Real Feels iTunes Backlash 965
BunkAsInBed writes "CNET reports RealNetwork's recent campaign against the iTunes music network that involved tactics like slashing the costs of their downloads in half, reverse engineering Apple's FairPlay format (Harmony), and recently an online petition and bulliten board have received the opposite reponse that was anticpated."
apple fans (Score:4, Insightful)
Realone is trying to break apple fans from apple loyality... and it just isn't going to work. Of course I am stereotyping but Apple's success is based in their loyal, vocal, energetic community.
The linux community and the apple communities are a lot alike in this manner.
What is interesting is that trolling the site got success...
The deluge of anti-RealNetworks sentiment prompted the company to take down the original petition and replace it with one without a comment section, but where the names of those who signed up were visible. Most signed up as 'Real sucks' or something similar. The ability to see names was then removed.
Proprietary is anticompetitive by definition.
Apple is banking that proprietary is profitable. I'll guess we'll see if they are right.
Davak
Re:apple fans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:apple fans (Score:5, Insightful)
The RDF is strong. For 18 months, I used an Archos Jukebox Recorder 15 gig. I recently got one of the new 4th generation iPods, because I needed more space.
The iPod is very slick. The screen is much more legible than the Archos screen. It's a nice unit. I had always been puzzled, though, be iPod fans telling me that its interface was so much simpler than anything else, because I could not imagine a simpler or more intuitive interface than that of my Archos.
Well, now that I've used them both, I know the truth: the iPod doesn't have a simpler or better interface than the Archos. In fact, in some ways it is noticably worse. The iPod has a bigger, better screen, for example, but when something doesn't fit, it doesn't handle it well. The Archos, on the other hand, autoscrolls it back and forth so you can see it. (The iPod does that for the song title of the playing song, but it doesn't pause at the ends, and since it is flickery and dim while scrolling, it is very hard to read). The navigation on the Archos, being basically the same mechanism that most people will have seen on the VCR, cable or satellite box, DVD player remote, cell phone, and other places, is immediately obvious. The iPod's click wheel, while freaking cool, is confusing at first (rotate a wheel to select in a menu? Press the "menu" button to go back instead of pressing the button with the "back" symbol?)
The iPod integrates well with iTunes, and I am actually letting iTunes manage my music--something I thought I'd never do, because I normally hate that kind of thing. I'm an "organize my music on the file system to manage it" type of guy.
Still, the iPod integration with iTunes is not nearly as good as it could be. For example, considering browsing your music collection in iTunes. You can basically go by genre/artist/album. Now consider browsing your music collection on the iPod. It adds some more categories for browsing (genre, composer, Audiobooks), and things are organized a bit differently.
It would make a lot more sense if the iTunes browsing categories matched the iPod music menu organization.
My conclusion? The iPod is pretty good. I like it a lot. It deserves to be a good seller. However, it is not nearly the great leap above the rest that the RDF makes it out to be, and without the RDF and the huge marketing Apple has put into it, it would not be nearly as dominant.
Lessons Learned (Score:5, Funny)
Another lesson -brand image is important. (Score:5, Insightful)
Real's done lots of decent (appearing, anyway?) things like open-source/helix, etc; but people have a hard time getting over the time that they were the obnoxious-spyware-company.
I think this is interesting because it's a case where Branding is meaningful to techies. A good brand image (Apple) vs. a bad brand image (Real) influences people at least as much as the technical details (yeah, it'd be cool if all content played anywhere).
Re:Another lesson -brand image is important. (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, Real could change their name to "NotRealNetworks", but all us savvy geeks wouldn't be distracted.
"NotRealNetworks? Oh yeah. They used to be Real Networks. Not gonna buy their crap. You remember trying to install their damn player? Change the state on EVERY SINGLE RADIO BUTTON or it's spam for years."
It's not just branding: It's building a reputation for good products (or failing to do so). Brand is a factor, insofar as a company's product history informs my decision, but it's not at all the most relevant factor.
Re:Another lesson -brand image is important. (Score:4, Funny)
Like, totally!
REAL usable... (Score:5, Informative)
The dejunked player is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/audiohelp_install.shtm
So, if you must use Real, use this one and thank the BBC.
Re:Another lesson -brand image is important. (Score:5, Interesting)
A specific example of this is1 how differently the brands owned by Real are viewed by the user population.
RealPlayer tends to cause immediate irritation in people's minds and postings on the net.
Mention Rhapsody, though, and not a lot of flak is sent up. Why?
Other than the obvious trespassings Real had in the past, they've continued to exhibit ambigous messages to the public. The Helix system is open, but doesn't support premium services the Realplayer does, You have the Realplayer for Windows, Mac and Linux but the majority of servies and features only work on Windows, Harmony loads content onto almost any device (not just the iPod, that's a misconception) but the Real music store only works on Windows PCs, no Macs or Linux boxes. There's the implied message they are universal but in truth they're really a Windows product with some reach into Mac.
With Rhapsody, there's no bad name attached. They've never gotten mixed up in bad consumer practices- due in large part to the fact they listened to their consumers (imagine that!), they have a compelling product but the key difference is that Rhapsody is never marketed in any light other than the one that shines for Windows PCs. There's no ambiguity.
Yeah, Real had made serious attempts to clean up the brand but heavy promotion focused around ads that show a friggin iPod implying universal support but not actual having it is the next biggest hurdle. Mac users who have an iPod can't take advantage of the 49cent service because there's no store for the Mac.
Plus, does Real seriously think that by considering the feedback they received only the work of a "vocal minority" instead of 1200+ (at this writing) comments that might actually have some value, even if it is buried in vulgarity.
Re:Another lesson -brand image is important. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mention Rhapsody, though, and not a lot of flak is sent up. Why?
Because the reason people are irritated by Real isn't their proprietary nature. That's a business decision that need not directly impact consumers. That is, "prioprietary" does not necessarily require copy-protection schemes, closed formats, monopoly pricing, and tech stagnation. (These things often happen, but not always. Technically, Perl and Linux are proprietary, but they're open-source and free.)
No, the actual reason why people hate Real is because their technology is horrific dogshit.
- Every time you want to view a new Real stream, you have to download RealPlayer version x+1.
- Their player is bloated with ads and doo-dad components you'll never use and can't get eliminate, so the interface is cluttered. It's like poking a tiny hole in a full-page newspaper advertisement, and trying to watch TV through it.
- Their free player is also crippled beyond repair. You can't save streams unless you buy their software, and that is complete bullshit.
- Today's Real streams run like technology straight out of 1994. They're bloated, tinny, and pixelated. They're vastly outcompeted by every other format.
- Their software won't stop f***ing harassing you. It spews links to itself all over your desktop, your start menu, your quick-launch bar, and your notification area. It nags you constantly to upgrade to a more recent version or buy the full version. It keeps installing its beyond-useless agent in your MSCONFIG startup, and won't go away.
In short, people hate Real because Real sucks. They've made a whole lot of awful business and technical choices, and this animosity is the consequence.- David Stein
Re:Another lesson -brand image is important. (Score:4, Interesting)
That I won't argue with, although it'll be interesting to see if it remains true after some of the most recent and obvious changes to their system.
Their player is bloated with ads and doo-dad components [...]
The new one (or at least the beta I have of the new one) isn't.
Their free player is also crippled beyond repair. You can't save streams [...]
That's not true of the new one (or at least of the beta of the new one). I didn't know this until my four-year old niece had saved a bunch of songs from pbskids.org. (Gah! But at least it's not Brittany, I suppose.
Today's Real streams run like technology straight out of 1994.
Hmm, ok, but I like the fact that the player now reportedly handles Ogg Theora! (Although I admit I haven't had a chance to test this yet.)
Their software won't stop f***ing harassing you. [...]
Again, not in the new one (or at least the beta of the new one).
I've hated Real for years, and haven't had their player installed since 2000 or so, but when I saw a mention on the Ogg Theora [theora.org] site that Real player could now be used to view Theora streams, I was intrigued enough to give them one more try, and I've been very favorably impressed.
Anyway, I agree that you've probably named the main reasons people have hated Real. I just want to point out that companies can change (in the seventies and early eighties, I hated IBM, and in the late eighties, I hated Apple, and neither of those is true any more), and there are some signs that Real may be changing. Time will tell. Maybe it's because I'm using the beta, and they didn't bother adding the ads and misbehavior to that, and maybe it's because I'm using the Linux version (although with all the ads and malware that come bundled with Windows these days, I'm not sure why Windows users would be upset by Real), but my impression of Real has certainly taken a major change for the better recently.
Re:Another lesson -brand image is important. (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, I just don't care.
I'm usually pretty tolerant of lame software. Adobe Acrobat has always been a Windows-3.1-esque piece of junk; it's probably the only modern viewer-style application that noticeably pauses between page flips. But I will maintain a sliver of patience and hope that Acrobat evolves into a non-annoying product, because (a) I genuinely support Adobe's mission of a general-purpose, cross-platform, academic-friendly document format; and (b) it's really widespread, and doesn't appear to have any decent competitor.
Real - not so. They have completely exhausted my consumer interest in their product. That's what happens when you just blatantly ignore your customer's interests for a long time. Even if their latest rev is analogous to alternatives like Quicktime Player and Windows Media, it's still far too little, far too late.
- David Stein
Re:Perspective is skewed.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the hundreds of people who practically pulled a month long all-nighter to ship the Tiger seed for WWDC would object. Or the same teams that have been working their asses off to give us first access to many technologies, especially GPU accelerated GUIs etc.
It's true most companies these days are rather legal-happy, but the Apple engineers work hard and I think that's pretty obvious.
Re:Perspective is skewed.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I dont know where you took this wisdom from, but Apple's base system and kernel are open source, they released e. g. Rendezvous as open source, help sqash bugs in e. g. mono etc.
But that gets beaten by M$ releasing a Windows installer thingamabob as open source...
Re:Perspective is skewed.. (Score:5, Informative)
Not trying to be negative, but is the base system & kernel open sourced from Apple or didn't Apple take somebody else's work and lock it down? In other words I have the understanding that Apple took FreeBSD which is somebodyelses hard work and added their own stuff on top without releasing the stuff on top or how it interacts with the stuff provided by FreeBSD, or any changes they might have made to FreeBSD to make it better.
Apple bought a company called NeXT that had a proprietary BSD386 based OS running on the Mach Micro-Kernal. In the company was an employee who had done a large amount of the original work creating the Mach Micro-kernal. Apple took the NeXTStep / OpenStep operating system as the basis for its Mac OS X operating system. Apple ported it to the PowerPC Chip sets, fused it with knowledge gained from Apple's earlier Unix OSes A/UX [faqs.org] and MkLinux [mklinux.org] and then re-synced the userland with FreeBSD 4.x (now they sync the userland to FreeBSD 5.x).
This might need more explaining. Unlike Linux where all each distribution has the same Linix kernal (sometimes compiled in different ways, but still the same kernal code), BSD branches do NOT have the same kernal. NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD and Darwin(Mac OS X) are each different kernal code bases. Sometimes they share components / code, but mostly they do not. The different branches are designed to provide the same working userland to users and applications. By "re-synced the userland to FreeBSD" Apple did little more then confirm their OS is compatible with FreeBSD and either updated their own /bin and/usr/bin applications to feature / function compatibility with FreeBSD or ported the FreeBSD apps over, whichever made the most sense. Again all work was done by Apple Engineers.
So what Apple did was not "take somebody else's work and lock it down" but rather take the work Apple Engineers and the Engineers of a second company Apple bought (and retained the employees of) and release the code for no cost onto the internet.
[apple.com]
OpenDarwin.org [opendarwin.org]
While this is certainly valid given the license of FreeBSD, strictly speaking that's just being a thief as far as I'm concerned.(Yes I know MS has done this too with it's Unix Services layer).
If someone gives something to you for free, it is not stealing. The only people who are allowed a moral objection to how you use the freely given object are the ones who gave it to you. Far from being upset at it, BSD users "shouted for joy" that Apple choose to base their new OS on BSD. Daemon News: Apple -- What's in it for BSD? [daemonnews.org]
I also understand however, that Apple has given some changes back to the KDE community for the web browser, locking up other changes however behind a proprietary license. In other words it looks to me like Apple is trying to garner some favor while stealing the "open source" community blind.
Every single piece of OpenSource software Apple has used (irrespective of the license it was released under and the requirement, or NOT, to release the code) they have release the code to. The code is available either through the Darwin OS [apple.com], one of the other Apple Open Source Projects [apple.com], or by giving the code back to the original developers [kde.org]. In addition to that Apple has also released code that was never before opensource, with projects such as OpenPlay [apple.com], Darwin Streaming Server [apple.com] and
Re:apple fans (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hard to root for either side in this if you're not already an Apple zealot. Looking at it objectively, both Real and Apple offer proprietary formats, and Real is hiding behind a sort of pseudo-open source defense without actually acting in any way consistent with their message. They've also done plenty of questionable things in the past (adware, spyware, etc.).
On the other hand, one of the quotes in the C-Net article from an Apple fan says something like "Just because you don't like iTunes doesn't give you the right to reverse engineer the iPod". Well, yes it does. In fact, reverse engineering is the only thing Real has a right to do in this case, and it's why most legal experts think Apple has no real case against Real if this goes to court (search related articles on C-Net). If Real did reverse engineer the iPod, then more power to them. They're acting within copyright law.
I hate Real but I hate blind Apple evangelists just as much. I guess I'm just gonna go ahead and stick with mp3 like I always have; I've got no reason to worry about format wars or DRM with that strategy.
(Of course, I know MP3 is technically proprietary too, but it suffers from none of the problems Apple AAC or Real files do.)
You got the quote wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The quoter claimed Real had no right to reverse engineer when the company itself will not allow others to reverse engineer. It's not about law, in the quote, but about reciprocity. If they think it's okay for Real Co to RE the iPod and iTunesMS, then it should be okay for others to reverse RA stuff as well, which you didn't pick up.
Re:You got the quote wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hello? Reading comprehension? (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that Real is making a compatible DRM wrapper to Fairplay, not removing it. If Real were removing it, we'd have raw AAC, which is no big deal. Real isn't doing this.
Re:You got the quote wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
We support Real's position when real are right. We support Apple's position when they are right. Real were wrong when tried to keep people from reverse engineering their protocols, and Apple is wrong when it does the same.
There is nothing hypocritical about deriding the bad actions of a company, while lauding the good. What is hypocritical is to turn on a penny so as to see every action of a certain company as something benign.
Hypocracy is what one ends up with when one sees the world through Apple colored glasses. Apple is in the right here because Real were in the wrong before (for exactly the same actions as are so right from Apple now). When the MPAA attacked Jon Johansen they were evil, when Apple does it one has to understand that they have to act in the best interest of their stockholders, so it isn't really Apple that is evil (what a company is except for the interest of it's stockholders I'm not sure). When Microsoft builds proprietary DRM systems it is a cynical power grab, but when Apple does it is a wonderful innovation and any control is purely what the record companies fault. When some other corporation pulls a bait and switch it is devious, when Apple suddenly changes the number of copies or amount of computers that you can put the files you (don't!) own on, it is perfectly reasonable.
In Apple fans, DRM finally found it's adapters. Everywhere else it has reared it's ugly head, it has been spat on, rejected, hacked, and mod-chipped. Every type of consumer has rejected it for the power grab that it is - for the fact that control over their information, their computers, and their communication is something they reserve onto themselves. But not Apple fans. For them, DRM came from a higher place, a divine being, something that simply could not be wrong. Turning over control to Apple is as natural and right as anything could be, and they will spit upon those who would reject such an arrangement (not just now, but read the comments that followed Jon's hacks).
What DRM never previously got was it's early adapters. Those who are the first to accept a technology are also the first reject being controlled by: those that want most flexibility, freedom, possibilities. But in the Apple zealots, the music industry finally found it's early adapters: those who cannot see wrong in the company they idolize.
Good for you guys. You will live to reap the sorrows.
Re:apple fans (Score:4, Insightful)
A 70% marketshare does not foist an obligation on to Apple to license its technology, especially when that marketshare is in a nascent market that's still growing and has just barely become profitable. No one has a monopoly in online music yet. It's just getting started. Furthermore, Apple has no obligation to support someone else's reverse-engineered implementation of their DRM system, but that's exactly what Real is trying to imply: that their stuff works with the iPod and will keep doing so. Or is "Not approved of, endorsed or supported by Apple Computer" somewhere on their ads in readable type?
It's different when the VLC group or the Mplayer folks reverse-engineer formats because they're open source and not guaranteeing reliability, and everyone who uses those applications knows that compatibility with future versions of reverse-engineered protocols is not guaranteed, or really even expected. But Real is a corporation with a good measure of mindshare and some credibility. They have to live up to higher advertising standards, and they're not doing that.
Re:apple fans (Score:5, Insightful)
A neat trick that Apple can do is in future firmware updates break the DRM by detecting a Real file, decoding it, and saving it back uncompressed and in WAV format, ready for the taking. Then the iPod just removes the old Real file and uses the uncompressed WAV version. User wonders why iPod runs out of space quicker on Real files, and either decides something's awful with Real, or buys a larger iPod. And then some person would notice the real files were
Re:To Whom has Apple licensed AAC to ? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone can put make an ACC file and have it play on the iPod. What anyone cannot do is develop or sell a DRM format other than Fairplay and have the iPod understand and play it.
Apple has no control over ACC or who uses it.
Re:apple fans (Score:5, Insightful)
But you'll note that they've closed down the forums, and if you go to the petition site, you can't view any of the comments or the names, only the signature count, even though most of the "signatures" are against the petition.
Real campaigns for "choice," but what they really want to do is license their Harmony code so that they can get on the best-selling player and shore up their flagging store, which has fewer songs than the iTMS.
Re:apple fans (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? Why shouldnt they be allowed to?
Why shouldn't I be allowed to open my own iTunes compatible store if I wanted? Maybe I just want to sell my own bands songs, and dont want the RIAA/Apple in the middle.
Why have indy bands released CDs? Because they want to have their music heard on the best-selling players. Whats the difference, besides some irrelevant "I hate real because I downloaded something in 1998 and blah blah blah" crap?
Not just Real, anyone should be able to market tunes for the iPod if they want. Just like anyone should be able to make 3rd party ink cartridges, and publish their own PS2 games.
Re:apple fans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:apple fans (Score:5, Insightful)
But you're telling me that DRM exists for its own sake, to protect Apple from direct competition. Just like CSS on a DVD. It's to ensure complete control of the industry, not to protect actors salaries or hollywood.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Real's Hypocrisy is what's so annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, their crappy products too, but hypocrisy as well.
"Proprietary is anticompetitive by definition. Apple is banking that proprietary is profitable. I'll guess we'll see if they are right.
Though cross-platform proprietary solutions are not completely anti-competitive. If every service was cross-platform, then you'd be free to choose whatever service simply worked best. That's true choice.
Frankly Real's efforts wouldn't annoy me as much if 1) They hadn't kept their own .rm format proprietary and, 2) Their crappy Rhapsody music service worked on OS other than Windows Not that I'd use it anyway, but it's funny to see them ranting for "choice" and against closed formats when they themselves pursue the opposite.
Real: "Proprietary formats are evil! (Unless they're ours)
Real: "Consumers deserve freedom of choice! (As long as you choose Windows)
Maybe they can strike a sweet cooperative deal with SCO. They could save so much by merging their PR departments, since the overlap is complete.
Re:apple fans (Score:5, Funny)
The linux community and the apple communities are a lot alike in this manner."
I think the term you are looking for here is "fanboyism".
Who would have thought (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who would have thought (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who would have thought (Score:5, Insightful)
than anything else you can download, and, additionally, it's feature-poor,
doesn't work well, and uses (surprise) its own proprietary format in an
attempt to lock people in. If a decent company with a useable product had
reverse-engineered Apple's DRM system, public opinion might have been rather
different, but Apple has a good reputation, and Real has such an extremely,
utterly bad reputation, they make Microsoft look like a the poster boy for
popular companies.
Re:Who would have thought (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Who would have thought (Score:4, Insightful)
Real should know by now (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing to do with iTunes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to do with iTunes. (Score:5, Insightful)
People just hate Real.
While this may be modded as funny, it seems more insightful to me. I'm one of those who just hate Real. They sell email addresses to spammers, they're install screws up the desktop and puts icons trying to sell me things all over the place. Let's not forget the incidents of them trying to install spyware. I'll be one person who'd be happy to see them crash and burn.,
The reasons are easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The reasons are easy (Score:4, Interesting)
And their jukebox -- who cares?
Re:The reasons are easy (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mac market for legal downloadable music is clearly healthy, and the anger of spurned Mac users is all too easy to predict. So why didn't they introduce a Mac version from the get-go? It would have only made sense.
This debacle, in other words, would have been easily predictable and preventable with minimal extra effort.
I think this kind of stupidity is one reason why Real is so widely hated.
D
Re:The reasons are easy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The reasons are easy (Score:4, Interesting)
It's pretty easy to figure out that they are targeting both Windows and Macintosh platforms, but Windows users are less likely to have a problem with it, since they're used to having Real's products available by default. Mac users have always been second-class citizens when it comes to Real's products. Now, they want to charge us for the privilege of using their products, without offering up any proof that they've changed their opinions of the Mac. It has all the appearance of being a cynical money-grab without offering any real philosophical change to go along with it.
Microsoft does the same thing, but we tolerate it (barely) since they are the 800-lb gorilla. Open Source and Free Software does it too, to an extent, but OS X is still a environment by comparison, so it probably doesn't matter as much being snubbed by them (plus, it is getting better).
So regardless of who Real is really aiming at with their marketing, the biggest effect is on the psyche of the Mac user. Thus the backlash.
Me? I don't use Real (even on my PC) and this isn't likely to change things.
Re:The reasons are easy (Score:5, Funny)
Damn them for treating us Mac users like second class citizens!
Real should put their money where their mouth is (Score:5, Insightful)
How about opening up the
And before you come in with Real Alternative, don't bother. I know about it and it's not the same thing.
Hm.... (Score:5, Funny)
That's some pretty famous people coming to Apple's defense.
Re:Hm.... (Score:5, Funny)
C'mon, the big hat, all the jewelery, the dress...
Re:Hm.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hm.... (Score:5, Funny)
The pope would have said: "Real, suck my holy b@lls".
don't understand apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:don't understand apple (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why they're complaining.
Because Real would ruin the itunes experience (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:don't understand apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at today. For the DRM crowd (so we can throw out MP3 and Ogg files), there are 3 systems in competition:
Microsoft WMA (in the most stores, about 25% of the market)
Sony (in one store, let's give them 5%)
Apple Fairplay (70% of the market)
Where's Real in this? I'm not even going to give them that much credit - this is about why Apple doesn't want others playing in its Fairplay system.
Right now, who's making money?
Napster - losing money on selling music
Sony - supplemented by hardware sales
Apple - maybe they make money off of iTMS, but they make money from selling iPods
Microsoft - licensing fees every time somebody buys a WMA song
Recently, some companies who sell "Pirate proof" CD's have announced they're dropping WMA and going with something "iPod compatible". Why? Because 70% of the DRM market is in the hands of the iPod.
Now, you're response is right: if more people used Fairplay, or some hacked version, then Apple would sell more iPods, and they'd make more money.
You're right - as of the year 2004.
Now, let's jump in the magic time machine and head to 2014. Now, here's a possible look at the market:
DRM music files: WMA (5%), Sony (5%), Apple 95%. Real - somewhere between 0-1%.
iPods cost $99 for a 100G hard drive - enough to store so much music its silly. Even adding in PDA and visual abilities, it's still so much storage Apple makes hardly anything selling iPods.
But! They make millions a year because everybody uses their DRM system, and everybody has to license with Apple to play it.
Imagine Steve Jobs sitting in the Jobs Cave thinking "What if by 2010, Microsoft has to pay Apple every time they sell a Windows computer, because they need the Fairplay codec? That could mean millions of dollars a year "just because".
That is why they don't want others selling songs: why bother? If they can get Real to kick the bucket so that all in the world is either WMA or Fairplay (and the former only supported via monopoly money - no, not the Parker Brothers kind), then Apple will rule the future of online music, and put them in a position to make a lot of money in the future.
Don't just look at "hardware sales now". I think Steve learned his lesson from a long time ago (which is "hardware sales aren't always king"), and he's looking at the long term. Odds are, he'll release Fairplay to others (*cough*HP and Motoroloa*cough*) when he's ready to, and get people to join his vision.
Is he right or wrong? I don't worry. Last time I checked, my iPod still works great with music CD's I buy in the store. But at least now you know.
And knowing is half the battle.
Is THAT language Real-ly Necessary (Score:5, Funny)
The fuckers.
Newsflash! (Score:5, Funny)
Film (Quicktime or Real) at 11!
Unlucky (Score:5, Insightful)
Even worse, they launched the Helix website with nothing there except a blurb saying that it would be coming soon. That sort of dissipated most of the momentum they'd built up by announcing it to the Open Source community.
Believe it or not, I really like Real Player for streaming content. The problem is that their execs just don't "get it". They can't present a unified marketing front, and it IS killing them. Even worse, they continually lose customer goodwill by installing spyware (now fixed) and intentionally hiding the link to download the free RealPlayer (not fixed).
Now they're off trying to steal Apple's thunder with a format that the market doesn't want, and no integrated media center to compete with.
"Load gun. Point at foot. Pull trigger. Repeat.", should be their motto.
Well duh... (Score:5, Interesting)
While I don't doubt that RealNetworks is going out of their way to make it relatively easy to ultimately play their stuff on Apple's hardware, the user still has to get third party software, still has to subscribe to another service that isn't affiliated with their computer (in fact being a direct antithesis), and has to do extra work. Combine that with the large amount of market burnout regarding Real, and I'm really not surprised by this. I'm more surprised that Real pursued this attempt to begin with.
Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
That was from the CNET article, and I cannot say I agree. While what RealNetworks did is not entirely ethical, it isn't theft. It's essentially what the Linux on iPod group is doing (on some level) and I believe it's wrong to condemn them for it.
The major issue I have with Real is that they tried to cut a deal with Apple and *THEN* decided to go and 'hack' the iPod. It seems to me that Apple has no problem with an agreement with Motorola -- so what did Real do wrong?
My guess is that Real was unwilling or unprepared to make the necessary accomodations to get on Apple's boat (so to speak). The best-selling hard disk digital music player isn't going to be pushed around by Real, so it seems obvious to me that the lack of negotiation skills on the part of Real is the problem.
As such, *that* is the problem people should be focusing on: why Real's management was too inept to make a deal happen.
Also (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we only have 3-4% of the market, but hello, aren't we also the same market that catapaulted the iPod, and then the Music Store, to success? It's not like we aren't a valid economically sound market.
It's silly to champion choice like Real is if they won't support the platform they are arguably trying to break into: Apple's market. That includes Mac users.
Re:Also (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it fair? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a zealot because I love Apple products, but I wouldn't discard the option of Real music. Real wants to compete, then fine, compete. Maybe I'm being greedy, but why shouldn't I want $0.49 192kbps AAC files? You really have to ask, "Why would mac+iPod users want an alternative to iTunes+iTMS"?
I would be using iTunes+RMS because it's cheaper and higher quality. Duh.
enlighten us? (Score:5, Insightful)
just want to know
Re:enlighten us? (Score:4, Interesting)
I personally also think it's sad. The Apple users are quick enough to diss Microsoft and it's DRM and lament how Microsoft could force everyone to use WMA. Whilst this thought also concerns me, I don't think Apple are behaving in an any less evil way than Microsoft, they just have something that no amount of damage limitation by the Microsoft PR wheels can provide - a friendly, cool geek chic image.
Re:enlighten us? (Score:4, Interesting)
For the record, I love my iPod, and I don't use the iTMS.
Apple did not want to license their DRM scheme (which, by the way, seems awful darn liberal) to Real. I wouldn't want to do business with Real either...they've been making themselves the enemies of their customers for the better part of a decade.
I don't think Real has done anything wrong reverse-engineering the DRM scheme. I just think that anybody who buys music from them is really not very smart, because the next iPod firmware update is going to nuke this loophole something fierce.
Re:enlighten us? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's this great file format that's compatible with the iPod and rather easy for Real to implement. I hear people call it "MP3". Maybe you've heard of it too.
Granted, its not Ogg Vorbis. But then... its certainly not a "DRM"-crippled format either.
Re:enlighten us? (Score:5, Insightful)
I strongly dislike Real's stance as a victim. Where was Real when Apple, and most everyone else, was getting stomped into the ground by Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior? Oh, that's right, they were writing Windows software while delaying the release of their Mac clients.
At first thought, I wondered why Apple and Real couldn't come to a mutually beneficial agreement whereby Apple would add support to the iPod for Real codecs. But then I realized that this would only serve to steal thunder from the iTunes Music Store, which, as we all know, is simply a way to sell iPods. Opening up the iPod to a competitor's music store is in direct opposition to Apple's strategy: get people to use the iTunes Music Store in order to sell iPods. Likewise, Real writing software primarily for Windows is part of their strategy, and it strikes me as hypocritical for them to publicly chastise Apple for what is essentially the same behavior.
My initial feeling is also that, in principle, it is wrong to close the iPod in this way. Being a particularly pragmatic thinker, I rejected this idea because: (1) the iPod supports enough formats that I can always find a way to get music onto it, and (2) Real doesn't have a God-given right to make their service compatible with the iPod.
Ultimately I just don't care about Real, because although I've heard that they've brought an end to their obnoxious behavior, this whiny episode indicates otherwise to me.
Apple's retaliation (Score:5, Funny)
BUFFERING
- sm
Re:Apple's retaliation (Score:4, Funny)
Many of the petition's responces... (Score:5, Interesting)
...have it spot-on. Why should Real have any say in what the iPod plays? They may rant on about it being 'freedom of consumer choice', but that's not a little hypocritical from Real - whose own music store isn't even Mac-compatible yet. Perhaps it Real were to support the Mac crowd, create a player that people would prefer to use, and generally better themselves, they'd have more success in luring people away. As it stands, however, people have exercised their freedom of choice - and they've chosing the iPod and iTMS.
Re:Many of the petition's responces... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. You must be referring to one of those special-edition iPods that only play Fairplay DRM'ed AAC files from iTMS and nothing else. If you can get one (or have one already) I'd hold onto it if I were you. Might be worth some money to a collector one day.
I, however, purchased a plain-jane iPod that plays mp3, wav, and AAC files. It currently has ~8GB of music on it. Of that, perhaps 100MB of music is from iTMS. The rest I 1) ripped from cd's I owned, 2) downloaded from various legal sources, and 3) copied from friends. Moreover, the few albums/songs I purchased from iTMS were immediately burned to a CD. If I choose, I can rip those tracks back to mp3. Voila! No DRM! It's magic! Given I have these options, how is Apple's "monopoly" preventing me from having a choice?
Oh yeah. I forgot -- because Apple has a monopoly and opposed the altruistic efforts of Real to offer a choice to those benighted iPod owners who are "locked in" to a proprietary format. Perhaps you're only speaking for those who purchased the aforementioned special-edition iPod.
For the rest of us, lack of a single option among many does not negate the presence of a choice. Thus, not being able to play Real songs on my iPod does not remove my choice of other formats to play.
Furthermore, the exercise of choice comes at various stages. The first, and most important, choice is the music player. If one is uncomfortable with the restrictions Apple has placed on iTMS songs/albums or the limited selection of formats supported on the iPod, the one should not purchase an iPod to begin with. Exercise your freedom of choice and buy a Sony player, a Dell Jukebox, or an iRiver instead. What you fail to mention in your ill-conceived tirade is that when I, and everyone else, purchased an iPod, we all bought into the restrictions. We chose to purchase that player with those limitations. For those who didn't realize those limitations were extant when they made their purchase, they have the choice of 1) living with them, 2) returning the iPod for a refund, or 3) selling the iPod.
Apple does not have a monopoly on music players; Apple does not have a monopoly on legally downloadable music. Until such time as the iPod/iTMS combo is the only way to play music, Apple will not have a monopoly.
Let's compare... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple - Software and hardware that is not only intuitivly easy to use, it is also beautifully designed. And of course they were the ones that jumpstarted the online music craze between iPod and iTunes. Not to mention the hoards of loyal Apple fans.
Real - Software that has always (imo) had a horrible interface, rife with ads slapped anywhere they would fit, and a constant nagging to buy their pro version (ok Apple does this too with Quicktime, but you don't need that for mp3s). Add to that their file formats are constantly changing requiring upgrades, and their encoding has always been sub par.Combined with the fact that they basically stole Apple software and you wonder why people are mad.
As it stands, Apple has 70% of a 5% market. (Score:5, Insightful)
I Want More Expensive DRM'd Files! (Score:4, Funny)
Fuck 'em all (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets have 15 different proprietary "standards" out there for music. That way if you buy a player from Apple, you buy your music from Apple. If a song you like is only available on some other service, why you buy another player.
I don't care. I'm through with music. I wont buy any CDs or download any songs.
In my day, it was pretty decent. I could go buy a CD from any store I wanted, and it would work in any of my CD players. Before that was cassette tapes, before that 8-tracks and LPs.
But I don't care about todays kids. Go let yourself get screwed over by a bunch of corporate assholes. Tell yourselves that the company is some great benevolant force that truly cares about you, if that makes you feel better.
I could give a fuck if iTunes is completely incompatible with Real and every other music service. I could give two shits what kind of DRM Apple or Real or Napster or anyone else want to use. Who gives a shit if you're allowed to burn it to one CD, or only listen to the song on the third tuesday of every month.
Hey, do it to TV too. I don't care. When video-on-demand rolls out, make sure each service is compatible only with a suitably branded TV set or cable tuner. Sony Video-on-Demand only works with Sony sets, etc. Ruin TV. See if you can make a buck doing it.
Have your legions of Sony fans go around swearing and acting like idiots if Phillips starts trying to compete.
Not my problem, and I don't care.
The entire "entertainment" industry can jump up my ass. It bores me. I don't look to any corporate messiah for my entertainment anymore. Fuck em all, and fuck all their fans and zealots.
Amen. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh, you must be stealing all that then through p2p," some might guess. Um, no. i go see local bands. i buy their homemade discs to help the guitarist buy that new amp he needs. i listen to legal streams from websites promoting small, more-to-my-liking artists.
i agree witb you on the media companies - they can go fuck themselves and the rest with them. When is the last time some worth buying the entire cd for was featured on TRL? Nevermind that it's a 40sec clip whilst some moron talks over the music. i can't stand riding in the car with my gf b/c the radio MUST be on some Clearchannel top-40 station.....all the time. No news, no local stations with local dj's and artists. Nothing, just the shit that gets pumped 3 times an hour in a loop. Tiring and frustrating.
Yeah, i'm sick of all of it too.
Harmony is DRM Translation, not DRM Removal (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, look at it from Apple's perspective (please, give it a try, just for a moment). User buys songs from Real, with their DRM limitations. User converts them, loads them on iPod, assumedly through iTunes. Now, the user tries to play them on multiple computers, etc like Apple DRM allows... and it doesn't play. Who are they calling? Do they remember which store they bought it from? No, they see that iTunes isn't playing something, and they call Apple. Now some Apple tech has to figure out that this is a Real AAC, not an Apple AAC, and figure out how the hell their DRM integrates (or doesn't) with iTunes, etc. This is a support disaster waiting to happen, and it will be Apple's, not Real's.
And finally, for those who read veiled threats into the press release Apple sent out about the iPod maybe not working in the future with such files - why not take it at face value for a moment? It's widely known that third parties supply the chips and guts of the iPod, so it's not such a reach that one of these new generations of chips and software just won't be prepared for whatever hack Real has done, and it will break. No conspiracy, no revenge, just simple fact of life in development.
You know it's a slow news day when... (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder if we can get an infinite loop* going, where CNET quotes Slashdot, and then Slashdot posts a story quoting the CNET story that quotes Slashdot, and then there's an update, and ANOTHER update, and then the disembodied head of Tom Pabst bursts from your screen and screams something inflammatory to draw more hits!
*Yes, this is Apple wordplay!
Re:You know it's a slow news day when... (Score:5, Funny)
News.com ranks slightly above my own "media outlet" for usefulness, if you get my drift...
p
Why I say NO to this campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, that's not what real is doing. They're simply adding the ability to play music from their music store on the iPod. In other words, they basically just added a new proprietary format to the ipod for a store that no one likes. So real is now giving me the "choice" to buy from their store? No thanks real, when you hijacked my quicktime preferences, put spyware into your PC version, and made it near-impossible for me to find the link to your free player, you lost the moral high ground. Don't act like you're the good guy. Your store doesn't even run on my mac. Freedom of choice?
Now, if an open source group found a way to add any format of my choosing onto the ipod, I would support that. But when it's a company that's been historically evil, I'll take the chance to give them some bad publicity.
If the situation were reversed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft can now snuff out Real (Score:5, Funny)
Sell your Real stock now - it's going down. MS now has the power to dispose of Real once and for all.
Real is selling these songs at a loss. MS has a huge cash reserve. All MS has to do is hire some temps, give them a company credit card, and have them buy songs from Real all day long. The more they buy, the more money Real loses. Eventually, no more Real!
Irony (Score:5, Informative)
Awwww. Do I have too? (Score:5, Insightful)
And he got hurt, ruined all of your fun AND got you blamed for it.
I think that if I were Apple, I'd be damn scared that Real was going to bust all the damn iPods and I'd get blamed for it.
When will charges be filed? (Score:4, Interesting)
And I don't mean a suit by Apple - I mean the Fed and the RIAA.
What I can't beleive is that we have a company willfully admitting that they went out of their way to crack a DRM related schema, and that no arrests have been made.
Shouldn't Real Networks have its hardware seized?
Kulakovich
A Transplanted Message, but Still... (Score:5, Insightful)
[BEGIN QUOTE]
I Want Apple To License The DRM, BUT what Real is doing is tantamount to slander.
The iPod works with MP3s, ripped CDs, as well as lossless formats like WAV and AIFF. John Gruber's been acting the "Scott McCloud" role of late with regards to the Mac platform, but he's right on the money about the popular media's misconceptions about Apple's music player. (He's been posting articles on Daring Fireball for the last week on this topic.)
The conspiracy theorist in me is starting to think that the RIAA let Apple "get away" with their more forgiving DRM just so Apple can get battered in the popular press since the Apple modus operandi is to be less promiscuous with their tech than Microsoft is. This way the public will be suckered into backing the more restictive (yet more "free") WMA format.
[END QUOTE]
The only part of the whole "AAC" deal that's Apple/iPod specific is the DRM, which due to industry politics must be proprietary. The codec is not Apple's to license, the file format is no longer under Apple's sole control. (They "released" the QT container format to support the MPEG-4 initiative.) My understanding is that Apple didn't even do the intial research into the DRM, but had it forced upon them by the recording industry.
Apple's "closed" nature is simply a manifestation of their understandable defensiveness in the industry. They once had an "open" platform, the Apple II. They once tried to open the Mac as well, only to be raked over the coals financially. Apple now uses commodity hardware like PCI, DDR memory and even USB. Their current OS is built over a BSD/Open Source core.
What does Apple have to do be considered a valid firm in this industry?!? Admit it people, the hatred you had for Apple during FSF and GNU boycott last millenium never went away, did it?
Well duh! (Score:4, Insightful)
And it does NOT matter if Real was giving Apple users MORE choices at LOWER prices. It is quite clear that Apple fanatics care neither about choice or price. If Apple users wanted more choices and cheaper prices, they'd use IBM compatibles!
I get the impression that those in charge of Real have NO clue about reality.
More than just the iPod? (Score:5, Interesting)
All of this whining ..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, who does this interoperability "improvement" benefit? Windows users of course. iTunes and iPods both work well with Windows. Real is simply undercutting the iTunes song prices. I really see nothing inherently wrong with offering a lower price, it benefits the consumer.
In my opinion, why not buy some albums you wouldn't ordinarily buy for 4.99? I am sure the whole reverse-engineering of DRM will be taken to court. May as well benefit from the lower prices while you can. I am sure Real's Rhapsody/Jukebox files sound just as good on your iPod at half the price.
Keeping a business like Apple alive simply by running a "music" store seems like a flawed way of operating a hardware/operating system business.
I think the reason is this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Because their software has a very annoying nagware component. The default real player installation leaves a blinking and blinking icon on the Windows toolbar. Even the new real one player that came on my Dell computer attempts to modify the registry every time it runs to add a "realsched" program of somesort that takes up my precious CPU cycles.
Thank god I 1) don't use real products all that often; and 2) have a nice utility pop-up that warns me whenever any software tries to add to the registry (I wish I could remember what the program is, and where I found it).
To me, even as a Windows user who bought an iPod and will never ever buy an Apple PC, Apple has been for the most part a class act. Real has not. Although, admittedly, quicktime does the same thing... Why can't they be more like Adobe Reader, which has the common decency to check for updates only when it runs, rather than wanting to do it every time you turn on the damn computer?
I just cancelled my account (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope I don't get flamed or modded down, but this is real.
I have paid for RealOne since 2001. I love CNN and ABC News on-demand, and also BBC. I am willing to pay for content understanding that it cost money to produce, and it is the same reason I purchase iTunes songs.
I have to use the RealOne player to watch CNN and ABC on their website.. It is a closed licensing deal. I understood it was a closed system using Real's interface and I was ok with that. I cannot copy CNN newsfeeds and put them on my PocketPC, I can't watch RealOne content in Quicktime. That is their right.
However, now they are wanting to preserve that right they have with their content providers yet seek to access other closed systems through inflammatory websites that only quote people that agree with them.. it's not even a feedback or debate site but a propaganda website in it's purest form..
I cannot give my money to a company that would use my money to be so low and dispicable. This isn't a battle for fair-use, this is a business bully taking their desire for marketshare to the consumer thinking they'll buy that it's "just about consumer choice"
I guess I have to get cable now...
Charges of abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold on a second. Apple isn't abusing anything. They went forward into a market that just about everyone on the planet, including a lot of people posting here, said was foolish. They did so at great expense and at great potential embarrassment to themselves should it have failed. They developed iTunes, the music store, the iPod; they negotiated probably pricey agreements with music labels and more lenient DRM than most of us would have assumed possible; they sell songs, paying for the massive bandwidth, and just about break-even. They dumped cash into the R&D for this and they did it right and made a massive success out of something that everyone else had written off largely because nobody thought the P2P networks could be beaten or than nobody was interested in music that wasn't on CDs.
And now, because Apple doesn't want to let lazy, visionless competitors in on that for almost nothing, I hear claims that they are abusing their market position. Huh? If Apple had appropriated all these great ideas from a little company and used its influence and power to take over things and lock everyone into their standards, then there would be a legitimate gripe. Apple did ALL OF THIS on their own. It's their pie. And it's wrong because they won't let Real have a free slice of it? What did Real do to earn a seat at the table? Nothing.
And then I hear the argument that the iPod/iTunes is a closed system and that Real is just doing what's best for the market. That's terribly over-simplified. Until the day comes that I can't play mp3s or import CDs into an iPod or iTunes, then that complaint is meaningless. Look at Sony's music player and then tell me the iPod/iTunes system is a closed one.
My email to Real Tech Support (Score:5, Informative)
Just as some background I am your target customer. I own an iPod and have purchased multiple CD's online from both the Apple iTunes Music Store and buymusic.com. I am the person you want out there yelling from the rooftops how great your product is. You're going to hear quite the opposite.
I bought into the hype from various press outlets about Real offering $.49 track downloads and $4.99 CD's. I visited your site and searched your media catalog without downloading your software. I was very impressed by the quantity of artists in your catalog. It seemed too good to be true. Mom told me what to expect when I had that feeling, but, like an idiot, I ignored mom yet again.
First, I downloaded your software. The installation can, at best, be considered painful. Two reboots! C'mon! I am doing this at work! I am supposed to put all my important projects on hold while I reboot twice just so I can start my computer again to give you money. Ridiculous. The worst part is I knew Real was likely sinking their greedy hooks deep into my system with evil DRM type underpinnings. But, once again, I ignored mom's advice to stop before I was "too deep" and continued down the path of Real evil.
So I decided to purchase a Godsmack album. $4.99. I created my Music Store account and paid for my purchase. I was pretty excited as I saw the file sizes were relatively large (as opposed to buymusic.com which obviously have fairly low bitrates). The files came down quickly from your servers.
I excitedly went to burn my CD to a CD-R. Bzzzz! No rights! No freaking rights! Yes, I am sure that is buried deep within some subclause of some clause of some crappy contract I "OK" clicked my way through, but holy cow. I cannot wait to tell the world that today, in 2004, you actually pay Real.com honest money to honestly purchase a music track and support an artist and you are rewarded with idiotic DRM that doesn't allow you to burn the tracks to a real CD. That's funny, I thought I bought a CD! Wrong!
This seriously chapped my behind and I heard my mother laughing in the back of my head. She knew how this was going to turn out, and my mother can't even turn on a computer. But she has more common sense than me and she would have steered far clear of your unReal offering.
So, continuing on, I was mightily frosted and began investigating ways to rip the tracks even with your DRM hooks clawed maniacally into my machine. (Hey, let's be realists, people are going to get the music onto CD whether you like it or not, if they are motivated. And since I was at work I figured I was doing it for the sake of science and whatnot.) I set out to play the tracks to listen to the quality, figuring I would work out a way to capture the audio stream to a WAV file and compressing it into an MP3 later. With just the Real Player running on my computer, I started playing Track #1.
My computer instantaneously shut down.
My mom is having hysterical fits of laughter at my expense by this point. Reminder to self: send mom flowers for all her great advice. She was so right.
So, there goes a few hours of work that I didn't save. Silly me I thought I was just playing a music track. I didn't realize I was connecting to the WHOPR and trying to play Global Thermonuclear War.
So I had enough hate boiled up inside of me to last the rest of the day and didn't attempt to use your crappy player again.
So, I arrive again this morn and figured I would take on "the challenge". I loaded the fugly Real Player and clicked on "Purchased Music". I selected all 11 tracks from the Godsmack album and clicked "Play Selections". I held my breath and closed my eyes and imagined a whole group of mothers laughing at me all chanting: "What do you think you are doing! You know it isn't going to work you fool!" What? It didn't crash! Yippie! Strike up the band. Oh wait... I have to login? What? What is this. Oh yes, I have to log in to your freakin site for permissio
Compatibility? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Vendor lock-in mentality? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Vendor lock-in mentality? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, any iPod user who (1) has built their music collection in Windows and (2) never wants to use iTunes or the iTunes Music Store in the future.
'Cuz the next time you plug your iPod into your WinPC, iTunes will update the 'pod by adding any new songs & playlists, and removing any that are not on the iTunes list... just like it was originally designed to, way before the Real issue arose. As a result, you erase your Harmony tracks every time you use that marvelously easy/fast update. Then, you will need to either (a) manually re-copy all those tracks to your iPod, or (b) stop using iTunes and switch permanently to the Real jukebox, losing any iTMS music you got from Pepsi caps, free downloads of the week, or your hard-earned $$$.
And Real wants to claim they're offering a superior alternative?
Real justifies this lock-in with fine print as to "why you want to use the Real jukebox." Either all the songs you bought from iTMS or from Real, will become useless on an iPod, or you become a low-paid servant to that little tune player that you used to love.
The big deal with the iPod -- for me, and I think I'm typical with this -- is that it lets me just listen to music without all those techno-horrors. Not that it's cool, or sexy white, or Apple®. Real is offering a techno-horror of gotchas.
No wonder there's outrage. Mine is directed at Real's bait-and-switch, false sanctimony and their phony Dot-ORG marketing BS.
A universal DRM format? It'll probably have to be imposed on the hardware and software types by our friends the "music industry." Real, MS and Apple all have vested interests in promoting their kits. The only twist is that Apple actually has the upper hand here. And while it may look like the labels would benefit from selling the same program many times because of Balkanization, sooner or later they'll realize that commoditizing the players and stores leaves more money for them.
Re:Vendor lock-in mentality? (Score:5, Informative)
What was the format of those tracks? What bitrate? What makes you think Real is using their own codec for the iPod (It isn't, the iPod can't play RealAudio) What music store sells MP3's? (OK I know of ONE, but I doubt anyone has heard of any of it's bands) AAC compressed music actually sounds pretty good at comparable bitrates to MP3.
>I'll continue to stick to SHN/FLAC
Then your portable music player must have FLAC/SHN support and a gargantuan hard drive for the terrible 2:1 compression ratios you get. MP3/AAC usually gets about 10:1.
>Perhaps these Apple lovers have become so accustomed to vendor lock-in
You mean the way the Realaudio music store ONLY WORKS ON WINDOWS?
Re:Zealotry (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:People want kings (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there just aren't any parallels. The situations are completely different.
[The Samba Team/Real] reverse engineered [SMB/Fairplay] so that they could serve [Files/Music] from [Linux/Real's Store] to [Windows/iPod Users] but still have it be compatible. Clearly [The Samba Team/Real] are [Good/Evil], as such reverse engineering is [Required for compatibilty/Theft].
The poor [Windows/iPod] users are having choice [Offered to/Forced upon] them, and clearly that is [Right/Wrong].
Jedidiah.
Re:Real's mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
We are the iPod and iTMS early adopters. We (I) wouldn't mind cheaper music. I'm not decrying Real's RE tactic, I'm decrying their hypocrisy in declaring consumer choice and market competition as their logo when it is not.
Re:Can someone explain how this is different from. (Score:4, Insightful)
However, as I said, Real didn't just reverse engineer FairPlay. They also announced the very next day that they were going to license their own FairPlay compatible DRM to other businesses. Now they were encroaching upon Apple's business. Mac zealots still sat back and watched to see the fireworks. Most Mac guys had personal reasons to despise Real having used their products and having been left out in the orphaned cold one time or another, but this issue still didn't affect them. Only Windows users could use Real's online store.
But when Real foisted a propaganda website in the guise of a grass roots movement slamming Apple in the name of music loving people netwide, Mac users took notice. Mac users were the ones who put iTunes and the iPod on the map. Did you read the "interview" with Devo? It read like a commercial. Everything on the site was about choice, but Mac guys were once again left out in the cold. Where was the choice? Mac users couldn't access Real's Rhapsody. It was clear this was a manipulative, corporate powergrab benefitting only Real and Windows users. So most Mac guys laughed at it as some sort of joke. But if some of them were immature geeks with no self-restraint then try to forgive the Mac population as a whole. You don't write off all of /. as bigots because of the GNAA do you? Neither should you clump all Mac owners in with the pottymouthed zealots.
What I find interesting about this whole fiasco is the absence of Steve Jobs. If he hadn't had cancer surgery this month we would most likely have seen some strong action by Apple. And his one month hiatus is half over, so look for the real fireworks in September.
In the meantime, give Mac users a break. Not all of them plastered four lettered insults all over Real's music site. And if Apple spent time and money licensing and developing FairPlay, iPod, and iTMS, don't be so surprised they might take issue with some third party coming in and trying to make money off their labor. This issue isn't as clean cut as the Lexmark issue. Unless Bob's Cheap Ink was also licensing their cracked ink technology to third parties...