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

[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

[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

[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]

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.

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...

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.

Forcing badware on users ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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.

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.