tidbit:
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
All your products please?
Pretty please?
"/Dread"
Hey Rob:
I sit a few rows behind you at the M's. I notice that your seats go empty a lot. Why not donate them the day of to a charity like Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Seattle? I'm sure they would get used even if you put them up an hour before the game.
Also what's up with your lady situation now a days? How am I supposed to gossip if I can't keep track of who is who. Maybe you should hand out a pamphlet to Jerry and he can distribute them when he tosses out candy to us during the stretch.
thanks
-drew
Also I'm sorry for heckling you a few years ago when the Real Networks Jumbo Tron was messing up and I yelled "Hey the Real board is dropping frames."
This
Notice the use of the past tense which indicates my knowledge of what you so graciously pointed out:
"You took great pains..." Past tense.
"You made..." Past tense.
And finally there's this sentence: "Whether or not you still do any of the above, all that matters is that those things were done at one time..."
If this is true, I officially am banning anything having to do with Real for all of time.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
RealNetworks has always been more Linux-friendly than other streaming media purveyors, and is now moving closer to the open source camp with its Helix Community effort.
.rm format still .. (buffering) .. sucks ass.
Linux-friendly??!?! But we're supossed to HATE RealMedia! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Now seriously, the Linux client has (for a while) been infinitely better than it's Windows counterpart. Reasonably unbloated, and works just as it should. To bad the
Anyway, my question would be the same as MikeMacK's (please mod it up): what exactly is driving RealMedia to embrace open source with the Helix player?
Will Real ever reimburse me for the cd I purchased to get the player - load it, and then be informed a month later that I would have to "update" my player at additional cost? It wouldn't of been so bad if it had maintained functionality, but without the upgrade - wel gosh gee darn - I could'nt watch the new content out. I'm sorry - but investing 50 dollars for a product that worked for a month was wrong - and I've made sure that none of my family or friends ever invested, or used your product ever since.
So I suppose I should clarify - would it be worth refunding my money to try to attract customers? Or are you satisfied with me telling my eight people (according to that business rule about disgruntled customers) to avoid Real and its associated products like it was the plague?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Are there any plans to make Rhapsody start using RealAudio and/or AAC as its audio codec format, as opposed to WMA as it stands currently? As is the question on everyone else's minds, are there any plans to bring Rhapsody to Linux and/or Mac in the near future?
Also, are there any plans to make Rhapsody and the RealPlayer Music Store combine into one single program, as opposed to the two separate efforts today? (For those not in the know, the RPMS sells 192kbit DRM AAC files, while Rhapsody is purely streaming only) To me, it would make more sense to combine the two, following a format akin to Napster.
Are there are any plans in the future to create a slimmed down RealPlayer, similar to the ones now available for Linux and OSX, where there is no integrated browser control and all it does is play RealMedia files, and does that well?
I've been in the computer industry since 1995 or so. In that time, I've seen lots of software come and go, and lots of less-than-ethical tricks to keep users hooked on one piece of software instead of another. In my 9 years or so, I've never seen any product as consistently sneaky as Real's media player. I remember back when RealAudio would make itself the default player for every media type it could without asking, which would annoy the tech-savvy user and scare those of us that are less technical.
While it seems that Real has backed its intrusiveness down a notch during the install, I still feel like Real is telling me what to do on my computer instead of the other way around. For example - Telling Real not to start when windows starts is no easy task. I have to go through 3 or four submenus in the preferences until I find the vaguely-named SmartCenter (or StartCenter? I don't have a machine handy to doublecheck the name). Even then, when I tell it not to start with Windows, I am greeted by a scary warning message. Even with SmartCenter disabled, Real's update service still lives in my registry, starting every time I boot windows.
So my question is, why try so hard to force your software on the user? Is it worth the market share to anger and confuse your core audience? Mention Real to the average user, and their first response is "I hate that software. I wish I knew how to delete it."
I've always been taught that it's best to make your customers happy, instead of holding them hostage. Does your business model say otherwise?
Real doesn't need to compete with iTunes Music Store. They just need to turn a profit. If the current market leader, Apple, is having a difficult time turning profits from DRM encumbered music sales from the record oligopoly, then Real should try a different method.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
What's the first thing Real will do when Apple finally breaks Helix, as it certainly will?
If you honestly believe Real is friendly to Open Source then how would you compare Real to IceCast and ShoutCast?
Both of these streaming media systems are freely available in not just client but server form and have worked well with Linux distros for years before Helix was started. In addition, they work with unencumbered formats. IceCast even uses the Open Source variable bitrate codec Ogg Vorbis that produces sound that in my experience is far better than RealAudio at low bitrates.
Most importantly, these systems allow streams in open formats to be downloaded to the local hard drive while this is something that Real continues to resist.
On the balance, I'm hard pressed to understand how someone would seriously suggest that Real brings something of value to Open Source.
I'd only piss on them if they weren't on fire.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
How does RealNetworks intend to combat foreign MP3 sites which offer downloads at aprox. 5-10 cents per song, in DRM-free formats such as mp3search.ru and others?
Dr Mr Glaser,
Do you plan to support streaming via Airtunes's protocol to adapters such as the Airport Express?
Thanks!
Hedley
Did you force the makers of Streambox Ripper to remove RealAudio conversion, when using this application is the only way I can burn perfectly legal RealAudio lectures to CD, or listen to them on my MP3 player? What makes you think I only want to listen to these files while sitting in front of a computer? What makes you think I'm interested in finding an MP3 player that will (ever) play RealAudio? Why did you even bother suing them in the first place, presumably knowing apps like Wiretap and Audio Hijack would do the same job, just in real-time?
I advise anyone with audio content to avoid Real if they actually want the end-user to be able to listen to it on a device or medium other than a Real encoded file on a PC. Have an interesting lecture you recorded? Publish it as a low-quality MP3 instead; at least 99% of the players on the market will be able to decode it. Hmm, wait -- isn't this closed mindedness what you scorned Apple for? I guess reverse engineering someone else's technology for wider support is okay when it meets your bottom line.
Dear Mr. Glaser, Do you truly feel, from an ethical and legal standpoint that your company's practices regarding iPod compatibility are ethical and legal? What are your feelings on proprietary formats have you considered that AAC is actually an open format? Given Apple's Quicktime file format being integrated into IEEE standards how does that change the standards war in your opinion?
411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
When Apple finally settled the issues surrounding MPEG-4 licensing and pricing for Quicktime... I wholeheartedly believed that soon thereafter... the vast majority of people would switch away from closed formats such as Windows Media Video and Real Video. I thought it was going to ultimately usher in a world where only one codec would be needed to watch or edit streaming video for the web.
That never happened.
Still to this day, with 2005 fast approaching, many websites demand either Real, Quicktime, or Windows Media Player.
What's stopping content providers from adopting a single video codec everyone can rally behind so that we aren't forced to download different players for different websites?
I originally hoped pride would succumb to ease-of-use for customers in this matter, but at this rate, I'd just like to know why we're still in the situation we're in and what can be done to get out of it.
I have a web site that runs about 16 real time streaming audio feeds. I went to the mp3 format for compatibility. In my recommendations to our visitors, I strictly recommend AGAINST installing any RealPlayer products, due to the fact that the player is clunky and appears to take over many file type associations.
Have you considered a stripped down, player only utility for the Windows platform? I understand your desire to market other services, but honestly the current Real One offering is more of a burden on the system than it is worth.
Why do you expect content providers would pay for your Real studio application to create content for such a horrible player?
Just a CODEC to plug into Microsoft Media Player 9 would be great. Personally I use utilities to convert the RealMedia format the MPEG1, to avoid the hassle of dealing with your player product.
The earlier Windows Media production suite was also a blatent rip off of your Real Producer product. I can see Microsoft had their eyes on your company.
I haven't tried Media Player 10, maybe Microsoft took your lead in making a player utility that is bloated, slow, resource consuming, and nagware ridden?
I realize MP3 is not an open standard, and that the freeware utilities to produce MP3 audio streams are probably not licensed from Thompson, the newer holder to the rights of the mp3 format. But the compatibility across platforms can't be beat.
I won't use quicktime due to the Windows nagware feature. Once again, content producers PAY for the production tools, the end users should be able to see the end result without paying to get full screen capabilities.
If only there was a streaming video equivilent to MP3.
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
It is said by many that when iTunes (and the rest) sells a song, the profit margins are pennies.
How will your company sell songs for $0.49 each and not lose a lot of money?
"RealPlayer is shit. Discuss."
Mr Glaser,
Could you stop emailing me?
Thanks.
It works for me as you told on Linux. But on both W32 and OS X it wants me to register, though I clicked that blue "free" button instead of the orange "14-day trial" button.
For me this looks the same customer-harrassing of Real as ever. Am I missing something?
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
What ever happened to the vision behind Progressive Networks? Have the people at Real forgotten why their format was created in the first place? Does Real still have a social conscience or did they shed that with the name change?
Why did RealNetworks send out millions of pieces of spam to totally arbitrary addresses, with a return address which claimed to be Maria Cantwell, but was actually thrown away unread? ...
Hey, guys, I mean, music stores are neat, but Real Networks is one of the largest spammers in the world, having proudly bragged about having a 53,000,000 address list back when that was probably better than 10% of the people who regularly checked their email. They once proudly proclaimed that they were not going to take bounces off their list, because a lot of those bounces were from spam filters, and they didn't want to take people off their list because "hey, they could be bouncing us as spam, but the address is still valid".
IANMTU. These people are scary.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Here's my question:
You claim that Real is all about choice and opennness. However, your license agreements for your SDK outright prohibit using your software to create programs that will decode Real files and transcode them into other formats. Even unprotected Real audio files may not be converted to AIFF or MP3, according to your license. You have threatened legal action against people for doing so, also.
I know that I, for one, will never purchase files which I am prohibited from transcoding into other formats.
If you're really about openness and freedom of choice, why don't you let me choose what format I keep my audio files in?
Currently I have to play back Real audio of radio shows in real time, record the output to AIFF, then re-encode to MP3, so that I can play on my MP3 player. It'd be so much better if I could just go straight from Real audio to MP3.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Wow, so much hostility here. I'd be surprised if Mr. Glaser didn't simply decline the interview entirely at this point. This is an opportunity to get some real answers out of someone who's in a position to answer them, and all I'm seeing here is a bunch of stark raving lunatics. Here at Slashdot it's cool to hate Real and therefore you're all acting like a bunch of children.
The whole lot of you really need to grow up. It's exactly this kind of behavior that leads folks like Mr. Glaser to avoid taking you seriously.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
They _should_ be lauded for not being scumbags.
I take care of my children!
I haven't ever been to jail!
What do you want? A cookie?!? That's what you're supposed to do!
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
For years I've had the sense that Real unnecessarily forces you to upgrade player software just to decode or stream "new formats." Sometimes it's just a new codec download (more recently it seems), but often you have to update the entire framework.
When you install a new framework, the installer will often want to take over file-extension/application bindings; if you let it (or don't know how to say no), it can significantly change the behavior of your machine.
I am also very reticent to add/change software on my windows machines once I get them stable.
So why does Real force updates so often? I believe it adds to "DLL rot," and I think it's a bad policy.
My questions would be:
1. Why did I get for my expensive subscription to the Euro 2004 only crappy video streams?
2. Why should I care about Real since they have ignored my feature requests and pleas for a better software for years?
3. Why should I install another media player that wants me to sell only expensive mini clips and radio stations that are mostly for free anyway?
4. And even when I subscribe to the radio pass, I still get stuttering streams and bad quality - can't you deliver what you promise and charge me for?
5. Why has Real missed the train to develop and support truely open initiatives like DIVX (in the beginning), XVID or the new BBC format?
6. Since Real complains about Apple's ignorance I like to complain about Reals lacking support and ignorance for MD-Players and so many other third party devices. Why am I ignored just because I have a not so cool tool?
7. Why is Real Server software so extremely expensive compared to Apples streaming solution?
8. Why does every media player have such a fancy interfaces that follow no standards except their own? Can't you comply to the standards of the OS the player is running on?
9. When will Real admit the failure and stop doing the RealArcade? There are hardly any unique products in there and I can buy most of them without the surrounding Real hype.
10. How much money has Real left in the bank to survive against Apple and Microsoft?
That's it.
Are there any plans to web browsers other than IE for the internal web browser? I would like to use the SuperPass, but I'd like to be able to use Mozilla (or one of it's variants) as the internal web browser. This would help make the SuperPass available to Linux.
http://www.slowrecovery.com for great free indie music!
dear mr. glaser,
helix/real player is supposed to become a play all and any audio/video/animation file application. the closest I have seen to this are mplayer and xine. (apple, ms and current real mostly being players for their own proprietary formats, with varying degrees of mpeg). how much, do you estimate, will licensing all the IP to bring helix up to mplayer cost? (its already reverse engineered!) and how long will it take, to complete the talks?
PS: may I also ask your experienced guess, when will quicktime and wmp understand smil playlists (something I would really like to see - eg. great for embedding objects in a webpage)?
Fuck you real! helix=vaporware
I would like to see a list of the differences between the Realplayer on these 2 platforms (aside from 'one runs on linux, the other on windows', ;-) ). Vikram touched briefly on this (http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11 2639&cid=9551203), but it would be nice to see a complete list of the differences. My own experience with the Linux version has been good, and it does indeed seem to be a minimal version of Realplayer.
5 51598), but BHO's are heavily used by spyware/malware, and the BHO presence in the Realplayer win install at the very least reinforces the negative 'spyware' perception. Is anything planned to address the presence of the BHO and help distance Real from the spyware stigma?
5 50785), which has reduced reliance on software add-ons/advertising. Can you expand on this, and describe how this change of business model has directly influenced some of the program's design, citing examples?
I see that the win ver installs some hefty BHO's (browser 'helper' object), as on some users' win boxes I have seen a search toolbar added to IE. I know Kevin had refuted claims to spyware (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=112639&cid=9
On a related note, Kevin mentioned that Real's business model has changed (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=112639&cid=9
Do you think that one of your marketing problems might be the fact that in the beginning you did that sneaky thing with tricking people into thinking they had to pay for the Real Player and you still haven't been forgiven?
Anyone seen my jagged little pill?
"Is Real abandoning the corporate market to Windows and Macromedia?" With Real's focus on music offerings, and open sourcing it's player and server technology, it definitely looks like Real is soon going to be dropping support of the corporate market. It's also the word I am hearing from multiple vendors and colleagues in my line of work. I run a small media production group, providing video services for a medium sized tech company, of about 2,500 people, growing rapidly. Half our user base is Unix, and so Real is the only viable option for providing them with video. Is Real no longer going to be serving customers like myself?
I worked at a TV station a couple of years ago. At that time, we - like most everyone else - streamed using Real's codecs and formats. Since then, they have completely switched to WMV3 (for Windows Media Player 9+). I don't know the history surrounding the decision to switch, but I can certainly think of many reasons.
Everyone with just a microgram of brains could see Microsoft coming, leveraging their platform monopoly - BUT also very much helped by the fact that almost everybody hated Real's (client) player-software, and pretty much still do:
This leads me to my question: Why on Earth did you sleep for so long?! You must have seen competition coming; in such a senario: why did you strive so hard to make foes with everyone?
The Helix project was years over-due (probably too late to make a difference, by now), and your recent (and incomplete) end-user improvements on the web-site were even more over-due.
Tell me: Exactly what major changes in your organization (such as getting rid of the jerks who stressed a goofy revenue-from-deived-end-users strategy) have your completed that should make me think again about trusting your strategy, products and distribution system? I'm asking because I don't want to waste a second keeping in touch with the development of the Helix projects, unless I'm convinced that your company has turned 180 degrees.
How is RealNetworks doing in the current market? What is the future of RealNetworks (i.e what will be it's core business in a few years)?
How much demand is there for online music in the current market, and how much profit can be made?
-- Somebody stuck somewhere in a big world wide web that I can't escape from
I wonder how much Real employees will be astroturfing on this post to make it look like a "movement" for freeing up the drm... Question: How is Real trying to innovate rather than just piggy back on the efforts of Apple and others?
Why do you use that gay ass program that sits in the background and regularly checks in with your servers called REALSCHED.EXE? Will you finnally admit that this is spyware?
And Why does RealPlayer BUFFER like you can't code a decent player that streams? I had to use Real (unfortunately) for a webcast for school and it LOVED to take 20 minutes to buffer 2 seconds. Will you finnally admit you leave these bugs in there intentionally to get people to give word of mouth advertisment when they COMPLAIN about how much real player really sucks at streaming video?
why they use REALSCHED.EXE and will you finnally admit it's spyware? and why does real suck at streaming video?
why does it love to tgake 20 minutes to download 2 seconds on a perfectly fine connection? and will you finnally admit that this behavior is intentional to get people to give (albiet negative) word of mouth advertisements when people COMPLAIN about how much real player sucks at streaming?
Everybody is going to ask about this iPod / ITMS / Real / Rhapsody thing so I assume some of my interrogations will be answered from those angles.
But what I'm really interested in knowing was the business case or decision process that took place in trying, head-on, to confront Apple.
Apple is known to have lost some of the fiercest battles in the past against MicroSoft, but it has rigorously defended every bit of turf they could defend since those major MS losses. Everybody who even remotely attempted to step on Apple turf since have paid the price with their credibility and sometimes their market altogether (enumerations aren't necessary but eMachines and countless "me-too" look-alikes such as iTunes application clones on Linux just to name two).
What made you think that bomb-shelling Apple wouldn't make you a prime Apple target AND, even worse, getting carpet-bombed by those who defend Apple with all their might to protect what little is left to defend from their computing/music platform of choice?
Was is, pun intended, a sound decision?
As far as I can see, pricing for online music is not as good or only slightly better then physical cds, with the added disadvantage of not being able to backup your investment as you are legally entitled to. I know what I am talking about. I had an album of Hank Williams Sr gospel songs from iTunes, and after repeated XP problems with re-installation and re-activation of XP, with each activation requiring iTunes to be updated as well, I lost all access to those songs.
This wouldn't happen with a physical copy.
Questions:
Can I resell my old music like my old CD's? If not, why is the price not much lower than buying a new CD.
Can I buy used tracks like used CD's? Its much cheaper to buy a used CD than a music track online.
How easy is it to backup this investment? Any licensing, DRM preventing this, like a x times you lose on iTunes
So Rob... how many Oreos can you put away in a single sitting?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Although C-span still has that file on it's site, it occurred to me that the ability to save a stream of something like this would be nice, especially for lower bandwidth students needing to do research; Kind of hard to parse a debate on 56k!
(and, before any of you make claims of broadband penetration, remember that given population size and deployment there's STILL a lot of kids out there tied to dial-up!).
So, the short question, will you be enabling this type of activity or will you lean toward the Hatch "induce" scheme?
The wider question is what will your company be doing to help people create their own outlets of A/V information? Will your company move to enable new artistic and intellectual synthesis (affordable authoring tools) or circle 'round behind and demand outrageous royalty when you feel market saturation sufficient?
Oh, and are you working on a "Play the format of your choice" hardware player? I mean, if your software can really play any format, why constrain it to a GP computer? I'd love to replace my "MP3 capable" car CD-player for something I could *update* to a better codec.
Actually I'll take this one Rob, if you don't mind.
ahem
No.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
What will Real do to win back users?
The last time I used Real Player I had to go through extra work to remove the spyware like tactics that Real Player had installed. It's been a while since I have used Real Player and have opted to use Real Alternative in cases where I couldn't avoid the site using Real Technologies.
In fact, what is Real's stance on Real Alternative?
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
Thanks to the new realplayer in windows and its "play in realplayer" function, it is now easier than ever to record real stream to keep them. Just do that and Ctrl+I and you'll get the url for the stream and paste it streambox vcr... Actually Real sued streambox for something that I regard as fair use, but the streambox vcr is still widely available on the net, and new and better alternative exists such as net transport, http://www.xi-soft.com/default.htm Which will record real stream up to 10x faster than real time (maybe more with some tricks) So Rob, is that fair use? because I think it is, at least as much as cracking Apple files! So will you do what you say and let people record strem this way without suing the people making it possible, or are you the only one to be allowed to do it?
I think the real question about the DCMA that nobody is asking is this: what made RealNetworks think that, in an age where companies are using the DCMA left and right to sue people / stop the proliferation of DRM breaking code, that a company as large and as well-known as Real could publically admit to reverse-engineering the DRM from the iTMS? As this is a direct violation of the DCMA (technically, some software, somewhere at Real, is a tool for circumventing copy protection; you would have had to break it to make it, unless you used code from DVDJon, in which case you should be releasing your software under the GPL), what legal barriers are Real able to hide behind? If Real had been a small startup trying to offer a store in competition to the iTMS, don't you think Apple would have crushed it?
More importantly, why do you think it seems like Apple hasn't really had much to say about this other than, "Oh, that makes us mad." ? When will the real backlash happen?
- Cloud
As a Mac user, I would love to be able to use this service, but for some reason Real insists that I use Windows.
You would think that a company trying to spread good-will, and trying to make a buck, would attempt to keep everyone happy (and paying.)
Has Real stopped using the Real Data Transport (RDT) protocol and switched entirely to Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)?
Word to all of the above, except that RealPlayer 10 for Mac OS X does have an integrated browser that uses the Apple Safari engine. It's not bad, although for some reason it feels a touch slower than the actual Safari program. Really the only thing RealPlayer's browser needs is a popup blocker.
IMO, however, Real should look into a Gecko or Opera HTML core instead of IE on Win.
Has Real Networks considered that they might help their image by placing a clear and explicit link to the free version of their player right on their main page? Dark gray on black or light gray on white, all in 5 point text: does Real acknowledge that it is almost impossible to win this Easter Egg hunt?
Why does the guy who says "Thank you for choosing Real Player" sound like he's speaking from the bottom of an aquarium?
Maybe it's his real voice, but for it to be the first thing you experience when you launch the player, and to have it sound horrible, is an immediate turn off. The really sad thing is that the audio on every Real thing I've played is jacked. It all sounds like it's underwater. I've used Real since what, version 2? On both windows and Mac, and the audio has always been horrible. I don't understand why it isn't fixed yet. Maybe your engineers can't hear it.
Not to mention usuability issues with the rest of the client. Buffering, not being able to scan video, horrible decompression in low bandwidth connections (i'm talking packet loss on high speed, not dial-up).
Is it really more important for Real to put an advertising channel out there than it is for them to make a product that's not crap? The only reason I install Real now is because every once in a while I stumble across a site that only uses it vs. WMP or QT. And I would rather use either one of those two over Real any day.
But yeah, answer the audio question.
Reeses
My question is about the outlook that you see for Real. Those who read slashdot consitently have already seen the articles about the impending Internet ver. 2, which can stream a whole DVD in a few seconds. Or for that matter the greatly increased number of 100 Mbit fiber lines that are cropping up in the US. One of the early draws to realmedia was the compression that was required when all of us used dialup. The novelty of video over the internet was made accessible by RM formats. But if you can stream multi-gig files in less than 10 seconds (net2) or gain nothing significant by compressing the file, why bother with a DRM restricted (crippled) filetype? My question is: considering what is on the horizon, what purpose would real serve once the need for extreme video compression that results in bland picture quality is no longer needed? It seems as if the market for your proprietary formats would be defunct.
And to head off one possible answer, as of yet your DRM has not prevented the duplication of streams or editing / conversion of those files.
Wow, just for kicks, I did too. That was actually easy. Has Real changed management within the past year or so? Or is a certain someone there finally not a complete idiot?
I note previous versions of the player are available. Whatever happened to the free encoders which date back to 1994 or so? (System 7.5, PowerMac 7100 era.)
If real was to either open their file formats or provide a way to convert them to other formats or something, that would be good.
If their real->other formats converter didnt convert any DRM protected files, there shouldnt be a problem plus they get to keep their propriatory formats propriatory.
Also, if they added a "save" option to their streaming client, it would be much better (plus, they could do it without giving out details of their streaming protocols).
Although I guess part of the point is that people use Real (and now Windows Media) for streaming precicly because you cant save it to disk and/or convert it to other formats.
Man. That was so close. The thing about these question with celebs is, you need to phrase it in a question. Kinda like jeopardy. You would have won the question for sure! Just write it something like;
Who would I piss on only if they weren't in a fire?
and then Rob Glaser gets to answer. Good luck, I hope you get mod points.
Rob,
I imagine the BBC to be one of your larger customers, at least by public profile if not client connections. They've said on many occasions that they find the Real licensing model difficult to integrate with, and are publicly developing alternative encoding formats.
In the future, what argument do you have for maintained support of Real by the BBC in favour of Microsoft or Open Source alternatives?
I'm interested here in your opinion of relative quality (which is important to many Internet radio listeners), cost, ease of installation (for which Real has had some bad press before), as well as any other points you think might matter.
Many thanks,
olly.
I spent the better part of two months in collaboration with 4 others within my organization to get integration support from Real and support for getting Real running on a new windowing environment. Real screwed us around and around and treated us like a 3rd rate firm (mind you, for 5 years, we've managed to grow a lot faster than they could even drop).
Tell me, does Real believe that by giving everything away, undercutting their competition and making a lot of noise in the press bad mouthing their competition, that they could make up for the fact they they have consistantly lost out due to a lower quality product.
Mind you, Quicktime is not a great product, it's poorly written on top of a Mac OS emulation layer which makes it impossible to develop codecs for. Their API for embedded Quicktime into other applications is poorly designed and really limited in functionality. But, they do offer top quality audio and it's not too bad to use. Start up time while being agonizingly slow is still much less than Real and most importantly it doesn't take over the users system.
Microsoft was proprietary until recently and basically is a spawn of Microsoft (otherwise known as Satan). But the product is feature rich, looks good, skins well, starts fast, plays excellent. Basically, with exception to the fact that most of the cracks for the DRM have been help back awaiting wider adoption of the standard, it's superior to the others.
MPEG-4 is a great option, but thanks to terrible documentation and AWEFUL reference implementations, nearly noone has managed to make low cost authoring systems for MPEG-4 Systems and therefore encapsulates within AVI instead. Nero is coming along, but they don't seem to test with other players. Frankly, if Apple ever takes the time to implement an authoring system for MPEG-4 which works as well as DVD studio or even iDVD, then MPEG-4 will be the thing. And best yet, you wouldn't need Real to provide a player. There are MPEG-4 Codecs for Media Player and many open source implementations.
So my REAL question for Rob from Real is... when Real finally goes out of business (and I'm guessing soon) will he continue working in the computer business or go mess up some other type of company instead?
Good lord. I am a mediocre looking chick with no wit or brains. Let it go, bud. No one cares!
It is great that Real is working with the Open Source community on the Helix project but where is the open source/Linux support for purchasing songs on Real's web site? There are plenty of desktop Linux users out there that would like to have the option of purchasing music online.
Where is Real's commitment to producing and supporting this community with online music (and hopefully videos/movies in the future)?
1) Differences between RP on windows and Linux. RP10 on Linux is, as I mention on the player project page, an effort at creating a easy to use, functional and fast media player for Linux that works hard at confirming to standards and being a good citizen in the linux world. The design focus for us thus was to find a balance between advanced functionality and most used functionality. Whenever in doubt the vote went for keeping things simple than complex - a decision that has been well recieved by the thousands of users who downloaded the player. On the whole, RP10 for Linux is all about creating a solid platform on which we can build exciting features. RP10 for windows has passed that phase and has a lot more features (premium content and services, media management, cd burning, portable device support etc.) Some of these features will surely find their way into RP10 for Linux, but the idea has not been to create a clone of the windows player. Hopefully the increasing number of helix developers will influence positively the direction that Helix Player will take, adding innovations that propel themselves into the next versions of the Linux RealPlayer as well.
2) BHOs
This is tricky. BHOs are a microsoft/IE invention. The idea is very typical of how microsoft does things - give a lot of power to the developer/sitedesigner. And as it often happens with such ideas, they are double edged swords - BHOs have become notorious by their association with spyware. Nevertheless, a lot of companies (including Microsoft) install BHOs to offer rich functionality to the end users. My only comment here is that with the advent of Windows XP SP2 which includes a feature called "Internet Explorer Addon Management" the BHOs will become less maligned and more manageable.
--
I'm really surprised that Slashdot would waste the bandwidth for an interview with Rob Glaser. How sad to give in to having a "celebrity interview" from the leader of a company that used to be hot but hasn't shown a lick of innovation in several years - especially in regards to the Mac platform. It's kind of like sleeping with the enemy and telling everyone what it was like.
I would say it's more likely that they just borrowed code from Jon Lech Johansen. Hymn is just a wrapper around jlj's code.
I read in Wired that you own the PBA with two Microsoft employees. How does it feel to be the Mark Cuban of fat, balding men?
ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
Open-sourcing the bare player is a good move on one hand. A linux-compatible player with commercial input can only be a good thing in the long run. But why is it the player itself that's been open-sourced (when there are already many many media players out there) yet the codecs remain proprietary?
Why I (and I think many others) resent having to install RealPlayer on any platform is that when you have a media-player of choice you want to run everything through that player. Helix provides another player to choose from, but what would really be more useful to many people is to have the codecs available for whatever they already use.
An official codec-pack for Linux or Windows or a plugin for WinAmp or XMMS (or whatever) would really go down well. As would a standalone plugin for most major browsers.
I know I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said before, but surely that's the point in this case. As good as the steps that Real/Helix has taken in recent year are they don't address some of the issues that have been bugging people for years.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
Jusdging by your story, I started consulting for Real just before you were hired. Disclaimer, I was hired fulltime by Real about a week after this layoff.
You took options instead of higher pay when they were trading $52-$54. At that same time they filled a book value with the SEC of about $2.80/share. So, you were banking on the idea that what Real said was worth almost 3 dollars was going to climb even higher than $54. Definitely the definition of a blind optimist.
You also failed to mention the sweetest severance package around. Everyone laid got a pretty decent amount of cash. They brought in a company to help everyone laid off get their resumes in gear and find jobs. I remember most of the people left behind wanting to get added to the layoff because of the generous package.
Now, I'll be honest, the way the layoff happened was kind of weird. But, in retrospect, I see that they knew they had to do it but were scared. It was the first time they ever had to layoff a number of people and they didn't know what to do.
Another point, the company had over 1000 employees at the time. They needed to lay some people off. They should have dropped more. Think about it, 1000 people to support a streaming media player and server, plus some web properties. Thats an excessive head count for the business. You should be able to run that company with about 2-300 people.
Now, not to sound too cruel but, if you are presently only making $9/hr perhaps you should re-evaluate your skills. And honestly consider that maybe (just maybe) you didn't deserve the job you had.
I left Real a few months ago, and I can't get the headhunter (pimps) to stop calling me. There are a huge number of jobs available for developers.
So, my point. Tell the whole story.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Rob - Why would Real setup "freedomofmusicchoice.org" to discuss open standards among music players, interoperability, and DRMs, and then only attack Apple in the articles on the site? Why weren't Microsoft and Sony included? And why doesn't Real fully support the Mac and Linux with the Real Music Store and Rhapsody? It seems quite contradictory to want open standards, interoperability, and DRM compatibility when Real doesn't offer it to begin with...
I like the idea of cheap online music.. Hell, I love it.. Unfortunately I can't make us of it, since I am unfortunate enough to live in Denmark.. Why not do something truly innovative and offer your music for download and purchase to the entire world? apple only offers their service to like.. 4-5 countries? You could conquer more land, by going to countries where they are not represented. Would this be a good idea?
your product sucks shit.
i hope your company goes bankrupt.