Yahoo Music Shutting Down, Users Going to Real

Tech.Luver sends in word of Yahoo's decision to exit the subscription music business. Yahoo's current subscribers — the company doesn't disclose how many it has — will be switched over to Real's Rhapsody service, and Yahoo will promote Real on its site. Yahoo had priced its subscription service significantly below Real's: $5.99 a month (if users pay a year in advance), vs. Rhapsody memberships at $12.99 a month and up. The Mercury News wonders how the Yahoo-Real deal would fare if Microsoft takes over — not well, the betting goes.

Comments

RealPlayer

[misleb]

Does that mean users would be forced to use the abomination that is RealPlayer? All I can say is "Haha!"

Re:RealPlayer

[numbsafari]

I refuse to use any site that requires RealPlayer... Hence I don't use Amazon's song sampling...

I hate RealPlayer.

It would actually be a great thing for MS to take over Yahoo if only to help prevent the further spread of the virus that is RealPlayer.

Re:RealPlayer

[Billly Gates]

Real player no longer sucks and its the only player on Linux that has correct color calibration and brightness on my laptops.

IT no longer has spyware and adware but the reputation quite damned it. Its quite slim now and fast since the company went in a different direction a few years ago. ... no I dont use it anymore on Windows and prefer Itunes. Raphsody requires real player so some people still use it. My wife has it on her computer but she rarely uses it anymore.

Re:RealPlayer

[mrxak]

As much as I agree with you about RealPlayer being utterly evil, I still prefer the unstable tripod of Google-Microsoft-Yahoo to the cold war deadlock Google-Microsoft.

Re:RealPlayer

[kcornia]

Some of those of us who are willing to give people/things a second chance have been pleasantly surprised with current incarnations of RealPlayer. It is non-adware, non-spyware, light on the CPU, and Rhapsody is AWESOME.

I've bought five or six albums in the past few months, several from artists I'd never have listened to (Daft Punk, Modest Mouse, Big Audio Dynamite to name a few) if not for Rhapsody including them in custom channels that I built. Granted I'm buying the CDs because Infiniti SUCKS and can't play home grown CDs in their player without it breaking and they don't have an input jack, but the point is I'm getting exposed to a bunch of new music for the first time in years thanks to Rhapsody.

I actually feel bad for them for having to pay such a high price for their early bad decisions. I mean, I shit-canned them back in the late 90's when they pulled those stunts, but they've matured a lot, and are one of the most complete players out there (although .mov files have quit working on them recently).

I encourage those of you who still have bad memories of Real to read up on the changes and perhaps give them another shot. Rhapsody really is kick ass. I'm sitting here listening to my Sansa player that has 4GB of music that I don't own and loving every minute of it.

I even take it out when I run now, even though I still have to cart the iPod Nano for the running shoes/chip combo.

Re:RealPlayer

[TubeSteak]

http://www.google.com/search?q=real+alternative

I have it installed for when I run across the stray RealAudio or RealVideo file... but I can't recall the last time I did so on purpose.

I have checked out RealMedia Variable Bitrate and I was very surprised how good the quality was compared to the shiatty RealVideo from days past.

Re:RealPlayer

[The Orange Mage]

I would have loved to read your post, but I waited five minutes for it to buffer and I got bored...

Re:RealPlayer

[Seor Jojoba]

I love Rhapsody. It has its problems, like forcing you to too frequently upgrade the software, but the basic subscription idea is great, and Rhapsody has a very good selection. You can pretty much just put in any artist, obscure or famous, and 19 times out of 20, their music pops up ready to listen to.

The reason that the pay subscription model is not insanely popular is probably because it is competing against the "free subscription" model, where you get all the same music, but for free. Who is offering that? Millions of torrent clients, spread across the internet. For myself, I guess I'll just be a chump and pay twelve bucks a month for all the music I could ever want and then some.

Re:RealPlayer

[webmaster404]

The reason that the pay subscription model is not insanely popular is probably because it is competing against the "free subscription" model, where you get all the same music, but for free.

Not to mention its DRMed and may not work on your devices. When someone offers a subscription model DRM free service that works on Windows/Linux/Mac in whatever encoding you want FLAC/MP3/OGG I will sign up until then its again the "pirates" offer a better product on more then just price and if this continues I don't see how digital music will survive.

Re:RealPlayer

[toadlife]

'97 when I briefly used it before a buddy in the dorm showed me winamp I call BS on your post. I was an early user of WinAMP, as I was one of the several thousand or so people on the planet who new what an mp3 even was in 1997.

In 1997, WinAMP was a barely functional audio player that only played Mp2, MP3 and (I think?) uncompressed PCM audio files, whereas Real Player pretty much only played real media files, and maybe uncompressed PCM (wav/aif) files. Real Player most certainly didn't play MP3 files in 1997.

AFAIK, "Winplay", a really crappy shareware app from Fraunhofer and WinAMP were the only mp3 players for Windows that existed at the time. That you replaced RealPlayer with WinAMP in 1997 seems highly unlikely, as they most likely only shared the ability to play PCM audio.

Re:RealPlayer

[Symbha]

Not true...
Rhapsody requires the Rhapsody client, or the Rhapsody web plugin... but does not use Real Player.

I'm sure it uses the same tech...
However, I'm a Rhapsody subscriber, but I too refuse to install the Real Player.

Re:RealPlayer

[kcornia]

This argument always fascinates me. The same is true of your cable TV, but I don't see constant bitching about the cable pay model. The music goes away if you stop paying because you're paying for a SERVICE, not for the music. If you want to pay for the music, then Amazon/iTunes is all there for you. But to buy just what I have in my sansa right now you'd be paying about 5-10 years worth of rhapsody monthly fees. Do you think you'll still want all that music that far in the future? I know I don't listen to many of my old CDs, so Rhapsody is great value for me.

And as far as the comment above this, you're asking the company to let you download whatever you want, whenever you want, as much as you want, in any bitrate/codec you want, on the HONOR system, the promise that you won't download it and then stop paying and share it with your friends?

DRM for music that you guy is lame, I agree. But DRM for music that you buy as a service makes total sense and I have no problem with it. Sure it would be nice if they could all agree so I didn't have to have both a Nano and a Sansa player. But Sansa players are 40 bucks and its plug and play from there so I'm not losing sleep over it.

Re:RealPlayer

[Skynyrd]

I actually feel bad for them for having to pay such a high price for their early bad decisions. I mean, I shit-canned them back in the late 90's when they pulled those stunts, but they've matured a lot, and are one of the most complete players out there (although .mov files have quit working on them recently).

I'm glad they are paying the price, if for no other reason to serve as an example.

They screwed the pooch - over and over again. They justifiably lost marketshare and honor and I sincerely hope that they are brought up as an example when companies are deciding to do something anti-consumer.

Perhaps they should have just changed their name and started over.

Re:RealPlayer

[Skynyrd]

This argument always fascinates me. The same is true of your cable TV, but I don't see constant bitching about the cable pay model. The music goes away if you stop paying because you're paying for a SERVICE, not for the music. If you want to pay for the music, then Amazon/iTunes is all there for you. But to buy just what I have in my sansa right now you'd be paying about 5-10 years worth of rhapsody monthly fees. Do you think you'll still want all that music that far in the future? I know I don't listen to many of my old CDs, so Rhapsody is great value for me.

Yeah, but that argument doesn't hold water at all. Video is generally watched once or twice (with some exceptions) where music is listened to repeatedly. I want to rent video (because it's so much cheaper per viewing) and buy music (because I keep it and listen to it over and over, for years).

I can play MP3s in my living room (HTPC), bedroom (PC), truck (MP3 player/CD player), car (iPod + tape deck), motorcycle (cell phone + earbud) at work (thumb drive in my PC + speakers or iPod + speakers/earbuds) and on and on... I just don't have that flexibility with rental music. I'm also not interested in the "band of the week". I tend to listen to music for years, so renting doesn't do it for me. I guess if I was 15 again and listened to whatever the radio told me to, I'd rent.

My music collection is about 1,000 albums, and I've been buying CDs for 20 years (records for a few years before that).

If renting works for you, that's great. But the music/video comparison doesn't really work.

Re:RealPlayer

[BForrester]

You'll see it next time you log in. The post has been linked to your taskbar, start menu, quicklaunch, desktop icon, will start with Windows, will integrate with your browser, and has already claimed default association with all known filetypes.

Re:RealPlayer

[toadlife]

Sorry. Upon further reflection I was bored at work and grumpy and being a pedant.

MS + Yahoo, Formula For Success

[Anonymous Coward]

There has to be some Ballmer PowerPoint slide somewhere deep inside Microsoft that looks like this:

1. Throw billions at fading dot com era giant in hopes to replace their own basket case of an online search and content efforts

2. ???

3. Profit!

Yahoo right now must be feeling like someone sitting at the side of the road with their car broken down and someone else with a broken down car comes up to them and offers them 40 billion to buy their car off them because they really need a lift...

whats going on with Yahoo

[Brigadier]

First they ship all there pictures to flicker, then they get rid of there version of myspace 360. Now yahoo music. I understand restructuring but they are doing horrible things to the brand. With the news of msn trying to by them out. If I was an investor I would be bailing out. Without content what do users flock to ?

Re:That sucks

[darkhitman]

Well, if you're looking for a replacement, I've tried out two streaming music sites recently that are pretty good:

http://www.imeem.com/ - Like youtube, but for music I guess. It has a lot of good playlists, even for my doom metal tastes.

http://www.pandora.com/ - Streaming internet radio, dissimilar to imeem in that it randomizes what it will play for you - though it tries to play music similar to what you like/tell it you like through some sort of algorithm. Good for finding new stuff. I found Electric Wizard here.

Re:crap crap crap

[ScrewMaster]

I remember when it used to be 55 a year and now its near 70, I am not willing to pay any more. This sucks!

Yes, well ... in a crunch, I guess there's always Gnutella. Pricing is better than most, I understand, even if the quality is somewhat uneven.

Re:not well ?

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>..unless microsoft also plan to buy Real.

Which brings up a couple of questions. Which sucks more, RealPlayer or MediaPlayer? Would some Satanic merging of the two programs become known as The Day That Music Died SP1?

Forcing badware on users ?

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks Yahoo! http://www.stopbadware.org/reports/reportdisplay?reportname=realplayer01282008

Re:Forcing badware on users ?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Well, fuck you too, arsehole.

If you'd read that page, you'd clearly see that RealPlayer 11 indeed includes Rhapsody.

RealPlayer comes with the engine that plays Rhapsody music. That is not the Rhapsody client. When you join Rhapsody, you download the Rhapsody Client, not Real Player. Basically what I'm getting at is you still don't know what you're talking about. Worse, you're actually spreading FUD. (Amusingly, you would have gotten this if YOU had read the page you linked to.) You see, Real Player is not forced upon you. You're not even tricked into downloading it like iTunes and Quicktime. (Which is probably why you and the numbnut mods believe what you're saying without challenging it.)

Since you're so adamant about arguing with me about this, I'll just take a moment here to explain something: I am a Rhapsody subscriber. I have been for years. I've installed it a number of times. Wanna hear something fascinating? I have never once installed Real Player while installing Rhapsody. When you sign up for Rhapsody, you are taken to a download link, and all you download is the Rhapsody client. You don't have to, for example, go find the 'basic' version of Rhapsody or go hunting around the site for a de-packaged version. The truth of the matter is, if you want to have both Rhapsody and Real installed, you have to root around for two different downloads. (At least coming from the point of view of somebody signing up for Rhapsody, which is what these users from Yahoo will be asked to do.)

I really don't care if you think I'm an 'arsehole'. I think you're an 'arsehole' for spouting bullshit. Frankly, if the roles were reversed you'd again think I was an 'arsehole'. You can sit there and be mad at me for not being diplomatic in my original post (which I admit to. Not my proudest moment). Or you can sit there, realize your mistake, and learn from it. Your choice. Either way, have a nice day. :)

Subscription DRM services

[nurb432]

Yet another example of why you never want to sign up with one. No matter how good the company is, *today*.

Re:Subscription DRM services

[Carcass666]

Actually, my understanding on a subscription deal is that you pay an agreed upon amount of money to have access to a source of music for an agreed upon amount of time. Unless Yahoo is not giving their customers the ability to opt-out of a prolonged subscription (instead of switching to Rhapsody), I don't see how there is any bad faith on their part, or a problem with subscription models in general.

It would be a different story if I purchased a track and the DRM on the file required connection to a back-end server that didn't exist in the future (like Google video). In that case, if I purchased a track, and if I am denied future access to it then I should get a full refund. I agree with you if you're saying that purchasing a track with the potential of being denied access to it later should be avoided.

In Rhapsody's case, you can buy tracks (most of the time) by burning them onto a CD. Some artists are allowing purchase of unencumbered mp3's, nicer yet. Sometimes, artists may pull their music from Rhapsody (like Radiohead, bastards), in which case I can decide to cancel my subscription if it pisses me off enough. At any rate, I am paying a subscription to legitimately listen to music (and maybe get the artist 1/1000th of a penny when I do so). Works well enough for me.

How to monetize -- Yahoo style.

[whoever57]

One assumes that Yahoo could have raised prices -- to the same level as Real now charges. However, this would incur quite a lot of displeasure amongst users. This deal will undoubtably incur some displeasure, but, some of that will be directed against Real, not Yahoo.

So, Yahoo presumably has a deal under which it will be able to be compensated for the lost revenue (perhaps even the revenue which could have been gained by increasing prices) without the pain of actually putting up prices. THere may be some upfront cash which may help in a battle aginst Microsoft.

The problem is that the net result is less eyeballs on Yahoo's pages. It's those eyeballs that are Yahoo's value. The long term effect of this may be a net reduction in revenue.

The Big Questions: How do users transfer?

[JoeCommodore]

I have a friend who uses it pretty regular probably has a 1000 songs he listens to (DRMed - has to check in regularly to keep them alive).

I wonder how it will transfer?
Will it transfer (DRM compatibility)?
Will Real support his devices?
And what songs will he loose access to due to the transfer (from RI contract differences between Cos.)

If they do it right he probably will keep going with them, if they mess it up he probably will leave along with others.

FTC.GOV, anyone

[keraneuology]

Already lodged my complaint of anti-competitive behavior. They've stopped deals that were less obnoxious than that one....

Sansa Connect

[Maxwell309]

I really like my Sansa Connect WiFi enabled player with the Yahoo Music Unlimited service. I knew there was trouble ahead but I figured it would still work as a regular mp3 player once Yahoo Music Unlimited goes dark. The Sansa Connect runs Linux and uses Mono. Time to start hacking. A general purpose WiFi internet radio receiver would be cool. You can find Sansa Connects for under $90 as recently as last week and probably less next week.

Not a surprise

[BanjoBob]

After all the complaints by digruntled customers after Yahoo Downgrades MusicMatch Jukebox and removed many of the features of that application, failed to get it working 100%, and a host of other problems, one might ask why they just didn't give the customer what they want? That was the return of the MusicMatch Jukebox program the way it was in its last release.

It seems that the music business is in the business of denying customers what they want. Just as the RIAA is seeing drastic declines in music sales because of similar tactics and a blatant refusal to monetize the net, Yahoo! music did the same thing - refusing to satisfy their customers and give them value for their dollar. This is what happens.

One must ask, "why they never learn?" There are better and more value-for-your-dollar options out there. All Yahoo Music had to do was give the consumer value for their dollar.

I like Rhapsody, but I forsee problems...

[Exp315]

I wasn't a believer in the music subscription model either, but eventually I tried Rhapsody on a free trial, and I discovered that I like it and I would use it. I think I would even pay the new higher monthly subscription price for it. That is I would if I didn't live in Canada, where I'm not allowed to subscribe to Rhapsody because of the regional licensing schemes of the big music cartels. But Yahoo Unlimited provided service in Canada, so I subscribed to that instead. So now Rhapsody is going to take over Yahoo's music subscription service? So what happens to the Canadian subscribers? The big problem with new service models like this is that they invest a ton of money in getting people to know and accept their model - but then they can't keep it stable long enough for people to get comfortable with it. Why invest your time and effort in understanding the current deal and figuring out if it's workable for you, when they're just going to change it arbitrary next month?