Slashdot Mirror
RealNetworks Invests in Legitimizing Free Music
Rollie Hawk writes "Want some free music? Silly question, I know. But how about legally? That's exactly what RealNetworks is offering.
You may remember RealNetworks from about ten years ago when it was one of the leaders in audio streaming technology. After a decade of steaming becoming more widespread in both audience and medium, RealNetworks' RealPlayer has become an embarrassment to even try installing.
This, however, didn't stop them from jumping into the post-Napster song-swapping vacuum with their Rhapsody program. I can't comment on how good Rhapsody is since I've never met anyone who used it. That probably says enough right there.
In an attempt to rev-up their subscription-based music service, they are now resorting to giving away 25 songs each month. According to RealNetworks chairman and chief executive Rob Glaser, "by having a free service that is legal, it flattens the issue of 'Why use an illegal service?'"
Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs."
I imagine a decade of steaming (sic) would takes its toll on anybody
<news>"Want some free music? Silly question, I know. But how about legally? That's exactly what RealNetworks is offering.</news>
<flamebait>You may remember RealNetworks from about ten years ago when it was one of the leaders in audio streaming technology. After a decade of steaming becoming more widespread in both audience and medium, RealNetworks' RealPlayer has become an embarrassment to even try installing. This, however, didn't stop them from jumping into the post-Napster song-swapping vacuum with their Rhapsody program. I can't comment on how good Rhapsody is since I've never met anyone who used it. That probably says enough right there.</flamebait>
<news>In an attempt to rev-up their subscription-based music service, they are now resorting to giving away 25 songs each month. According to RealNetworks chairman and chief executive Rob Glaser, "by having a free service that is legal, it flattens the issue of 'Why use an illegal service?'" </news>
<flamebait>Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs."</flamebait>
I'm not interested in the opinion of the submitter, timothy, I just want the god-damn news. Yes Real media are an easy target but you hurt the bloggers fight for acceptance as part of the media when you post stuff like this. Do you ever see the BBC saying "Real media is just crappy because I say it is?". I think not..
Simon.
From TFA:
For $9.99 a month, users will get an unlimited number of songs each month. For another $5, they can transfer the tunes to selected portable music players.
So your free music is DRMed to death? You're also gonna have to pay to put your "free" tunes on a DAP? Free as in beer locked in a safe I guess.
Certainly that was the case the last time I tried to install it in Windows, but I've actually been fairly impressed by their current Linux client.
I still use Totem for most of my A/V needs, but RealPlayer is actually fairly competent on Linux, without being overblown.
How free is this music? What can I do with it once I download it? Can I take it somewhere else and listen it? Can I pass it onto my friend?
Most imporantly, who does that file belong to once it's downloaded?
You want the whole universe of music to be free? 25 songs is about a free CD every month. That's a good bargain. Do you usually buy more than one CD per month?
Furthermore, you can select 25 songs from 25 different albums if you so wish. This wy you can get onl ythe songs yo ucare about r if you really want to sample albums to see whether you like them or not, then that give you quite a range to select from.
all that assuming that they have an extensive store. Of course it all doesn't matter if they only have 20 albums that interest you
I've been looking forward to a new version of Rhapsody for some time and was disappointed after trying it today. While the media indicates that Real is banking its whole business on Rhapsody, it did not invest nearly enough into developing the software and into testing it before release.
New features in Rhapsody 3.0 attempt to mimick iTunes functionality - now Rhapsody allows users to add music tracks from the hard drive to its library. Rhapsody crashed on the very first run when trying to conenct to my account, exhibits bad behavior when resizing windows, has very limited interface options. It does not match the even the functionality of iTunes and certainly not its ease of use. You cannot remove 2 second gaps in CD recordings made in Rhapsody, there is no cross-fading between tracks and there are no criteria for creating automatic playlists.
Overall it seems like a very last-minute update to the previous version which was done without much design effort going into it. I do not think that it will create any waves of excitement among users.
Is this Slashdot: News for nerds or Slashdot: commentary for the mindless.
I know that most paid music services are a waste of money if I want quality music. But why do I need a /. contributer to tell me that Rhapsody is worthless.
This is how the article should have read:
In order to enlist a subscriber base Real's Rhapsody service is now offering 25 free songs for members.
There, no opinion, only news. Or is Slashdot so unpopular that the contributors need to generate news via provocation?
Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs.
Well, it _does_. At least the universe of music worth listening to.
See my blog for my free opinions.
Nice move.
but.. i hope its not slow and bloated still. I bet its still a complete adware-loaded pile of garbage.If you don't care what Real does to your computer (i.e. pop-up messages, registry files, all sorts of advertisements), then go right ahead. I long for the days when Real Player really WAS a free and hassle free download.Its a pain clicking thru the ad-bloated pages for a download of Real player these days.
fifteen jugglers, five believers
Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs
It might be RealNetworks, and hey, you may have a problem with them (plenty of people do), but 25 songs/month = 300 songs/year.
Just how much of a freebie do you want from a service that ostensibly sells you music?
So I decided to see what this company is actually worth....considering I never use their products nor do I know anyone who does...and according to Nasdaq, they're worth over a billion dollars?
Damn....I can't remember the last time I gave up on a RealPlayer install. Who uses this stuff, and how the hell are they worth over a BILLION dollars today....let alone being worth ten times that 5 years ago
Because before all this happened, there was no legitimate free music. Just like software, music is something that "if you didn't pay for it, it's stolen".
gdlive.com
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Why no Mac/Linux client?
The interface shown looks very Aqua-ish.
How on earth does somebody think that a FREE model will be ever replaced by a NON FREE one??
Face it, even if it is illegal, downloading from a P2P network is free. sure, there is a risk of 1 in 6billions of being caught, but a lot of people are willing to take this risk.
Even if a system comes out that allows you to d/l legally your song for say 0,001$, a vast majority will continue to get their stuff for free.
What I mean to say here is that there is no turning back, songs have become free and will stay like this from now on, what they have to do is to find a new business model that will allow them to get money from something else related to music, but not from the songs themselves.
The big thing here is that we're getting the goods directly, with no third men involved, and it is preciseley these 3rd men that are in trouble.
Bands make huge amounts from concerts, and they might make nothing from record sales, but their free music will make more people know them and eventually go to their concerts.
As time goes by whatever value it has gets hidden behind more and more horse shit.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
it must have all the music I listen to.
Punkrock, grindcore etc.
These legal services only seem to have popular music or music that have been popular.
I want that track från a 7" EP that was released in only 100 copies. I doubt a legal music download service can offer me that or any other song I wish to download since I rarely listen to mainstream music.
This is true.
Interestingly, this would be true if it were the first post too.
The big question is, when did Slashdot start marketting to the segment that for some reason thing that a "First Post" can be redundant?
Say someone downloads 25 songs this month. And you have the whim to listen to one more. I don't think they would want to pay Rhapsody for it. You will end up going to the P2P where its free all the time.
Don't these people get it...Everything for free != 25 for free...
Real networks is dead.
Their player is shit,
Their audio compression isnt all that great (and not opensource),
And nobody really cares about them anymore.
Their shitty practices of pushing their shitty player on every desktop and and hiding stupid marketing crap under invisible options in installer didn't win them any friends either.
They should just give up now.
If you were stranded on a desert island and your mp3 player could hold only 25 songs, which ones would they be?? Would they expire before you did??
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Damn. That should have said 'I think that this is a pretty good ide--BUFFERING--' There goes a good joke.
- - - - - - (c) 2005 Irrelevant Postings, Inc.
Rob Glaser, chairman and chief executive of RealNetworks, said the primary targets are the millions of users of file-swapping networks, where music can be obtained for free but often in violation of copyright laws.
Yes, everyone should realize that downloading the Beck discography on e-mule and listening to all the albums over and over again while smoking massive amounts of pot is not the way to go about things. Also, just because one can download way more than 25 *albums* a day with BT is in no way a detraction from going to rhapsody to get your 25 "plays" of the new britney spears CD.
Cue the finance wonk who is a music expert...
"The value proposition of $15 a month is quite a compelling, competitive challenge for Apple," said Phil Leigh, senior analyst at Inside Digital Media in Tampa, Fla. "It enables you to listen to so much more music."
But wait! How do they pay for it? Is it a bird, is it a plane? no! It's Google and Chrysler (hey--is Chryler supposed to be bleeding money already? why the hell are they jumping on this train of wreckless abandon that's headed into hundreds of clones of ICP?)
Because RealNetworks must pay an undisclosed licensing fee every time a song is played, even if it is free, the company is turning to ads from Chrysler and an arrangement making Google Inc.'s search toolbar an optional download with Rhapsody.
It amazes me like companies like "Real Networks" have market caps at 1.1 billion... and this is *after* the bubble burst...
Meanwhile on the front...
Meanwhile, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. launched on Tuesday a custom music CD service for those who may not have a CD burner or a high-speed Internet connection. Customers select songs from an online catalog, and Wal-Mart will put the selections on a CD and mail it. A three-song CD costs $6.59 with shipping. Each additional song costs 88 cents.
Yay! Now people can download crappy music from their trailers!
I read yesterday that Rhapsody is a streaming and download service, and the "free" songs are songs you listen to by streaming. they aren't really free as you don't get to keep them. (its actually "25 free streamed songs per month", not "25 songs to play as you like, every month"
the whole service is based on listening to remote files. If you want to burn CDs you pay an extra charge over what you already stumped up, for a DRM-controlled AAC download. Which to me makes Rhapsody a rather expensive radio station.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
With iTunes, that same amount would get you 36,363 tracks of music (or about 3,030 albums) which would also last you your entire life.
If you intend on purchasing huge volumes of music, then the Napster deal is far better - however this doesn't take into account the fact that if the service closes earlier, you could end up with no ability to play your music.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
The major issue I have with Rhapsody is that the basic service only allows you to burn a CD. This would be great if you were getting the same thing that you could have bought in the store, but you aren't. You are getting some proprietary lossy format (converted to waveform). I don't know about you but when I put a CD in my stereo, I expect perfect sound quality (especially for something that I paid for)...and Rhapsody isn't providing that. Other than that, their service is pretty cool. The collection of music that they are offering is huge and it is available to stream for free. I don't mind the lossy format for streaming--because thats what I'd expect. I think they use a modified form of 128kbs mp3.
But what's up with this wholesale, mass production "song" business? The only time there was so much music out there that sounded exactly the same was the baroque era. Giving away 25 free songs a month doesn't help shake that stigma. Because of the Napster revolution (or perhaps IN spite - that's a pun by the way), the music companies have had to go for quantity, and in the process have devalued the intrinsic worth of the music that they're selling. iTunes has what, 10 MILLION songs? At what point is enough enough? Instead of getting 9 symphonies from a composer in their lifetime you get 9 albums each with 15 piecemeal songs that do their thing in 2 minutes 30 seconds, tops. This isn't going to change soon, so I guess what I'm saying is: if you're going to get 25 free songs, don't waste them on cookie-cutter stuff, get some Mahler or Shostakovich, music that takes 45 minutes to take you on an epic journey. Just like sex, no music should last less than half an hour.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
Unless you capture the streaming audio
I will just continue downloading music, since this is legal in the Netherlands. there is no such thing as illegally downloaded music. the same goes for movies.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I have hundreds of UKP per year to spend on music (and that doesn't include concerts)
I _WANT_ to buy more music and a WANT TO PAY YOU for it.
But I will not part with a SINGLE PENNY for DRM'd crap.
Seriously, you are LOSING BUSINESS and LOSING PUBLIC SUPPORT by continuing with this.
I agree that there is a lot of online unauthorised redistribution of your works, but evidently DRM is doing nothing to stop it.
You need to find another approach. Change your business model, lower your prices... I don't know, I'm not a business person but I am a consumer and I do know that you are turning us all off your industry and before long if you continue treating us like criminals more of us will end up downloading everything for free instead.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
It's not that hard to find homepages of bands that give away free tracks or even whole albums. But since these are mostly unsigned bands and not controlled by the big media corporations, I guess this must be illegal...
I must mention irate radio (http://irate.sourceforge.net/) as a very interesting example of free music downloads.
It's a simple java applet that downloads free MP3s for you. You listen, say if you like it or if it sucks, and on the basis of your reply it downloads other music that it thinks you might like.
This sort of thing is the future of music. Things like garageband mean that musisicans can make music cheaply. Make some of it freely available. Then, a blogger I trust recommends it, I download it, like it, go to your web site, and buy some more.
And the "Long Tail" dictates that this is the best way to find music that I really like.
Take my current favourite artist. Now, lots of people like her music, but enough for a record company to make a profit on her CDs in a record store? Probably not, hence her current lack of a deal. But I don't care. I bought her latest couple of CDs direct from her on the web. Paid what I'd pay in a record store, but I have a warm glowing feeling because none of that money paid for some wanker in a marketing department to interview focus groups. It paid to put groceries on her table.
Oh, and on her web she recommends another artist I'd never heard of who she is working with. More free downloads. I liked that too, so that's another CD sale. And I went to see them both play a gig in London (which was utterly superb) and as soon as their support act finishes their first CD I'm going to download that as well.
You see how it can work? That's what, 4 CDs and a show ticket, no marketing wankers required.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
"We believe that once consumers experience Rhapsody and share it with their friends, many people will upgrade to one of our premium Rhapsody tiers," Rob Glaser, chairman and chief executive of RealNetworks, said in a statement.
Or they will go back to getting songs illegally. Really, nothing annoys me more than video/audio that is only in Real format. RealNetworks has a reputation for intrusive software and crappy video streams. Being that their direct competitor is Napster, who has a much better name/reputation, I don't see this service taking off.
Oh yeah, I forgot to ask... Does it support iPod?
Well, I had Rhapsody for perhaps six months. A few days ago, when I realized I was paying for something I hadn't used at all for a few months, I cancelled. To do that, you have to call and talk to a human. This not only deters you from canceling, they get one last chance to talk you out of it. The droid I got, apparently in India, was very clearly programmed to do this.
Rhapsody's model is admittedly interesting: unlimited online listening to anything in their library for a flat monthly fee. That does fill a different niche not covered by the iTunes model of selling downloads of individual songs, and it doesn't cost you anything to explore music and artists you haven't heard before.
But aside from being tethered to a network connection to be able to listen to anything, the Rhapsody implementation of this model has two fatal flaws. First, you have to use their own proprietary user client, and it's only available for Windows. Naturally, I avoid Windows like the plague.
Second, their library is, as a Talosian might say, "shockingly limited". It seems that every time I'd look for a particular artist, either they didn't have anything at all, or only one or two albums. Sometimes I'd find an album only to discover that Rhapsody got rights to only a couple of songs, with the rest missing.
I still think the best way to build a usable personal online music collection is to buy the CDs you want, rip them onto your own server, and put the CDs into storage as an offsite backup. Oh, and if you want to explore new and obscure artists, patronize the more enlightened and progressive labels like Magnatune.
I was a little disappointed by the utter lack of an OS X client, but I fired up Virtual PC and Windows XP SP2 (finally! something to use XP for other than running Windows Update! :) and went to check it out. The signup screen indicated that I get 25 "listens" per month. I wonder what a "listen" is... that doesn't sound quite like a "download." :(
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
No manual entry for flamebait
After a decade of steaming becoming more widespread in both audience and medium, RealNetworks' RealPlayer has become an embarrassment to even try installing.
Sorry, but you are babbling utter crap. The Realplayer is up to date the only true commercial cross plattform player avaiable, and, legends to the contrary, a very good one. Maybe not up to date with the latest and gratest rich client technologies but SMIL is an open, official full range multimedia document description language and the RealPlayer is it's player, y'know?
So if you wan't to do some good you should favour Real Streaming over Quicktime and Mickeysuck WMV whenever a site offers it.
Take this from a Mac User who installed the Reaplayer on top of Quicktime.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Why can these fools NOT wrap their mind around it?
Those with Clue(TM) are not going to pay $5, $1, $0.15, or $0.00 for music that TELLS US WHAT WE CAN DO WITH IT! Lose the FSCKING DRM!
They could be handing out their entire catalogue for free for all I care; I still would not bother to use it because I don't want to have any product from Real Networks installed on my machine. I'd rather go buy the CDs in a store, rip them and put them on my mp3-player.
Seriously.
According to Rhapsody.com's front page, you get "25 full-length songs per month - FREE". Upon further investigation you only get to 25 free song plays. You don't get to keep the songs you play, and playing a song twice counts as two songs.
In other words, it's misleading advertising (oh what's new?) and if Rhapsody thinks this is going to help them compete again iTunes, they're very wrong -- iTunes gives away at least two songs a week that you get to *keep* and play as many times as you want.
I'm Trappped at Berkeley.
Seconded. Emusic is a great service and has an awesome selection. (I'm not affiliated, blah blah blah...)
Mike Borella http://www.borella.net/mike
25 songs is okay, but what is the bit rate/quality? Can you easy transfer and copy the music? If you download a song and don't like it, can you return it? How big is the catalog they offer? Do the songs self-destruct after leaving the service? Does the interface automatically make itself the default player of all media? All of these are factors in to if and how people will start paying for a subscription service.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I'm a comcast subscriber, and comcast subscribers get an included subscription to Rhapsody.
Well, I loaded the Rhapsody client, and its really just a modified version of the Real software.
After installation, I checked what was going on in the task list. The Rhapsody install loaded a bunch of software and drivers onto my PC that ran all the time, even when Rhapsody wasn't running. That's unacceptable to me. WMP 10 does that, and I don't like it, but I have little choice with the OS vendor into that market. And given what I know about Real, is it reporting on what programs and data I have on my PC? Will it prevent me from using my CD or DVD burner in some circumstances? I just don't know. I emailed Rhapsody/Real my concerns about not knowing what was going on, and they just sent me a stock response about "thanks for the input". I guess they don't actually read their email.
I don't want to load down my machine and distrust it just for a bit of music. I don't care for iTunes, but at least when I quit the program, there's no trace fo it running on my machine taking resources.
So in the end, I removed Rhapsody, and then I spent another hour removing bits of it from my HD and registry. Can anyone explain why programs refuse to remove themselves from my PC when I uninstall them?
And by the way, between Shoutcast and iTunes, there are tons of free music on the Internet. Maybe not on demand, but in the end its a good thing to listen to something new and unexpected and not the same 100 song playlist over and over. I've even discovered www.somafm.com as a source of interesting and unexpected music.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Sig reply:
? username=Singapore_Air
--
"all around the world/never go away without you/my Singapore girl" Anyone know the rest of this SIA/SQ slogan?
I haven't heard it in a long time, but from memory the line was something like "Singapore Girl, You're a great way to fly"....
A quick search on that phrase nets this user on the Airliners.net forums:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/profile.main
whose signature is:
"Such A Way About You - Singapore Girl - You're A Great Way To Fly"
Now, that's not the most authoritative source in the world, but it roughly matches both what you remember, and what I do...
Cheers...
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
from their 'consumer' page.
I was already to sign up and start 'unlimited' downloading with my 45mbps connected box.
Ratz!
StationRipper to the rescue again!
"If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
RealNetworks had streaming audio ten years ago, over modems. Ten! They were way ahead of anyone else, but threw it all away and by trying to turn it into an invasive advertising platform. Real could have absolutely owned streaming audio, but threw it all away. Everyone else caught up years ago. They deserve it.
I second Ckwop's opinion on this.
If you resist reading what you disagree with, how will you ever acquire deeper insights into your own beliefs?
Found a link to the music store just to see selection and wonder,
s tid=19319&albumid=468958&filter=y&sort=rd&from=dis c
/.er has a copy, please let me know. Been looking for years.
Why would they have an album minus three tracks?
See Cramps album, http://musicstore.real.com/music_store/album?arti
Lonesome town and the way I walk both listed but not available for download from the album. And they don't have Bikini Girls with Machine Guns!
I'll give them this. They did have titles for almost everything I could think of in American Punk except a Chris Wood and The Restraints favorite, 'don't wanna be a nun'. If any
It annoys me that you to go through a long convoluted process to download their free software, which in my case meant accidentally subcribing to a paid radio service I didn't want. What really annoys me is that the great BBC web site (http://www.bbc.co.uk) demands you use Real. At least they have now provided a special edition of RealPlayer for that purpose.
P.
I've been using rhapsody for about 8 months now. I initially signed up due to an ridiculous offer made to my school -- students get unlimited access to the streaming songs for $24 / year. I could not be more satisfied with the product; and I this is coming from someone that hates Real Player. Listening to the music is instantaneous, they have most of the music I look for and have exposed me to MANY new artists that I wasn't aware of, and it's legal. I suggest you check it out if the same offer is available at your school...
I stopped steaming when I figured out how to remove RealPlayer crapware from my system.
"I worked hard for it. I deserve it. And I have it," Campbell said. "It's all mine."
RealNetworks' RealPlayer has become an embarrassment to even try installing
Unfortunately, because the BBC and Amazon UK both only provide their audio services in RealPlayer streamed versions, I am forced to install the gitting thing.
It irritates me that there isn't a non-branded alternative availalble to the BBC. It is also annoying to note that Amazon US have WMP and browser-based audio stream on their site, not to mention streams of every track if they offer any. Why Amazon UK can't simply have links to the same media is beyond me.
Minor wording nitpick, you actually do get to keep the files, Rhapsody stores any song it completely buffered in a file under the Rhapsody directory called radfile.rcf. No clue as to what format it's in, although I recall sniffing traffic one day and noticing that Rhapsody does all of its authentication and downloading of music via HTTPS.
It'd be a blessing if someone could spend the time to come up with a proxy to authenticate Rhapsody locally, since once it's buffered a song it doesn't download it again, the only reason I was able to stay sane while visiting my parents with dial-up.
If they would just lower the price of individual CDs, down to about $5, I'd buy about 2 a week. As it stands right now, most albums average $15-20. That's too much. So I buy albums very rarely. I think they would make up all the profits in sales if they just lowered the price to acceptable levels.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Free! Stream for free! Download for free! No DRM! User Playlists! Actual good music! Finally 2 words
Creamy Jesus http://www.lawrence.com/mp3/622/
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
I used rhapsody to the benefit of my music catalog. Even streamed music of high quality can be "captured"....
Which to me makes Rhapsody a rather expensive radio station.
This promo sounds lame, but don't discount Rhapsody's model. It has nothing to do with radio -- it has to do with listening to any of 50,000 CDs, instantly, from your computer. I understand that you can't keep them afterward and you can't put them on your iPod and it doesn't have every single CD, but still -- you can listen to any of 50,000 CDs, instantly, from your computer. That's all they promise, and it's hard to understand how cool it is until you've tried it.
For me, it also saves time and money. Rhapsody costs me $100 a year. For it *not* to be a good deal, I would have to either a) satisfy my music needs with $100 worth of CDs a year, which isn't even close, or b) be able to illegally download what I want for an entire year in less time than it takes to earn $100, which isn't even close.
Somehow I can't believe I'm the only one that applies to.
Heck, even beleagured companies that are going to die any day now, honest - like Apple - have billions of dollars just sitting in the bank in case they decide to buy something.
For values of "something" that exclude Real, obviously.
Like the necessary ingredients to get in the record books for "world's largest smores."
(Why yes, I have been awake too long, why do you ask?)
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
I've downloaded Rhapsody again (had it installed when it first came out, just to see how it feels) so I can use these 25 free plays a month to preview stuff before getting it from iTunes, which is truly iPod compatible.
For those of you complaining about how bloated Realplayer is , Google for 'Real Alternative', download and install it. We are barred from having RealPlayer at work, and you can't install software here without admin priviledges, but Real Alternative installed quickly and works great. There's also a 'Quicktime Alternative' I grabbed and installed. With both, I can view most of the web content I couldn't see before.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
Did you read the article? The article seemed to say that realnetworks is giving away 25 free songs a month.
For all I care, realnetwords can sell songs at whatever they see fit. But, I will thank realnetworks to stop the misleading advertisements, disguised as news.
Where is it ? Get Real !
Anyway, this service is nowhere near the hype that Real made it out to be. It's basically a slightly better version of the free trial that most of the legal music services out there. The files are streamed to you (this is the standard method on Rhapsody, but it does a really good job of hiding the process so that you don't even realize it's streaming all this) so you cannot keep them. Instead of getting a whole month free after which they charge your credit card, for this system I don't think they even ask for your credit card as they plan on keeping the basic 25-song plan perpetually free (so long as enough users sign up for pay-plans and the advertisers keep staying along obviously).
Yes, this is advertiser supported, and yes, this gimmick will probably end if all of them decide it's not effective enough. But for now, you might as well try it out since it won't cost you anything.
It's an interesting way of trying to get new users hooked on the new service, though, and considering that I prefer Rhapsody's subscription plan and my Napster university account expires soon, I might just pick this up for the summer. I can't speak for the original poster though, something tells me there isn't an attractive pay-music service model in the world that'll convince him otherwise.
I use it all the time, mostly to listen to music at work. For $10/month I have access to damn near anything I want to listen to.
My only real complaint with it is that there are some bands that I'd like to listen to that haven't licensed their music to Real (notably the Beatles, Zeppelin, and Tool). But most of the music I want to hear is there, the quality is good, and the price is right.
Sure, I feel dirty giving money to Real after their shinanigans (sp?) over the years, but they have a product worth paying for, so I do.
RealNetworks Music Store and Rhapsody are two DIFFERENT services offered by the same company. They run on two different pieces of software.
Rhapsody is an on-demand streaming service that will let you burn songs to a CD for 79 cents a song. Currently, Rhapsody does NOT allow you to download a file that you could put on an mp3 player.
The Real Music Store is a service, much like Napster, BuyMusic.com or iTunes. They sell DRMed music files for 99 cents each. They use a unique format called RAX, which is actually AAC, the same format sold at iTunes, but with a different DRM system. Supposedly, those files can be played on an ipod using Real's "Harmony" technology, but Apple has broken that compatibility with firmware updates in the past.
Personally I think the Rhapsody service is very elegant, and the fact that you can't purchase DRMed files is actually a good thing. In a few years, any store selling DRMed files is going to have a rude awakening as its customers find out that the only way to play all these files that they "bought" is to keep their old computer.
Until the major labels start selling MP3s, indie music is the only music worth buying. Emusic.com sells a lot of good music on MP3 for as little as 22 cents a song. They also offer a different track in their library as a a free download each day.
For the major label stuff that I refuse to buy with DRM, Rhapsody is a good service for on-demand listening.
Excellent point. However, to go one step further, I can't wait until the day people quit even suggesting that blogs compete with standard media outlets. They don't. This whole frenzy about blogs is sort of like back when people thought we'd buy our groceries on the net and all the malls in the world would be empty by 2004. Blogs are great, but they are something new and different, not a replacement to professionals who actually have resources other than e-mail and a convenient disregard for standards.
Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs.
If you'd listen to the pop radio stations these days, you'd find they really do only play about 25 different songs.
$8.95/mo web hosting
> I can't comment on how good Rhapsody is since
> I've never met anyone who used it. That probably
> says enough right there.
Well, no. It's actually a good service if, like me, you sit in front of a computer all day. For $9.95/mo (Unlimited Subscription) I can listen to 1mil songs. The quality is quite good over DSL, cable modem or office LAN. I've even run it over a modem, but that was about as good as could be expected.
If you have a fully supported player (read: supports WMA DRM), I believe you can download an unlimited number of tracks to your player. And you can download an unlimited number of tracks with WMA DRM to your PC. To download to my iPod, I pay $0.89/song, like iTunes...but I never really use the iPod, mostly just use the Rhapsody client...because there's all that music there that I can listen to whenever I want. I find even when I have 10-20G of music, I get tired of it and want to try something new.
To me, it's worth the $9.95/mo.
That people are calling Rhapsody a failure is ridiculous. They've got 1M subscribers, which I believe is more than any other service. Here's a hint to some of you: just because you personally don't like something doesn't mean it's fair to declare it an objective failure without valid reason. For example, some of you are self-absorbed gasbags who can't see past your own perspective to fathom how anything you dislike could possibly have even a modicum of value; I don't like you because of that, but that doesn't mean you're not successful at what you do.
Same goes for Microsoft or non-OSS, etc. This place is quite the revival tent, sometimes. It's funny how most people here smugly mock religious people, but there's more religion here than on http://www.orm.cc/.
While the universe does contain much more than 25 songs, It probably only has about 25 good songs .
Everything they release now are britney and boy band clones. Even the once mighty Metallica has only released crap in recent years.
The state of the industry is thaat even if someone was writing innovative music scores, it would never be financed/promoted and it is doubtful that any large audience will ever hear it.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
I've been a rhapsody subscriber since before Real bought them out. It's a GREAT program and Real just made it better. All the music you can handle, 0-day releases and sometimes PREreleases... I never have to buy a CD! And now, you can download songs to your devices as part of your subscription... Now if they only supported the Omnifi DMP1 20gb HDD player I have in my car... They do support a huge range of portable devices though. Give it a try... seriously.
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
How on earth does somebody imagine that people will pay to get around places when they can bicycle everywhere for free, free, free!
I use and like Rhapsody for the following reasons:
1) It's not too expensive: $10 a month is really pretty cheap for constant access to a sizeable music library.
2) It has a decently broad library - not everything I'd like to hear is there, but certainly it's got a lot more than I would have on my machine if it were up to me to carry it around whereever I go.
3) Though its interface has some definitely flaws, its advertising is pretty unintrusive (haven't seen this new release), so its just about listening to music.
4) When I want to listen to a song, I fire it up, buffer and listen. I don't have to come back and tend my downloads, or throw away clipped, duped, mislabeled or poisoned songs. The worst that ever happens is that the connection drops, and I can't listen for a bit.
All of this rests on having a high-quality internet connection wherever I am. But most of the times I want to listen to music on a computer, the connection is no problem.
So there you have it: time is money, and $10 a month saves me an lot awful lot of time and headache.
Here at Brasil, some independent bands are already releasing their songs directly to the Web on MP3 format. They don't care about piracy, or lost CD sales since most of their money come from shows. They want people to know them, and to listen their music so they can sell more shows. One of these bands is Mombojo [http://www.manguebit.org.br/mombojo/], you can get a full Album from teir site on MP3 format! Free as in Beer, with no DRM, and under the Open Commons Licence!!!
Other artists, like Lobão and Supla, are selling their Albuns on newstands, with a Data track containing pre-ripped MP3 for redistribuition! The CD come as a supplement of a magazine, so it can be sold on newstands! Very clever indeed.
There are lots of small bands, and independent artists out there, some are good, other not so much. But their work is FREE, lets support them! Also, most commercial music is pure crap anyways... why even bother?
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
So, basically it is free as in radio. On the other hand, I can get a true free song a week on iTune, I just don't get to pick it unless I get lucky with a bottle of Diet Pepsi.
Are they really this clueless, or are they victims of their own wishful thinking that people will actually buy into this crap?
Probably too much to ask, but, how about 10 cents per song download, no DRM, no monthly fee, any format, and any encoding rate from 128K on up. I would gladly pay that.
Quit trying to put lipstick on pig after pig.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
With Replay Music 2.0 + Rhapsody service, you keep everything.
People liked it the last time I posted it here, so here it is again. Visual Guide to installing RealPlayer - a step by step guide to turning off every annoying feature of RealPlayer. Yes, it takes a minute to do, but so does configuring QuickTime. It refers to the Windows version but is very close to the other versions as well.
Ok, this comment is bugging the shit out of me.
The reason this bugs me so is for one reason, and only one: The file-sharing programs (KaZaa (old), BearShare, Grokster, Ares, WinMX, ETC) ARE NOT ILLEGAL. The networks they run on ARE NOT ILLEGAL. It is the sharing of copyright works without permission that is illegal , but not the actual services, because there are, as surprising to the industry and apparently to RealNetwork's Rob Glaser, legal uses these programs can be used for.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
I've had Rhapsody since they just about came out. It's mainly streaming, not DRM'd, unless you download the song to disk. Think of it as a jukebox that you pay $9.95 per month that has just about every song you've ever heard available on it. Now it doesn't sound so bad! I've got my system at home, work, and at a couple of friend's house. They let you install it on 5 machines. At home, I've got it hooked up to a wireless router, which serves music to my stereo system via analog conversion. (of course, now you can see a way to un-DRM it . . . ) As of yesterday, I can download the songs locally so I don't have to stream them. Sure, I've got to have the service to listen to them, but I can burn them on CDs and take them to any of the 5 systems I've got Rhapsody installed on. I'll never understand why slashdotters are so anxious to rip shit they haven't even tried . . .
Some day is now. Enjoy :-)
The University I attend has a deal with them that lets students stream as much as we want for $2/month... downloading is like $0.99/track. It's really pretty nice.
I use Rhapsody and love it (and no, I don't work for Real). The audio quality is great and my favorite feature is that there are lots of links to similar artists, albums, etc., so it makes discovering new music fun and easy. Not everyone likes to look for music, some people just want something to play in the background and they've got customizable pre-programmed streams for that.
The biggest weakness is that its still missing large swaths of content, mostly from the independents and for some reason, not every track on every album is available. At least they're adding new stuff all the time. But as someone who sits in front of a computer all day at work, I think it's WAY better than iTunes. I don't really need portability and rather than buying an album a month, I'd rather have constant access to hundreds of thousands of tracks. One other cool thing is that it has spoken word content like comedy routines and an increasing amount of international (e.g. Indian) music.
I think there's a free trial if you want to check it out without paying anything.
http://www.giantpath.com/TMIU/rhapsody.htmlp hp
:-)
:-)
http://www.mp3.com/tech/services_20050753_review.
I've tried iTunes, Napster and Rhapsody about 8 months ago and found Rhapsody to have much better selection. I'm not saying its perfect, but the song selection is much, much bigger than Napster and iTunes combined.
They all have popular albums like 50 cent and Mariah Carey, but Rhapsody truly shines in the undeground/Indie selection. Artists like Spoon, MF Doom and entire the Ninja Tune label are available.
I don't really care much about "owning" music as long as I can play it anytime I want, instantly.
I'm tethered to my computer all day, and I'm sure most slashdotters are as well.
For the albums I really like I own the CD anyway, for car rides and jogging.
Also supports devices like WMA11B if you want to listen in your living room.
One feature that absolutely makes it for me? Enter up to 10 artists and Rhapsody will stream your own commercial free radio station with the artists you specified among bunch of similar others as well. Great way to discover new artists! Don't like the song? Guess what, hit "Next Track" and skip to the next one.
I know it windows only. I'm running it under VMWare on my Redhat workstation at work
Overall, I think Rhapsody is the best one out there and definitely step in the right direction. It's not perfect but works as well as iTunes. Best $10 per month I've ever spent
Once again, it's recordings referred to here, not music.
Simple test: if it's identical every performance, it's a recording. Indeed that's a good thing for a recording. For music, it's death.
"the whole service is based on listening to remote files. If you want to burn CDs you pay an extra charge over what you already stumped up, for a DRM-controlled AAC download. Which to me makes Rhapsody a rather expensive radio station."
What radio stations let you choose what songs you want to hear?
Vote for Pedro
"I can't comment on how good Rhapsody is since I've never met anyone who used it." I've subscribed to Rhapsody for a couple of years now, and I actually love it. I think it matters what you use it for, however. I don't use streaming audio as a replacement for music I own, I use it to listen to stuff I want to see if I *want* to buy, or if I want to listen to a track a friend recommends for a listen. If I like it, then I'll buy it through other means (Rhapsody has an application that allows you to burn tracks to a CD, but I've never been able to figure out how to use it and in any event it seems a silly way to do things). Rhapsody has also been extremely useful for me in a business sense. I write a lot of articles about music and Rhapsody allows me the ability to pull down a song or album and listen to it without incurring the additional cost of having to buy the album or otherwise hunt for a particular track. I recently did an article on songs with the word "Detriot" in their titles, for example -- I went onto Rhapsody, used their search engine, and then had a universe of 70 or so tunes to work with. As a reference library of music, it certainly justifies the $10 a month I spend on it. I don't think anyone should confuse a service like Rhapsody for being the same thing as owning music, and I don't; I still buy the music I want to buy. But as a highly configurable personal radio and sampling station, it's been a useful engine of music acquisition and sampling -- I spend more time *exploring* music because it's cheap and easy to do so. In terms of computer applications that are actually relevant to my life on a daily basis, it's in the top five. The question of interest is: Will I still use Rhapsody if/when iTunes starts a streaming subscription service?
John Scalzi, freelance troublemaker
Actually I dont know how you can say this. Real player is the most bloated, privacy infringing piece of crap I have ever seen. Who cares if its cross platform when its advertising model is so restrictive that you have to create plan on how you are going to navigate through all of the options to get it to work the way you want. And then when you actually get that done then you have to deal with ad spamming and it overwriting your file types with out asking.
don't get jealous now!
What radio stations let you choose what songs you want to hear?
Phone up your local station and make a request, you'll get it most times. Search for a radio station that plays stuff you like, most times you'll find one of them as well.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Hey, Thanks for clearing that up. I was thinking you got 25 free song downloads each month and was wondering what people were sulking about because 25 free songs is a lot. Too bad it's just 25 "listens". But, it's something right? Better than nothing free at all.
RealNetworks' Rhapsody Free Songs Legal... http://allwaysmusic.modblog.com/
It is funny to hear so much bagging of Rhapsody, It is something I'm really fond of. I have been using it for a year and it has allowed me to listen to music which otherwise I would never have heard or even known about. You can follow the history of a musician from band to band. You can even check out all the different versions of the same song. etc. etc. The software is a bit shody but to have such a big library at my finger tips without having to use the disk of my laptop which is great. I just hope they keep expanding their library. Cheers, A.
I talked to Real's GM of Music Services and he told me how to fix the problem with Rhapsody To Go that prevents you from transferring the subscription tracks ($15 per month) onto your MP3 player. I posted it on MP3.com yesterday.
-Eliot