Mozilla Partners with Real Networks

engineer_uhg writes to tell us that Mozilla has just entered into a multi-year agreement with Real Networks to have Firefox distributed with downloads of RealPlayer, Rhapsody, and RealArcade. The Mozilla team cited Real's estimated 2 million downloads per day as a great tool for distribution. However, many Firefox supporters question the move, complaining of questionable practices by Real.

Comments

black cloud w/silver lining...

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

While I certainly wish Mozilla the best of luck in ramping up the distribution of their products, I wish they'd picked a better net citizen to accomplish that goal.

Re:black cloud w/silver lining...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla is in the business of getting their software used by as many people as possible, they're not in the business of saying what other companies or organisations should or shouldn't do.

If they want to win the browser wars (to use an old term) then securing 2 million installs is a good step.

Well done Moz. :)

Re:black cloud w/silver lining...

[eln]

They may get more people downloading their browsers, but Firefox's core market has always been geeks. Associating themselves with a company that is almost universally reviled by geeks is a huge slap in the face to Firefox's core group of supporters.

This move really underscores the rift in the Open Source community as to what the goal of Open Source really is. Should we be spreading a philosophy, or just trying to get as many people using our favorite software as possible? If we're trying to spread the Open Source ideal, then partnering with a company known for distributing spyware and generally embodying all of the worst aspects of closed source software is a bad idea. If all we're trying to do is get everyone to use the same software that we do, why do we even care if that software is open source to begin with?

This move indicates a lack of sensitivity to the Open Source philosophy, and seems to complete Mozilla's move from a community-driven project to a market share obsessed company.

Re:black cloud w/silver lining...

[EvanED]

Part of it is a confusion over terms. For instance, I always had the impression the "Open Source" philosophy as the practical side, which would advocate this deal, and the "Free Software" side as the idealistic side, which wouldn't partner with anyone who didn't support free software themselves.

So in that sense, this move IS at least reasonably in line with open source mentalities.

Re:black cloud w/silver lining...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's two main points to address here.

While Mozilla's public was only geeks (or directly people connected to geeks) once upon a time, it is now reasonably main-stream. If you want lots of people to use Open Source or GLP software you need regular people to use it too. Microsoft - no matter how much one hates them - became the most sucessful software company ever by catering to a mass market, and SGI died because their user-base shrank.

Philosophy follows market capture. In order to impose your will on someone you've got to get yourself in to a position of power of them first. It's the same whether you're in politics, business or accademia, get people to support you and THEN you're able to change things (or at least try with a greater chance of sucess).

Re:black cloud w/silver lining...

[Kid Zero]

Should we be spreading a philosophy, or just trying to get as many people using our favorite software as possible?

Spread software. People are resistant to others telling them how to believe.

Re:black cloud w/silver lining...

[squiggleslash]

I'm fine with it. Of the "big three" (Windows Media, Quicktime, and Real), Real is closest to actually having an open, Free Software, system (Helix.) It's not perfect, they're still insisting on "binary blobs" for supporting some codecs, but it's far closer to what's wanted than the other two.

On top of that, Real's the only one of the three that officially supports GNU/Linux. Windows Media and Quicktime survive under GNU/Linux because of reverse engineering efforts and DLL-wrapping, not thanks to support from the multimedia system's inventor.

Real has a poor reputation only because their Windows client was once a hotbed of malware and kludges. It isn't today, hasn't been for years, and it's hardly the only benchmark you can judge them by.

Something tells me that if this was Apple, there'd be none of the bitching and moaning about how Apple's "not a good net citizen". Real is certainly a better citizen today than Apple.

Re:black cloud w/silver lining...

[mrchaotica]

As the saying goes, "when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas." In other words, Real's shitty reputation will tarnish Firefox by association.

Now, we know Real has changed (what with Helix player and all), but since the general public is usually a few years behind us techies, their opinion of Real (due to the former spyware etc.) is most likely still at rock bottom.

Re:black cloud w/silver lining...

[Netochka]

But did the general public even know that Real was shitty to begin with? Based on Real's popularity I'd say they never even caught on to that trend, and it was mainly geeks who didn't like Real.

Re:black cloud w/silver lining...

[k8to]

Real remains poor. Helix is open source, but it is half a program. Software even capable of handling the enclosure formats (not the codecs) of openly specified formats is not included in the free software component of the player. In reality, Helix Player is an open toolkit one could use to build a player, but the total functional player is a proprietary program.

This sort of half-truth, a supposedly open player that does not work, is the kind of shady thing I would expect, and still do expect from Real.

Re:black cloud w/silver lining...

[evilviper]

Of the "big three" (Windows Media, Quicktime, and Real), Real is closest to actually having an open, Free Software, system (Helix.) It's not perfect, they're still insisting on "binary blobs" for supporting some codecs, but it's far closer to what's wanted than the other two.

Quicktime used MPEG-4 video for years. Now it uses h.264 and AAC audio in an MP4 container, which can be played-back by many different programs, including many fully open source. They use standard RTSP for streaming, and even provide the Darwin Streaming Server as free and open source for anyone to use.

Windows Media has submitted their latest video codec as as SMPTE standard (VC-1) which is now being used by HD-DVD and Blue-ray players.

Real has a propritary format, propritary audio codecs, propritary video codecs, require their propritary software for encoding, propritary software for decoding, propritary software that supports their propritary streaming protocols, and sued Streambox out-of-business for creating an application that could read (and save) propritary RealNetwork streams.

How does this make Real anything but (by-far) the worst of the worst? Sure, they have the Helix player, which in open source, but only under a rather restrictive license ensuring that it can't be used by anyone else for anything. The Helix player only supports already open video/audio codecs and containers, which have been supported by many other more open players for years, unless you agree to their ridiculously restrictive license to get the Real codecs.

On top of that, Real's the only one of the three that officially supports GNU/Linux. Windows Media and Quicktime survive under GNU/Linux because of reverse engineering efforts and DLL-wrapping, not thanks to support from the multimedia system's inventor.

Real was the first, of the three to play on Linux, yes. However, Quicktime (now) uses standard codecs and formats that ANY player can use. Windows Media has a SMPTE standardized video codec which any player can impliment (and native implimentations for VLC/ffmpeg are available), etc. With real, you still, to this day, have no choice but to load the binary codecs (as MPlayer/Xine do).

Real has a poor reputation only because their Windows client was once a hotbed of malware and kludges. It isn't today, hasn't been for years,

Completely untrue. Real pulled back just a little bit. Their software still installs lots of other crap and system services, makes it difficult to disable sending information back to their servers, etc. It's just nominally less horrible than it used-to be. It's still very, very bad software, which I go out of my way to be rid of.

Real is certainly a better citizen today than Apple.

Utterly wrong. Apple is the BEST of the big 3 by FAR, and has been for several years.

So Long as...

[Mozleron]

We don't have to get RealPlayer or any of Reals other crap crammed down our collective throats with our FireFox downloads, i don't care what they do.

"Questionable"

[LuminaireX]

However, many Firefox supporters question the move complaining of questionable practices by Real

That understates the reaction quite a bit. Real is one of the worst things to hit the Internet since AOL, IMHO

Bundled downloads suck

[SoCalChris]

Bundled downloads suck, especially for people with slow internet connections.

Just give me what I requested, don't add a bunch of crap to the download that I don't need or want. Does Mozilla want Firefox to become "That crappy browser that came with the music player"?

I hope you illiterate fools realize...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that Firefox is being bundled with Real's stuff, not the other way around.

Idiots.

Will this extend to Real's agreements with OEMs?

[mikefe]

Real player is bundled by a lot of OEM manufacturers. If this extends to that also, it will be a tremendous boon to Firefox!

Re:Ummm... memory footprint?

[imroy]

Tesla, read the comment again. He never said anything about *embedding*. Just that *bundling* Firefox with bloatware might not help some people's idea that Firefox is also bloatware. Not that I've ever thought that about FF. Mozilla suite perhaps, but not FF.

Re:Maybe

[luder]

I use RealPlayer as Windows Media Player replacement since around 2 years ago and what I can tell is that your description of RP seems to be about a totally different software. Worse than a virus?! What about some facts that support what you are saying?

RealNetworks did a lot of shit in the past, true, but that doesn't mean they will always keep doing it. That's the same as saying that someone who was convicted by a crime will always behave as a criminal.

It really bothers me that most people who bash Real latest software do so without even trying the thing.

Gasp! That big?!

[saikou]

I wonder since when Real Player got so bloated that whole FireFox can be neatly tucked into distribution without users noticing it :)

Why does the OSS community need a goal?

[jesterzog]

This move really underscores the rift in the Open Source community as to what the goal of Open Source really is. Should we be spreading a philosophy, or just trying to get as many people using our favorite software as possible?

I don't know about you, but I don't subscribe to either of these.

I consider myself part of the Open Source community because I both use Open Source, and from time to time I've also written and released my own Open Source. I don't particularly care about spreading the philosophy (although I'm happy to explain it to people), and I don't feel the need to make people use it (although I'm happy to help them if they want to, within reason).

Personally I like and use Open Source software because in the ways that I like using software, I find it to be of superior quality and better suited to my needs for a variety of reasons. Running campaigns and trying to convert people to new philosophies has nothing to do with it.

Individual people or organisations within the open source community might have goals, but I don't think it's a serious problem if different groups disagree. I'm also not sure if it's meaningful to claim that people should be aiming for a goal just because they're involved in open source. If anything, perhaps one issue that could be addressed is how to better identify different interest groups without trying to bundle them all into the "Open Source Software Community" basket.

Re:Maybe

[ben there...]

The first time I ran it I almost couldn't figure which window had the video. And needless to say it was the last time.

That's the problem right there. RealPlayer is not so much like the old RealOne Player or any of their other failures. They created a bad name for themselves by being overly intrusive. But they don't deserve that rep so much now.

They also were the first format to optimize for low bandwidth, which created a big problem as far as how their format in general appeared when most RealMedia videos were crappy quality.

That said, I'd prefer everyone used H.264 MPEG-4 for streaming video. It's good quality per bit at all bitrates, it works in several players, and it's easy to hint for streaming and drop into Darwin Streaming Server.

I don't like it

[vga_init]

I think the first thing that comes to mind is what people will start to think about Firefox. Sure, its userbase might be strengthened, but we are living in an age of browser spamming.

What do I mean by "browser spamming"? For example, let's say you install a popular piece of software like AOL. I have a laptop running Windows XP, and I also do not have any commercial antivirus of my own, so I installed AOL because my dad has an accoutn with them and from that I am able to get free McAfee service. AOL came bundled with "AOL browser." It's merely an IE frontend with a shinier interface and tabs. Also, try installing Realplayer for Windows--you can hardly load the damn thing without their little media browser coming up, loading all sorts of Real sponsored web pages. Is it possible for me to go anywhere or do anything without escaping some kind of little browser getting in my business?

Soon people will download Realplayer, an ad-supported shareware package, and they'll have Firefox. They'll begin to regard Firefox as the same sort of strings-attached freeware junk that Real is. Don't get me wrong--I think Realplayer is actually a very nice media player, but my beef against it is all the peripheral crap that comes with it and the intentionally-limited features.

It's important that people understand what Firefox truly is--Free software with a capital "F". They also need to understand that it comes from the Mozilla Foundation, not Real Networks. :-/

Re:Pathetic

[kimvette]

Actually Real plays it clean with the Linux version of the software - they don't sneak spyware in with the product, they don't try to take over your configuration, they don't hide checked items down in the out-of-site areas of picklists where all the visible items are checked. Why? Because they know that Linux users generally have at least half a clue WILL NOT tolerate that sneaky crap.