Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Media Music

Real Problems 481

Universal Nerd writes "Could Real be its own downfall? According to 'Find the Download in a Haystack', it could be. The difficulty folks have in reaching the free version of RealPlayer is forcing Minnesota Public Radio to look towards Windows Media Player as an alternative. I prefer good old MP3 or OGG streaming like the feeds offered at WCPE but I'm sure no 'serious' company would consider it because they don't have their digital rights preserved." See the CarTalk story from yesterday.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Real Problems

Comments Filter:
  • by strictnein ( 318940 ) * <{strictfoo-slashdot} {at} {yahoo.com}> on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:01PM (#8783851) Homepage Journal
    Good. I hate Real Player. It's always been the most annoying player out there. Downloading a copy is a bitch (although they've made it somewhat easier recently), that Real Message Center is annoying as hell.
    The message here for Real should be really simple. Make your player as easy to get as possible. Require two clicks to download. Content is King. Annoying software is not. Give me a real reason to register. Look at how sites like slashdot and fileplanet work.
  • Rights preserved? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrChuck ( 14227 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:04PM (#8783894)
    You can should it from the roof or send it out on cassette tapes and your "rights are preserved".

    OGG/MP3 do not remove your rights. Lets me clear.

    That people copy (and it's easy with Real and WMP - play it out through line out and record it in whatever you wish) mp3/ogg does not affect "their rights"

  • by sxltrex ( 198448 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:04PM (#8783906)
    You besides having one of the most annoying install processes in the history of computers, hijacking functions the user had no intention of having Real handle, shoving registration down your throat with tons of opt-outs rather than opt-ins, having obtrusive background programs running even when you tell them not to...

    I think not being able to find the download link was the best part about it.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:05PM (#8783913)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by The Ultimate Fartkno ( 756456 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:07PM (#8783932)
    I second the recommendation of Real Alternative. Also, grab Quicktime Alternative and Media Player Classic. But codec packs? Hell NO! I learned much about codecs (and formatting and reinstalling) after I installed one of those godawful monstrosities. My advice is install a codec when you need it for the first time, and leave it at that. That K-Lite thing should be classified as a virus.
  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:11PM (#8784004) Homepage
    Sorry but mp3 streams better and is widely accepted. hell windows 98 wil play a mp3 stream out of the box without extra software...

    and somepne please explain to me the justification of "preserving digital rights" on a freely downloaded mp3??? that's like a sales flyer maker getting pissed that someone is taking the flyer he made for a special sale and bitching that someone made 100 copies of his sales flyer and gave them to other people... What? you dont want free redistribution and promotion??? that is plain silly..
    shoutcast works great, and is damned cheap to host/ licensing fees....
  • by sqlrob ( 173498 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:11PM (#8784012)
    What software is used to make the stream?
  • by gcaseye6677 ( 694805 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:12PM (#8784021)
    How about subsidizing the free player with sales of the streaming server products? Oh wait, they already are, but they can't get enough people to buy their overpriced server offerings to make this work. As has been pointed out in previous Real Player discussions, the people at Real have no clue how to run a tech company and are dense as rocks when it comes to making good business decisions.
  • by Entropius ( 188861 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:12PM (#8784032)
    I prefer good old MP3 or OGG streaming like the feeds offered at WCPE but I'm sure no 'serious' company would consider it because they don't have their digital rights preserved."

    This argument is rubbish. Anything you can stream you can record (using Audacity or similar) and save; for that matter, anything broadcast over the airwaves you can record.

    Ultimately any form of broadcast/webcast can be converted to mp3/ogg with very little work. NPR should do everyone a service (that's why they're around, to do a public service) and just give us the mp3's/oggs.
  • Absolutely. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rick and Roll ( 672077 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:15PM (#8784067)
    It has long been said on /. that Real is its own worst enemy. And it is actually quite simple. Real's uprise has been when they had a good and decent product, and their downfall has been when they got greedy with advertising, and just began adding various features to their products (such as unrelated, but integrated features including a non-streaming media player, and download tools).

    Their product was good up to and including RealPlayer G2. But now it sucks. And their product sucking has nothing to do with Microsoft. It has to do with being managed by people who do not understand what the users want.

  • Not just that... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:15PM (#8784069)
    It's not just the fact that they hide the "free" download version. Additional problems include;

    • Staggering bloat. That client is a mess of custom controls and bugs. At the moment, any attempt to use the menus causes a hard lockup of XP. Not just the client, the entire desktop.

    • An unwelcome background process that insists on reinstalling itself (on windows.) Amateur and petty. It makes me sick.

    • It's supposedly spyware. I don't know if this is the case, but there are rumors.


    The only reason I still suffer with RealPlayer in any form is MIT's OpenCourseware. The RealPlayer client has always been a PITA and Real has always been it's own worst enemy. They had more than half a decade of opportunity. Microsoft's Media Player has done nothing exceptional; just suck a lot less.
  • by JessLeah ( 625838 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:15PM (#8784080)
    This is RIDICULOUS! In one corner, we have Microsoft. 'Nuff said. In another, we have Apple-- QuickTime players for Mac OS/Mac OS X and Windows, and "grey market" potentially-DMCA-illegal playing via MPlayer. In another corner, we have Real, who SUCK in every way possible.

    And then, in the virtually ignored fourth corner, we have the stuff that isn't totally assraped by big (or not so big, in Real's case) corporations. MP3. Ogg. Freaking gzipped .AU for all I care. AND NO ONE USES ANY OF THIS STUFF.

    No, we have two choices: (1) Run Windows and/or Mac OS X and download some spyware-riddled bloatware from Apple, Real (ugh) or Microsoft (DOUBLE ugh), or (2) run any other OS and use a probably-illegal tool like MPlayer. (Oh, MPlayer isn't illegal, you say? Who the hell are you kidding? At the first nastygram from any big patent-wielding corporation, MPlayer's going bye-bye. As far as I'm concerned, thanks to our pal the DMCA, it's just another DeCSS waiting to happen.)

    This is FREAKING RIDICULOUS. Who benefits from any of this? It doesn't even seem as if MS and Apple benefit. Certainly, the "consumer" slash "end-user" slash "listener" doesn't.

    This is fucking asinine. I am getting truly disgusted by all of this ridiculous pushing of proprietary standards. SCREW THIS. What will happen in 20 years when someone needs to open a .wma file, but .wma has been extinct for a dozen years, and the only program that will open it will be Foobleblatz(R) AudioMasher Pro(TM), a pro-level audio editing tool "with support for over 500 current and previous codecs and encoding formats", for the equivalent of $999.95 2004 dollars?

    Audiovisual works are our cultural legacy. And we're blindly allowing corporations to seal up the standards used to encode these works to digital form. What the fuck is our problem? "Consumer groups" and publications like Consumer Reports should be screaming for open standards... but they don't even know or care what the problem is... Nor will they until around 2010 or so, when they try to play their old files and find that they can't...

    Imagine if Gutenberg's printing press was available only on license from Gutenberg Ltd., and that everything it printed used a special ink completely invisible unless you wear the patented Gutenberg Glasses(R), available for a MERE sum of 10 shillings. Think that sounds ridiculous? We're doing the very same thing today. Eventually, "dead tree" media will die, and the media used to replace it will be completely corporate-controlled, proprietary, and ... god, it's going to be a nightmare. The nightmare is already beginning, in fact...
  • by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:19PM (#8784133) Homepage
    A lot of companies seem to feel that if people aren't listening to their advertisements, they should make their advertisements louder... if people aren't paying attention to their advertisements, they should make them more intrusive... if people aren't buying the upgrade, they should nag them oftener.

    When my son was three years old, he used to act the same way. If you didn't pay attention to him, he thought the answer was to yell. Or pester. Or throw a tantrum.

    My three-year-old was wrong.
  • by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:20PM (#8784138) Journal
    Quicktime hits me up for bucks every time I run it too. Fuck apple.

    The only streaming media player that works, without popping up ads, without asking for a credit card number, without a time-delay nagscreen, is.... Windows Media Player.

    And when it dominates streaming content, watch Real and Apple and Vivo - or whoever else exists - cry foul and sue MS about it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:29PM (#8784231)
    No, but it falls to the idea of keeping the honest folks honest.

    Ogg and MP3 don't put up any barriers between the honest person that might want to give the application to 100 of their buddies as do items like Real, WMP and Fairplay encoded AACs.

    After talking with a friend at Apple that had his hand in the iPod project (along with most other higher level projects there), I asked about the security on the iPods (the hidden directory where the files are stored) and the fact you couldn't easily transfer files -- but it was possible, his response was that it was never designed to be impossible -- it was designed to be a hinderance so that those that did it *KNEW* they were doing something they needed to think about as opposed to being something you could do without a second thought.

    No, Ogg and MP3 do not affect their rights, but at the same time it does nothing to assert the rights. Its the same as a copyright statement on a webpage (notice USDN has one on this site), you don't need it, but it asserts you rights a little more.

    Most decent companies are not interested in protecting their data against all odds, they are interested in protecting their data so that those that do go out of their was to redistribute it against their wishes does so knowingly of what they are doing.
  • by MPolo ( 129811 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:29PM (#8784232)
    I'm sure "Best video and audio quality ever" means "Best video and audio quality ever in a RealPlayer product". That is, they're comparing Real Player 10 to Real Player 9 and earlier, not to WMA, OGG or any other competitor.
  • Ok, I give (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Beer_Smurf ( 700116 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:29PM (#8784233) Homepage
    At some point people are going to have to accept the fact that digital data is copyable and you cannot change that.
    Accepting this fact will let them move on to a business model that uses copying and free distribution to make a profit.
    Perhaps shameless "Wayne's World" style product placement?
    Perhaps old early TV style adds done by the personalities?
    Then tell your advertisers, "we had X downloads and our projections say they will share it Y number of times."
    "Now pay us for X+Y viewers."
  • by Motor ( 104119 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:30PM (#8784255)

    Yeah yeah yeah. Real sucked. We've all heard it, and we all know it.

    What is more interesting is the recent drive to improve their image by making their software less obnoxious. Has it worked? Have they improved. If so, isn't it better to congratulate them and talk them up a bit, thereby encouraging further moves towards being reputable instead of still treating them like a leper not much better than some sneaky ad-ware merchant (however deserved in the past).

  • by njdj ( 458173 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:33PM (#8784296)
    Oh, MPlayer isn't illegal, you say? Who the hell are you kidding? At the first nastygram from any big patent-wielding corporation, MPlayer's going bye-bye. As far as I'm concerned, thanks to our pal the DMCA, it's just another DeCSS waiting to happen.

    Just because the US legal system is owned by big corporations doesn't mean the rest of the planet is in the same mess as the US. I see no credible threat to my use of mplayer. I don't live in the US and I didn't download it from the US and for that matter, it wasn't developed in the US.

    The rest of your comments seemed sensible.
  • You Will (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blunte ( 183182 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:36PM (#8784340)
    Soon you'll start seeing Message Center popups. You'll get random notices that a new version of Real is available. You'll get spurious requests to register.

    Oh yeah, then go "uninstall" it. That will appear to remove it. Then later you'll get Message Center popups.

    Then go remove any reference to Real from HLMS\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run. You'll still periodically see crap.
  • by CatOne ( 655161 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:47PM (#8784518)
    Well, but Windows Media Server charges CALs to the streamer to serve content, so they hit the providers on the back-end.

    QTSS is the only one that's free TO stream. And it's also available as open source (Darwin Streaming Server). And it broadcasts standard MPEG-4, so you can watch it in any MPEG-4 compliant player (e.g. Linux), genius. By far the most open and standard format.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:48PM (#8784537)
    I would think public Radio and the Free Software movement have a lot in common. Its depressing to see then use such a restrictive mehod for distributing their content.
  • Not flame (Score:5, Insightful)

    by H8X55 ( 650339 ) <jason...r...thomas@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @04:49PM (#8784552) Homepage Journal
    As broadband becomes more prevalent the tech I.Q. of the average user drops. I really hate to blame the BOFFs (wait, no I don't!) but sometimes a little common sense and a little reading go a long way.

    Most folks don't read web pages anymore. They look at the bright and shiny widget graphics and click away, click click click until they are "Somewhere They Don't Want to Be" TM or can't figure out where they missed the boat. As it sits now, hit up real.com and you are literally two clicks away from downloading the free player. I think I installed it a few days ago before this news item hit, and believe it was three or four, but still no big deal. Now, had I not read the links I was clicking, or clicked blazing MEDIA PLAYER graphics that were on display I'm sure I would have gone down a more difficult path, and cause me many more clicks to get the free one.

    Remember, it's Real's right to sell their premium player. We don't have to like it, and we don't have to buy it. Frankly, I'm surprised they even still offer a free version. They can set their site up however they want to encourage downloaders to buy the premium player as opposed to the freebie. I've visited sites that offer free applications and have done a much better job of hiding the goodies behind the curtain than real.com.

    And to say they shouldn't sell their application at all and just subsidize it's expense off the greenbacks of the server side applications is just crazy. Even the free player is more than a simple "viewer" that other companies give away (Adobe, Crystal Reports, Microsoft). It's an actual full blown application. The premium player also offers content that costs money.
  • by dasboy ( 598256 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @05:02PM (#8784750)
    "A senior engineer from Real explains how to get RealPlayer 10 to act nicely on one's system." Explain to me why a "senior engineer" is needed to help us make the Real player work properly (by properly I mean in a simply and unobtrusively)? It is refreashing to find that other people are as annoyed with the "hide the free player" game that Real has been playing -- I thought I was the only one.
  • by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @05:04PM (#8784775) Homepage
    At home I have an FM alarm clock radio tuned to NPR, with the headphone jack plugged in to my sound card's line-in jack. At the appropriate time, a scheduler program starts recording from the line-in jack and encoding to an mp3 file in my p2p client's "Shared files" folder. Thus every NPR program is available to me in mp3 format as soon as it goes out over the air. And they are worried about their digital media rights? The horse is out of the barn folks.... let it go.
  • by Angostura ( 703910 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @05:37PM (#8785221)
    If you think the OS X version is obnoxious, you presumably haven't tried the Windows version.

    The Mac version is positively polite IMHO and lacks all the message centre horror.
  • by dustmite ( 667870 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @05:39PM (#8785247)

    Stream it with multicast? Great, I'll be all over it.

    Multicast? Are you sure? For this to be advantageous, basically everyone has to watch the stream at the same time. To stream to different users at different times (which is usually the case) then you're basically talking about unicast again, which is the current model.

    Furthermore, a lot of network hardware doesn't handle multicast well. For example, the majority of network switches treat IP Multicast packets as broadcast, because they don't do IGMP snooping, so they don't know who is part of the session. So if you're watching a streamed session, everyone on your LAN segment is getting flooded.

  • by Compenguin ( 175952 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @05:49PM (#8785375)
    The pot calling the kettle black.

    I couldn't find the Linux download in the hastack for Windows Media or Quciktime. Real: 1, MS, Apple: 0.
  • by VAXGeek ( 3443 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @05:51PM (#8785394) Homepage
    At some point at Real, someone noticed they had a payware player and a freeware player. "Hey, maybe if we hide the freeware one, people will buy the payware!" That's real ethical guys. Maybe you'll trick a few people (a lot of people) into paying $29.99 for NOTHING, but I guarantee no one will pay ever again. Quicktime has the right idea with licencing if you ask me. Real is a trashy piece of spyware that contributes nothing to the Internet as a whole. I'd like to see an open standards audio streaming solution be used, but at this point I would just settle for seeing Real file for Chapter 11. (Coming any day now).
  • Re:Buffering.... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @05:55PM (#8785456)
    Copyright, copyright. Why should ANYTHING that NPR does be copyrighted? WE paid for it, damn it!
  • by /dev/trash ( 182850 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @05:56PM (#8785463) Homepage Journal
    Has the reception for your Clock radio ever gotten staticky? Mine has.
  • by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @06:40PM (#8785916) Journal
    And that makes it spyware how exactly? Spyware captures personal information about you our your computer usage and transmits it back to a third party. Most software updates just query some type of a file to see what the current software version/build number is. If the two don't match, offer the person a chance to update. Nothing nefarious, but then again I don't wear a foil hat.

    What you say is true, although we could quibble and say that by phoning home, the user's IP address and the fact he is using the software is transmitted, data that might be used against him if the software were, for instance, limited shareware or "box ware" (that is, not distributed over the 'net, but in a box).

    Still, sure, phoning home to check for updates probably is innocuous. But how does a user really know what's being transmitted when the software phones home (without attaching a packet sniffer)?

    It is just because any sort of phoning home can be mis-construed that I left it out of my latest freeware application. I very much wanted to use phoning home to get a idea of how much my software was being used, and I could have provided users with additional functionality via phoning home.

    But I decided that the possibility of mis-perception -- especially in the case of this particular piece of software, which required, in order to be useful at all, the user to enter his password for a service not affiliated with me, which my software would pass on to that service --made it unfriendly to include phoning home.

    Unfriendly, because it would arouse in some minority of users fears that my software was doing untoward things, and would induce some portion of those to not use my software at all -- and I didn't want to lock anyone out, even those with merely speculative fears.
  • Meh. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JMZero ( 449047 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @06:51PM (#8786078) Homepage
    I can find it pretty easily, but I know what I'm looking for. I know that it's there. I know that I'm going to have to look for the right link. Most people don't have these advantages. It's the same story at DivX.com, or even QuickTime. There's people that believe they're watching movies illegally because they aren't using QuickTime Pro.

    But enough with them - Real has always been the worst offender here. And I'm not suggesting they're bad people, just stupid.

    Real could have been a contender, but they couldn't decide on a business model - sell client or sell server - so decided to try selling both. You just can't do that - you have to get one, and use it to get the other.

    Maybe have a sideline selling a fancy client, but your bread and butter is getting your client installed everywhere and then milking content providers. Look at the success of MacroMedia. They made it "dead easy" to install Flash, and it pretty much just isn't an issue for most users. Their good plan, and decent software, means they're making money.
  • by MrChuck ( 14227 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @06:54PM (#8786117)
    I've done this before in another thread, but...

    everyone has to watch the stream at the same time

    Or you can kick off a new stream every MINUTE and have 60 streams leaving your place (presuming there are listeners for each stream - if not, you only have $NumberListeners streams going out).

    So 60 streams of something popular where unicast would create, say, 1000 streams (one per user). Or more.

    a lot of network hardware doesn't handle multicast well

    Then it's broken. I don't have lots of sympathy for those that implement part of TCP. Windows machines are notorious for not acting on (TCP) windowsize-smallen ICMP requests. Its broken. I'm not going to change how I implement TCP because someone's stack is broken.

    It's not like Multicast is new. Or a poor idea.

  • by joaorf ( 695907 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:31AM (#8790891)
    Slashdot may be Linux biased on articles that are approved. But, if you read the comments, you'll reach the conclusion that most readers are Windows (l)users.

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...