Real Launches Music Download Service 497
fupeg writes "Spurred on by Apple's success, as well as their own purchase of listen.com, Real Networks announced their own online music service, dubbed RealOne Rhapsody. Here is the press release. They're offering songs at $0.79 per song, but with a $9.99/month subscription. The first two months are free. The press release says that 2/3 of their 300,000 song catalog is available for CD burning, while everything is available for 'on-demand' listening."
Awesome. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a good thing. Whether or not RealNetworks can pull it off (and they might, being the first comparable option in the Windows market), competition will help. Perhaps this will lower Apple's per-song fee.
Bravo for taking a risk.
Cost breakdown (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, it's .20 cheaper than the Apple Music Store per song... However, due to that monthly fee, the only way it actually balances out is if you download more than 50 songs a month ($10/50=$.20 - download less than that and each song is correspondingly more expensive than the $.99 charge).
Plus, this doesn't include the Apple $9.95 for a full album pricing option.
-T
This ain't gonna fly (Score:3, Insightful)
Bandwidth Problem (Score:1, Insightful)
on demand? (Score:5, Insightful)
Must be on a Windows PC attached to a high-speed internet line in the United States. So that cuts out listening to your music on any sort of musical "appliance" like a radio or cd player... You can't listen in your car, or anywhere else.
Its much like watching re-runs of Friends on pay-per-view. Who would want that?
In the right direction (Score:2, Insightful)
And will it use mp3?? (Score:1, Insightful)
It is a wonder that Apple et al do not support mp3. If their proprietary or licenced technology is so wonderful and superior, where is the harm of offering mp3 as well for backwards compatibility since it doesn't compete? If mp3 is perceived as not having DRM, why not watermark the songs as they fly off the server so they can be tracked?
Both are quite feasible and one wonders why these services hobble themselves like this. The net result is users will stick to free p2p services, grabbing their songs from Kazaa and the record companies will get NOTHING and the services will have a fraction of the customers. It doesn't make any business sense.
Um, they dont seem to asay what format it is. (Score:3, Insightful)
Streaming with Realplayer, RIAA and Internet radio (Score:4, Insightful)
And I can listen to Internet radio on Shoutcast et al...No wonder the RIAA was so adamant about getting rid of free Internet radio. The puzzle pieces are coming together, aren't they?
What part of "bend over" don't you understand? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're kidding. They want to charge me for the use of MY CD burner and MY blank media? Gee, this plan is destined for success...
Re:possible competition? (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus all the viruses, mislabeled files, and just plain crappy rips you can download, all for the same low low price!
Yes, Virginia, you can compete with "free" if what you're offering is actually worth money.
Subscriptions blow (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to buy my music and call it mine to play whereever and whenever I darn well please thank you. Can you imagine forgetting a month and -poof- CD collection gone! I'm probably missing something here since I can't imagine this appeals to anybody.
It's worse than that (Score:3, Insightful)
At least if it was in RA it would be cross platform. Apparently they are using some form of WMA? Idiotic.
Uh oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
I just subscribed to a trial of Rhapsody from Best Buy. (Is this the same as Real Rhapsody? No name confusion there...) (another side note, it's scary how much info Best Bad had based on my phone number at the cash register, but that's a YRO topic...)
I've also been interested in iTunes, if they make a Windows version. This sounds interesting, too.
Problem is, the two Rhapsody's are subscription-based. Presumably, due to partnerships, etc... all these various services will have somewhat different catalogs. I can afford to buy as much as I can afford at $.99/pop or whatever the price is... but I can't afford $10/service/month to have access to all the different songs to buy them.
Hopefully they'll all figure out soon that the model should be $.xx/song with no membership fees. I think the only way this is going to work out is if consumers have unfettered access to buy all songs available regardless of who is offering them.
To be fair, the Rhapsody from Best Buy seems to let me just download as much as I can eat, and burn them to CD if I want. I haven't read through all the license stuff yet, but obviously practically speaking, I'm buying copies of the songs. At $10/mo, that's only 10 songs to break even (assuming $1/song is fair). That's attractive, if the song catalog is sufficient.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Too complaicated priceing plan (Score:5, Insightful)
There are simply way to many rules with this plan as stated. I pay a monthly fee, so I should be able to use any song right? No, I have to pay for each song [after the trial]. So why am I paying a monthly fee? Then I get the song, and realize I can use it but for my computer?
You try selling that to the guy on the street.
That's why the Apple plan works. $.99 a song. We'll give you a discount if you buy a full album (for most CDs). No monthly fee. Burn, iPod, play your songs you got. There are some restrictions, but transparent to the average user. That's easier to sell to the guy on the street.
Re:What part of "bend over" don't you understand? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your comment is like saying "$18 for the latest rap CD? You gotta be kidding me, they're charging $18 to let me use my own cd player!"
Let's do the 5th grade math folks... (Score:5, Insightful)
10 tracks @ Apple - $9.90 + $0.00 = $09.90
25 tracks @ RealR - $19.75 + $9.95 = $29.70
25 tracks @ Apple - $24.75 + $0.00 = $24.75
50 tracks @ RealR - $39.50 + $9.95 = $49.45
50 tracks @ Apple - $49.50 + $0.00 = $49.50
So I have to buy fifty tracks per month before Real Rhapsody is even remotely competive, not to mention the fact that something like one-third of the tracks aren't burnable at all.
Dodge this RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, then what's to stop somoene from uploading it to kazaa.
But the fact remains, as long as I can share amongst all of MY computers and MP3 Players I have no real desire to share with the universe if the price is fair.
Back when we had to buy a cd, rip, encode, and upload for 3 days on a crappy modem there was a cost that made it worth trading with others. I'll waste days of my life on "artist A" if you waste equal time on "artist B" and we'll swap. With quick high quality legal downloads for a fair price I'd rather say "go buy it yourself, here's the link".
If they can tap into that me-first (leachers abound) mentality and call it honest consumerism, they'll be loving life again. They can do so without limiting our civil liberties and suing the fuck out of everyone too.
Unfortunately, until a record company actually does something to repeal the evil fuckin dmca, I ain't buying shit from them, ever again. And I haven't since that piece of shit communist legislation was passed.
_O__-._O__
_|\___\|__ Dodge this RIAA!!!
_|_____|__
_/\____/\_
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:4, Insightful)
And for the people who are going to respond that it's not stealing because they're just 0s and 1s, or becuase it's just copyright, we've all heard it. As for me, I'm glad to see these services starting. They're coming late to the party, we all know that, but it's what I've been asking for...a legal way to browse new music without paying $14 bucks at Best Buy.
Re:Awesome. (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, no it's not. Sure, the songs are $0.20 less than Apple's store, but it's still $10/month for membership. So you have to download 50 songs a month to break even compared to Apple's service. That's about 5 CDs worth of songs. I don't know that many people who buy 5 CDs per month.
And, 2/3 of their songs are not available for burning to CD. Which means if Real goes belly-up, those files are useless. Apple allows you to burn EVERY song to CD.
Once Apple Music Store comes out for windows later this year, the Real service will no longer seem that attractive.
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:4, Insightful)
Although only 100 people have downloaded from you in that 24 hour space, multiply that by the distrobution rate and the result is staggering. (I'm not an opponent or proponent here, just attempting to explain part of the controversy.)
Plus, while tapes degrade and take a while to make a copy of, MP3's last indefinitely, for all intents and purposes, and can be copied from one storage medium to another in a matter of seconds. And entire album can be no more than 50MB, an easy download for anyone with broadband.
Hope that helps.
I pay because.. (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you don't have money, then I really don't see anything wrong with file sharing because you are not costing anyone anything.
Similarly, in college I copied programs just like everyone else but now I buy pretty much anything I use regularly because I can afford to and like to support development of good programs (I also donate money to the EFF and FSF for the same reason).
So my personal line is that if I can pay for it, I do, and if I can't, then it's OK to copy (because they wouldn't have money from me anyway). Of course the trick is deciding what you can afford and it's easy to rationalize that many things are too expensive - you just have to try and be honest with yourself about what you can afford.
I did have two or three songs from P2P services that I liked and kept in my music library - but after the Apple service started up I bought them to help support the artists (and the originals I had were 160k MP3's so it wasn't to get better quality). I know they don't really see much money but the artists do also get the intangible benefit of perceived popularity, which might help them in dealings with the label...
Oh Please, recording off the radio sucked (Score:1, Insightful)
You never knew when the song you wanted was going to air, the DJ's would always talk over the intro, quality of FM reception coupled with quality of recording left a pretty bad recqnng, cost of blank tapes where high
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:4, Insightful)
Separating the Reasonable from the Hypocrites (Score:3, Insightful)
For years, Slashdot readers have demanded an online music distribution service that was both affordable and convenient. Until then, many would proclaim, their only alternative was to illegally download copyrighted music.
With Apple first, and now Real, our wish has been granted... or has it? We are now able to download hundreds of songs for pennies per track, but there are those who are still unsatisfied.
There lie the true hypocrites. I am convinced they will use ANY argument to justify not having to pay for music, while trying to maintain some sence of moral propriety.
I only wish they would drop the bullshit pretenses, stop bitching about the little details about these services they don't like, and just come out and say they don't want to pay for music and never intend to. At least be honest about it.
Yes, you did miss something (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, taping songs from the radio and giving them to friends is illegal, and always was; but no one really cared about music sharing before perfect digital copies became easily available.
I'm not going to try to defend the recording industry's fiscal practices or their despicable assault on music fans' real rights - but frankly it's wide-eyed disregard for the just-as-real rights of music publishers that is fucking it up for the rest of us.
How much cause would Sen. Hollings have if content companies weren't scared shitless by millions of pirates like yourself? Would we have the speech-destroying DMCA without music/movie piracy? I submit, possibly not. There's no point in debating the details of who gets what under copyright law if you're willing to flout that law for personal gain.
But don't be surprised when the entertainment industries cajole the government into flouting some rights that you might think are important.
Don't forget Magic Albums! (Score:3, Insightful)
10 Tracks @Real = $7.90 + $9.95 = $17.85
10 Singles @Apple = $9.90 + $0.00 = $9.90
1 Album @Apple = $9.99+ $0.00 = $9.99
25 Tracks @Real = $19.75 + $9.95 = $29.70
25 Singles @Apple = $24.75 + $0.00 = $24.75
1 Album + 13 Singles @Apple = $9.99 + $12.87 +$0.00 = $22.86
50 Tracks @Real = $39.50 + $9.95 = $49.95
50 Singles @Apple = $49.50 + $0.00 = $49.50
2 Albums + 25 Singles @Apple = $19.98 + $24.75 + $0.00 = $44.73
The only downside to the Apple mechanism? You need a Mac running OS X and you cannot 'sample' for free. On the other hand, that's what radio/movie/tv/cable does for you. And I cannot see Apple not doing something to fix that... perhaps a tie into Internet Radio, which iTunes *already* has a feature for... Perhaps 'on demand iTunes radio'?
Re:Cost breakdown (Score:5, Insightful)
Theyt will fail because they refuse to supply what Apple is supplying... the ability for me to use the damn legal hardware I bought.
apple has it right.. I can load the songs to my portable listening gear.
this offering from real is a complete joke.
Re:And will it use mp3?? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know they are trying but... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I go to the store and buy a CD I like. But because of copy protection I will not be able to make a mix CD to take with me. Instead, if I want a mix CD, I must purchase the songs again through a service like this. Or, I could just purchase all the songs from a service like this and burn my own CDs however I like. But then I don't get the cool cover art or the feeling that goes along with owning something original.
I know they are trying but somehow I still don't feel any better.
Re:Let's do the 5th grade math folks... (Score:3, Insightful)
Being able to stream a whole song on-demand makes the service cheaper because you dont have to cough up a dollar for the privelege of listening to and keeping the entire song. Statistically, fewer people will buy separate tracks on Rhapsody because you can stream the whole thing.
Your math is right, but your grasp of human behavior might need some tweakage 8).
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) KaZaa, MX, &tc are full of hassles, including:
These are a pain in the ass that didn't used to exist to such a high degree in file "sharing" and they've spoiled the experience for a lot of people. Hunting for some of the really good obscure shit I like to listen to has become such a hassle that I far prefer Apple's music service.
2) The whole idea behind P2p was it was supposed to turn you on to new artists and broaden your horizons. In my experience, it's the web (forums, internet radio, weblogs, etc) that do a better job of that...so it makes sense that music downloading should be tied to it. Which message would you prefer:
You gotta check out this MC kris track, it's called booba fet or something, look for it on kazaa.
or
You gotta check out this mc Kris track, click here. [mcchris.com]
A pay-for-play music service allows that kind of ease of linking with music that is cheap, easy to find, always available, ships for free, has no clicks of pops, bears full id3 tags and album art, whatever. It's finally a new way to use music, and not just an extension of a CD culture.
And yeah, it's cool that the artists I like will get some cash, too. But then again, most of them have been on emusic for years...
Of course it bloody won't! (Score:3, Insightful)
Repeat after me: The big music companies will never ever release in a format that you can share freely. If they did, those files would be all over every P2P net as the "original" files. The fact that you can burn and reencode ensures one thing - that there'll be ten thousand ways to rip it to mp3/ogg, some good, some bad, but different.
Releasing them in mp3 format would be the greatest disaster in the record companies, because it would drastically improve the P2P networks reliability, availability, quality, convienience and speed. Heck, you could probably get clients with pre-configured lists of SHA-1 hashes of songs, that will *only* download perfect songs always, reducing manual sorting/testing/normalizing+++ to a bare minimum, just fire and forget.
One of the first rules of economics is that if you're going to charge for something (read: Apple's and Real's music store), it must be better than what you can get for free (read P2P nets), and with the current DRM they simply seek to achieve that, not stop all copying, though I'm sure they wish they could do that too.
On a completely off-topic note, that is why people misunderstand Linux, because if you try to find a worse operating system, you won't find much. But that is only because an inferior product would have to cost less, which it can't, and so the product would simply be discontinued. And so Linux would always have the lower end, be it the lower 2% or the lower 90%.
Kjella
Re:Let's do the 5th grade math folks... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:IT's Real!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to Apple, whos QuickTime for Windows product won't even do fullscreen and the installer for which doesn't just hijack your file settings, it hijacks the whole damn machine with a huge pointless window that will not disappear until the installer has finished. Oh yes, and because it downloads stuff as needed, it takes ages to finish. Installing QuickTime on a modem certainly used to be something you did while eating dinner, because it effectively meant surrendering the machine for a while. For some reason they managed to break alt-tab switching during this process as well.
I'd also note that QuickTime constantly harrasses you to pay for it.
So, I take it you'd boycott iTMS as well, on the same grounds?
Re:It's not Real, it's paying... (Score:3, Insightful)
Real has proven itself to be untrustworthy in the past, and they continue to do the very things which caused me to loose my trust in them. So until they offer something that is either so amazing that I don't mind a distrustful seller, or they repair the trust problem, how am I to enter into an financial agreement with them?
Ted
Re:And will it use mp3?? (Score:1, Insightful)
What you say here makes sense, but the evidence doesnt' support it. The evidence is simply that millions of songs have been purchased off the Apple Music Store in only, what, a month? 2 months? I'm guessing Apple was specifically told "no MP3's" by the Big 5 as a condition of getting them to sign on for this thing.
Not quite (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple cost 100,000*0 + 10*0.99 = $9.90 (10 songs that you want to burn to CD - 100,000 that you sampled for *free* but maybe didn't like...)
Real cost 100,000*0 + 2*9.99 + 10*0.79 = $27.88 (10 songs that you want to burn to CD - 100,000 songs you listened to
Re:Misconceptions R Us (Score:3, Insightful)
Great, so why doesn't the site sell in MP3 format?
Simple for Apple--They want to provide higher quality at a lower bitrate, all of the people downloading their music would be doing so through the iTMS, they didn't want to bother with the technical difficulties of ripping from the masters to both mp3 and AAC (doing a quality check, selecting 30 seconds out for streaming, getting the track information added, &c) and then deal with adding the (very mild) DRM to mp3s as well.
Sorry but this is a complete and utter marketing lie. If AAC is better than MP3 offering higher quality at a lower bitrate, where is the harm in offering both formats? Let the customer decide what is the best format for them. Of course, by not providing MP3 format, Apple have certainly denied themselves a huge number of potential customers.
Apple does--your email address is in every AAC file.
So why can't it do the same for MP3s?
You must have flunked basic economics--either that or have been living under a rock.
No I think you must have flunked economics. The RIAA is whining about the sales they're losing to Kazaa and friends. Why are they losing that money? Because (and it is so obvious to be laughable) they offer nothing comparable to Kazaa. When they start to do so, providing a high quality mp3 from a guaranteed, high speed site with all trimmings like fan news, ratings, chat etc. the popularity of p2p networks will be slashed overnight.
Re:Apple Tax? iTMS for Windows! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Did I miss something? Got you again! (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the day for muddy thinking, or is it just me?
Lossy compressed music files aren't first gen. And I don't see much song-length swapping going on in .wav files, which I would consider first gen copies. Yes the higher bit rate, compressed music files at higher rates are very listenable and capable of further distribution without additional losses, but not to be confused with the original CDs -- which themselves are often a notch or more below original studio tapes these days.
And I haven't been giving rationalizations for obtaining use of a product without providing compensation to the originators. I've only been pointing out how impercise and overblown these types of statements are.
If you can't argue precisely, why should I take you seriously?
Btw, who says you can't make a profit selling what the consumer can otherwise get for free? How else can you explain the success of bottled water?
Re:Of course it bloody won't! (Score:4, Insightful)
The big music companies will never ever release in a format that you can share freely.
You mean like CD?
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes - *ONCE* not over and over, THAT is amoral.