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/
Will your company ever stop the spyware attacks on users of your products?
Why should we believe anything you say?
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.
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?
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!
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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
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?
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
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?
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.
When I was hired at Real the stock price was around $52-$54 dollars per share. I was given 10,000 shares in exchange for lower pay. Later the stock tanked, diving down to $9 per share.
Real then did what was viewed at the time as the coolest thing ever: The stock re-entrant program thingy (I forget exactly what it was called.) What it meant was that whatever the stock price was on August 31st of that year would be retroactively applied to our shares, including those that had already vested.
Rock on. Quite a few of us signed up for it on the promise of making our now-worthless shares valuable again. There was some fine print, of course. We had to remain employed at Real or we would lose all our stock, including vested shares.
The bastards fired us one month before the deadline. No warning. Our floor managers didn't even know until that morning that 15% of the entire company would be layed off that day.
I went out for lunch (yummy fish tacos!) and when I returned there was a group of employees and some security guards outside the front door. They weren't letting anyone in. After half an hour word spread that there were layoffs happening but we didn't have any details.
Finally a guy in a really expensive suit came down and told us to go home. We be getting a phone call later that evening to let us know if we still had a job.
The next day I was unemployeed and competing with 30,000 other out-of-work programmers in the Seattle area for jobs.
Now I'm back in Montana making $9/hr and eating a fair amount of ramen.
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.
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
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.
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!
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?
What's the first thing Real will do when Apple finally breaks Helix, as it certainly will?
Dr Mr Glaser,
Do you plan to support streaming via Airtunes's protocol to adapters such as the Airport Express?
Thanks!
Hedley
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!
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.
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.
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)?
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