Real Cuts Prices for DRM-Restricted Music

Flint Dragon writes "A story on MSNBC details RealNetworks' next step in converting iPod users from iTunes to their own online music store. Not only can you play music downloaded from their site on your iPod now, you can, for a limited time, purchase music for 50% cheaper (.49/song, 4.99/album)! This is the price that I'm willing to pay for. Too bad it won't last..."

Yeah

[Aliencow]

Cause we all trust real enough to give them our money even though we don't trust them enough to install their crap.

Losing Money

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that these companie barely even made a profit at $1 per song. A limited time low, loss-inducing cost might attract customers for a while but the low switching cost between services means that they won't stay when prices going up, especially if your sound quality is not as good.

ipod problems

[TedCheshireAcad]

Some how I don't think their conversion-to-iPod feature is going to last, at least not once the new revision of iPod software comes out.

I'm sure I'm in the minority...

[Anita Coney]

But I'd refuse to take DRM music even if it were free. The Audio Home Recording Act gives me the right to make backups of my music, to make compilations of my music, and to share those compilations with as many friends as I'd like, as long as I don't charge anything.

ANY system that interferes with those rights is unacceptable to me.

how ironic

[insomnyuk]

I find it exceedingly amusing, and telling, that RealNetworks, after years of pushing proprietary audio and video formats, is now fighting Apple's use of proprietary hardware. They have to market to iPod users because mp3 players using Real format music have been blown out of the water.

Its too bad their software was always ad-ridden garbage. They will have to do a lot more than a loss-leader sales ploy to get my trust back.

Good Move

[Hawkeye477]

This is a great move by Real. I will definatly be a buyer since there are many albums that I have been on the fringe of buying but have now wanted to spend 12-15 bucks on, but would def be wiling to spend 5.

This move will help increase competition in the market and I think will be beneficial to the consumers in the long run. As much as I like Apple, I like good old competition more cause it means better products at lower prices! Gotta Love Capatalism!

So you buy it because it is cheap...

[OS24Ever]

..then a new 'firmware' update comes out for the iPod and your new library quits working...

Until the dust settles I'd not buy anything from real in hopes of it working with my iPod. Not like they support my platform anyway (Mac)

Whatever.

[wheany]

Real, have you looked at your player software?

And is there an easy way of downloading your free player without you trying to get me to download your non-free player every step of the way?

Capitalism works!

[aelbric]

No matter if you as an individual have issues about either of these companies. This is a good example of the free market working as intended. Too bad all industries don't compete internally like this.

gnutella-still-free-for-all dept?

[TheFlyingGoat]

And still morally wrong and illegal to steal. How do we expect the RIAA, MPAA, etc to embrace technology when the most public geeks make comments like that? Sure music is overpriced and a lot is crap, but it's still stealing. At least iTunes and Real are going about this the right way.

That said, I'll NEVER install anything from Real on my system. It's as bad as Bonzi Buddy to get rid of.

Burn karma burn, slashdot inferno...

Re:Apple & Real

[savagedome]

why Apple is so upset about Real being able to its music work in the iPod?

Because they have to *support* Real's format. When Real's shit breaks on iPod, the users will view it as Apple's fault.

Offer won't last long... Music might not either

[EvanKai]

Who is going to buy DMR'ed music from a company that is struggling financially with no guarantee that the RM part of the DRM will function in 6 months.

Their ads should say...
RENT AN ALBUM FOR $4.99
ACT NOW, THIS FUNCTIONALITY WON'T LAST

Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority...

[Mononoke]

But I'd refuse to take DRM music even if it were free. The Audio Home Recording Act gives me the right to make backups of my music, to make compilations of my music, and to share those compilations with as many friends as I'd like, as long as I don't charge anything.

ANY system that interferes with those rights is unacceptable to me.

You must like the iTunes Music Store, then, since their version of DRM allows all of that to be done. Right?

Ummm.. maybe idiots would...

[Otto]

Considering that in order to use Real's music you must transfer it using Real's Harmony software and any errors you get will be in that software... I think people would generally be more likely to blame Real rather than Apple.

Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority...

[farzadb82]

The Audio Home Recording Act gives me the right to make backups of my music, to make compilations of my music, and to share those compilations with as many friends as I'd like, as long as I don't charge anything

IANAL, but sharing music, regardless of charging anything or not is still a copyright violation. you are, however, permitted to make backups of my music

Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority...

[daviddennis]

You may not be in the minority in Slashdot, but in the overall world, I'd say you are.

I will point out, though, that the DRM conditions of iTunes music are not as ardurous as you think. You can, in fact, burn a CD with your music on it and that CD is then free of restrictions. You can copy the music to any number of iPods. You can also play the music on up to five different computers, so making a backup of your music is not an issue at all.

I play my music on my home computer, work computer and laptop, and I'm happy as a clam.

D

Hypocrites

[scorpioX]

Real's "Freedom of Choice" campaign is pure hypocrisy. What about my freedom of choice to use OS X or Linux? Where is Real's support for those operating systems? I guess they consider choice Windows 98, Windows 2000, or Windows XP.

Almost makes sense

[zeus_tfc]

After reading the headline, I thought, "Wow, for once this makes sense." What I mean is, they are selling an inferior product at a lower cost. This is standard business practice, and as long as they openly admit to the DRM, I've no problem with it.

Then I RTFA and changed my mind. This isn't giving the people a choice of an inferior product for a lower cost, this is a "sale" to try and win people away from iTunes. It's only supposed to last an undefined "limited amount of time." Probably until they feel they've won enough customers from apple. I guess it still makes sense business-wise, but I don't like it as much.

Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority...

[ziplux]

DRM can always be cracked, the real question is: are you willing to live with the horrible quality of the songs downloaded from any of these stores? You can't recover the quality that is lost in the conversion to AAC (or whatever Real uses). I refuse to pay for music that has been run through a lossy compression algorithm. Maybe if iTunes or Real started selling uncompressed (or losslessly compressed music) I might start buying online (regardless of the DRM, because that can and will be cracked.)

Re:Apple & Real

[FatRatBastard]

Probably because Apple see that in the future the store (more importantly FairPlay) *will* be the profit center. They want to leverage the best selling MP3 player (their iPod) into establishing FairPlay'ed ACC files as a standard. Set the standard, pocket a few cents from every tune sold. This is why Apple just did a deal with Moto. on iTunes and cell phones.

There's a much better article about this that was published a few weeks ago, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority...

[merdark]

I totally agree with you. DRM music is totally useless. I rarely play music on my PC and when I do I usually stream sites anyways. To have my music locked to say my windows computer only... is absolutely useless for me. What about my mac laptop? What about my car stereo? What about potential mp3 type players I might use in the future? What about my Linux computer at work? What if I want to take some music on a CD into a friends car?

A non-copy protected CD allows me to do all this, plus the music is non-lossy. Believe me, often times it's easy to tell the quality difference with certain music and stereo systems. Hell, I can even distinguish well recorded 'CD's from poorly recorded ones.

allofmp3.com

[Anonymous Coward]

I still use my ultra-cheap alternative: allofmp3.com. They operate using a Russian broadcast license...

Instead of 99 cents a song, you pay a penny per megabyte. Often you can pay as little as 5 cents for a 128 bit MP3. Other formats and bitrates are available.

Best part? Since it's a Russian "broadcast", the RIAA doesn't get any of it. Tasty!

Re:Still not enough

[blueZhift]

I hear you! With all of the spyware in Real's software and other annoying features, they've lost my trust and that of a lot of other people. As it stands, I only use Real Player when I absolutely have to. And since I'm pretty happy with my iPod and ITMS as it is, I won't be switching anytime soon.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Yeah but it's the smart minority

[nanojath]

I'm right there with you. I can already buy cheaper music that can play on an iPod. No reverse engineering is needed: the format is called MP3, you may have heard of it. The prices range from free to whatever. Finding something I like involves a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work... but I actually find that more interesting than being spoonfed Very Popular Radio Hitz complete with useless yet encumbering software designed around the premise that I am a thief. I keep a few bucks in a Bitpass account, a few bucks in my Paypal account, it's all pretty easy.

Another technologically advanced method I find usefull: I actually have the data in question mailed to me on a cunning media called a compact disc. It serves the same purpose as the download and acts as an archive to boot. Why it even plays on numerous standalone devices I happen to own. And since I again opt for the more unusual sources over the semidigested pablum that drecks all over the radio and tevee, I don't have any problems with DRM and usually pay around 50 cents a track anyway. It may be a minority but who's spending smarter money? I've had numerous opportunities to get free iTunes tracks. No interest. Why muddy up my collection?

Re:For a LIMITED TIME only

[Anonymous Coward]

And roses will spring from the ground wherever you walk, female nudity will become common in the workplace, and an honest, non-corrupt, black woman will be president.

And what equilibrium existed before? Before MP3s the music industry had everybody by the balls - the consumers, the artists, and the distributors. Why do you think they were convicted of price fixing?

Re:For a LIMITED TIME only

[gcaseye6677]

Like they say, you get what you pay for. I'd rather pay $.99 a song and get to keep it rather than paying $.50 for a crippled song that comes from a company with a dodgy past. Somehow I doubt this will cut into Apple's sales that much.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:ipod problems

[almostmanda]

The idea is, if enough people download music from Real, Apple CAN'T break the compatibility, or they'll anger/alienate a whole lot of people who paid for worthless songs. People will skip the update just so their songs still work. That's what Real is trying to accomplish with the sale...getting a sizable chunk of ipod users to download their songs so that Apple just has to deal with it. I applaud Real for making efforts to be more compatible instead of in the past, when they made efforts to lock us in.

Re:Not without jumping through hoops it doesn't.

[Mononoke]

If you jump through a whole lot of hoops, yes, it'll do those things. The point is to be able to easily do them. DRM, in any form, doesn't make it easy.

Really? Quoting the original poster:

to make backups of my music,

They are simply data files. How hard is that?

to make compilations of my music,

That's one of iTune's basic functions.

and to share those compilations with as many friends as I'd like

Burn 'em to CDs and pass them around to your heart's content.

What was so hard about that?

Re:Apple & Real

[mrchaotica]

If Apple wanted FairPlay'ed AAC files as a standard, they would have licensed it to Real.

Cue the "it's not STEALING" posts

[goldspider]

You all can use whatever moral thermometer you want to justify downloading music you haven't paid for, but it all still comes down to the fact that you take posession of a song/album that RIAA companies sell for $x.xx, but they don't collect the $x.xx from the sale of that song/album.

And don't give me that typical crap line of "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so I'm not depriving them of a sale." If you don't really want it, or can't afford it, that doesn't justify copyright infringement. And I fully support the RIAA's actions against you, because by your own admission, you are not their customer.

Re:Step 3

[WebScud]

I agree. Apple makes the iPod, but let's not support their OS. We'll let them fuel iTunes like they did before iTunes was for Windows. Where most of thier market is anyway.

So what are the artists getting?

[charliekowalchuk]

Can someone provide me a link or any information that breaks down how and how much Real and iTunes is giving back to the artists?

I heard somewhere approx 60% of the mp3's that you buy now were the exact same ones that your got free from Napster a few years ago. So whose getting this money, cause lets not forget the whole reason why the RIAA claims to be protecting our music from ourselves, "to make sure the artists can still comfortably produce new songs".

It just seems a little fishy still, being that downloading music used to be a crime, but because someone started charging for it, its okay now.

You know if you buy a stolen car from a guy on the streets, its still stolen whether you or not you physically boosted it yourself.

Yup.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I think of Real as more or less of a spyware / adware company that packages their crap with a marginally useful media player. To me, no better than KazzaGold. And, since it's marketed to the same crowd of users (i.e. the AOL crowd), I end up paying very little attention to what they are doing at Real.

Re:Legality?!?

[RazzleFrog]

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Robinson-Patman Act sorta address predatory pricing but it is a very subjective thing. Just selling products at a loss is not enough. You have to prove intent, feasibility to recoup losses, etc. Like most anti-trust violations it is really something that would only come up after the fact. You don't typically see companies with 5% marketshare being brought up Anti-Trust charges.

Re:Not without jumping through hoops it doesn't.

[jhurshman]

Question, is burning to CD limited, or can you do it as you want with the music you bought?

It is limited: you can only make 7 copies of the exact same playlist. You'll have to reorder it or otherwise change it to make 7 more, and so forth.

Personally, I don't find that limit at all onerous.

International?

[Canuck_TV]

Gee, another wonderful (albeit DRM-laden) online music store where I could pay for my music instead of using Kazaa. Available only to US residents. How long is it going to take to move these store out of the US? iTMS keeps promising. There's only 2 options here, and none of them I like (proprietary software being the primary reason). *launches Kazaa*

Re:Ummm.. maybe idiots would...

[rjrjr]

Then I don't imagine you've actually dealt with very many people.

Re:Not without jumping through hoops it doesn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is limited: you can only make 7 copies of the exact same playlist. You'll have to reorder it or otherwise change it to make 7 more, and so forth.

Something many people seem to miss whenever this comes up: You can easily copy the audio CD after it's been burned once. Sure, you're not using the little radioactive "burn me" button in iTunes to do it, but it's still possible...

Re:Ummm.. maybe idiots would...

[Mikey-San]

You've never done end-user support, then.

I can't count the number of times I've had to say something to the effect of, "No, Such-and-Such is a third-party package that's not supported by Apple," to customers.

Apple /will/ get tech support calls about Real's stuff from confused users.

Re:Not without jumping through hoops it doesn't.

[ThePiMan2003]

Or just copy the CD...

Re:Apple & Real

[cryptochrome]

when prices go back to $ 0.99 each I doubt that most people will stay with Real

But by then they'll be locked in to their drm system, unless they can find a way to move that music to another one. Of course this is true of ITMS as well, but at least they have the virtue of having the best interface with the widest selection.

There are two answers as to why Apple should be upset. The first is the long boring one about how Apple is maneuvering for a central position in online distibution of media of all kinds, which has been explored in some depth.

The second explanation (which should not be dismissed lightly) is that Real has been marketing crappy obnoxious invasive software for years, and their mac versions were doubly crappy and obnoxious, not to mention rarely being up-to-date. Despite these fundamental flaws their early lead in streaming video and audio entrenched them in the marketplace. Now that they are losing their advantage and dying as they should have long ago, they have decided to latch their crappy obnoxious invasive software and systems onto Apple's golden boy - the iPod - , whilst bad-mouthing Apple and the iTMS itself. Mac users have every reason to be pissed off. If you're wondering why you're seeing so much vitriol [macminute.com] from the Apple rank-and-file, this is why.

Re:Ummm.. maybe idiots would...

[GoofyBoy]

I am using my Apple Mac to transfer songs to my Apple iPod just like I did with my Apple iTunes.

People will blame Apple.

Re:Cue the "it's not STEALING" posts

[goldspider]

If everyone thought as you do, there wouldn't be a music industry. Fortunately for you, there are still people out there buyinc CDs who are subsidizing your hobby.

Or is only immoral by some puritanical "you shouldn't get something without working for it" ethic?

There is a word for "getting something without working for it", and it's not "puritanical". It's called "freeloading".

Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority...

[gnu-generation-one]

"I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I'd refuse to take DRM music even if it were free"

I'll join you in the minority, and say that I'd refuse to take DRM music even if it were free, not only because I want to copy music (preferably beyond that which is allowed by the home recording act, for those of us with MP3 jukeboxes), but also because I want to be able to play it using Free Software. What's the point of having to have a windows computer to play your music on? Why can't I play the music on the same computer that I'm working at?

Many people won't have experienced this, but if you do ever get your hands on some good music which you can copy (I mean proper copying, without legal restriction or underhandedness), it's a totally different experience to having a CD that you can only play yourself, in your home, in one place at once, not in public, you can't send it to anyone, can't point your friends to a download of the music you're listening to, can't put it on your website to say "great music isn't it?"...

You've been told for too long that an artist would never make any money from such music, convincing evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Don't believe it.

Re:Apple & Real

[FatRatBastard]

Maybe, but I also think that they're pushing iTunes as a future moneymaker as well. Again, this is a very formative time. Apple is in the lead (selling more downloads than anyone else) and its going to want to protect the leverage that comes with that lead. License to Real and Real can still pull this "we'll undercut you" stuff. This is *great* for users, but is no good for Apple. They want to be able to get to the point that they can dictate terms with the records labels / industry.

Re:Here's FULL TIME

[dasmegabyte]

Uh, how?

Artist signs a contract with an RIAA member label, trading the exclusive copyrights to their songs for X dollars per CD sold and Y cents per radio play. The artist then receives X*CD + Y*play, so long as they're good about letting the RIAA know how to reach them.

There are a couple of key differences between this and the Russian method. First, the artist decides whether or not to sign the contract. They're in control of their rights, and how their songs are managed. It is completely within their abilities to tell the RIAA labels to go fuck themselves. I know many bands who self publish and self promote and who do all right (though they sell much fewer records than they would with a nationally exposed label and rarely get any radio play at all outside of free play on college and community station). Second, the amount of money that they will receive is set in the contract and is legally enforcable...if the label does start to screw you, you can fight back.

With this Russian deal, the artist has no choice. They don't ask for the deal nor can they ask to be left out. They get no say in the money they receive nor do they have any recourse if they don't receive it. Less money and no control.

Anybody who thinks this is a better deal for the artist simply because the price is cheaper, or the artist gets a bigger cut of fuck-all than they would under the RIAA, is an asshole. Supporting AllOfMp3 is far worse than support Kazaa because at least with KaZaa, you KNOW you're stealing.

Nope, nada, no way

[Jahf]

Plain and simply I will never buy online music until I can get lossless CD quality recordings for less than I can buy a physical CD.

I understand DRM and don't have a big issue with it when it comes down to it (I don't -like- it but as long as it gives me my fair use I'll live with it).

I'm simply not willing to pay for lossy encodings. I would rather pay $9.99 for an album that is CD quality than $4.99 for a lossy encoded version. I would prefer it to be like FLAC where it is a compressed file, but nothing less than CD quality. CD is the -minimum- I am looking for. However I should be able to buy for $4.99 + a small added bandwith charge.

Will I rip down to a smaller format for my portable player? Sure ... but I'll be able to listen to my lossless version on my home system and I'll be able to reencode if a better format comes out in the future.

Until then, since I buy less than 1 disc a month, I'll stick with hardcopy.

Well, why would you trust them less than Apple?

[raehl]

I'm a little confused as to why a lot of Slashdot readers are so supportive of the Apple/iPod thing. Attempting to force owners of iPods to buy their content through the iTunes store no better than the printer manufacturers who try to force you to buy ink refills from the manufacturer. It's the equivalent of Sony selling you a DVD player that only plays DVDs.

If I bought an iPod, and someone offers to sell me songs that will play on my iPod, and Apple then does something so that the iPod will no longer play those songs, why is that OK? Where's the slashdot overreaction to this unwarranted control of hardware I own?

Re:Here's FULL TIME

[Sir Holo]

...infringement via a gray market loophole.

And we all know that the RIAA would never exploit a loophole, right?

RIAA Continues Distributing Dud CDs to Satisfy Settlement [slashdot.org]

This is a ploy to get their DRM into the public.

[Warlock7]

This whole thing is about DRM ubiquity. Real is scared to death of the Windows DRM so they go after Apple. Makes sense in a twisted sort of a way.

Real and Virgin are going after Apple for "not licensing Fairplay to them". The more likely scenario is that Apple wouldn't license Fairplay to them unless they used it exclusively and both Real and Virgin have their own DRM schemes and that wouldn't help them to get their DRMs into the market. Apple licensed Fairplay to Motorola. I'm sure that it is an exclusive contract that means that more users will be using Fairplay.

Real wants people to use their DRM and so does Virgin. So, they both complain that Apple refused to license Fairplay to them, when the more likely scenario is that Apple refused to license Fairplay to them without them agreeing to the contract, like Motorola did.

So, Real releases Harmony, which will allow their DRM'd files to be played on the number one media player, the iPod, by faking out the Fairplay DRM software to think that the Real DRM is the same as the Fairplay DRM. Whether this is legal or not stands to be proven. Then Real undercuts the standard prices by half and sets about creating FUD about how Apple is evil and won't let them play together and starts a "freedom of music" site designed to attack Apple only. Seems far fetched.

Virgin meanwhile attacks from their end, in France, and says that they've been shut out by Apple, the obvious monopoly (hardly) that they are.

This is a DRM war. The one that has more media that supports their DRM out in the market is going to win in the long run.

A couple of points that the Real site is misleading about:
1. The price to burn a track to CD is $0.79 not $0.49.
2. The price per album is 1/2 of what it cost before, as low as $4.99, so not all albums are $4.99.

Seems that they are trying to open the iPod to their proprietary DRM format, which isn't really open at all either.

Also bear in mind that Apple is guaranteed to release an update to the iPod software that will disable the Harmony software from helpiong to keep the DRM working on the iPod too.

iTunes also has over 1 million songs in their library while Real has almost 7 hundred thousand.

Who will win? Only time will tell. Seems to me that Real is playing dirty to try and make a minor inroad that won't pay off in the long run. How long can they support losing money in order to try to bring people over?

Real Enterprise

[Anonymous Coward]

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THINGS HOLY.

Real has offered a crap-free version of their player for quite some time now, yet every time I read a story about real I hear people bitching about Spyware. Download it, try it, and shut up [real.com] or don't use it.

Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority...

[micromoog]

Digital != lossy compression.

Grandparent has a point . . . a sound file produced with lossy compression is of lower quality than the same song purchased on CD. This is a fact, not a matter of opinion.

In other words, the digital vs. analog argument is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT discussion from the compression vs. no compression argument.

Re:ipod problems

[Anonymous Coward]

EXCEPT Real's Harmony is Windows only... In other words, they don't support the large community of Mac-owning iPod users, which is a significant number!

Re:Well, why would you trust them less than Apple?

[fiftyvolts]

Apple has done nothing to stop you from playing songs from other sources. I have tons of MP3's on my iPod that didn't come from Apple.

If all I could play on my iPod with FairPlay DRM'ed tunes, then I would be upset. However as it stands I'm free to not use iTMS as much or as little as I please and still have a wonderful iPod experience.

Remember Real can make their own music store anytime they want w/o violating an Apple held copyright, and by the same token it isn't Apple's responsibility to make sure they succeed.

It's one thing to complain about companies who lock out competition and make their own products worthless. I would say Apple is not one of them.

Re:Well, why would you trust them less than Apple?

[the unbeliever]

The Free link is now the first one on real.com

Not too hard to find, unless you're blind.

(for all the blind people out there, I apologize)

Hogwash

[yoshi_mon]

Current standard film still records at 24 frames per second. If you watch closely during any sequence that has any action in it you will see how poor and antiquated that frame rate value truly is. And yet because we have become accustom to it nobody seems to question it. (Except for that crazy Lucas guy who wants everyone to convert to digital video.)

Audiophiles similarly have become accustom to all sorts of crazy arguments about what you can and can't hear. CD's arn't as "warm" as LP's, tubes are better than transistors, high quality MP3's don't sound like the CDs. However I'm quite sure that if you were to sit down two people who had not heard any given track that was played on a CD and then on a very high quality compressed format they would be hard pressed to pick which was which. (Given that it's a 50/50 chance a more controlled method of testing would have to be done but I think you get my point.)

Now I still personally will never pay for any stripped down, DRM crippled, poorly encoded music but I don't think that using a compressed format, done right, is a bad thing at all.

Re:Not without jumping through hoops it doesn't.

[rjung2k]

You can also just reorder it, then reorder it back to the earlier order, then burn some more.

Why not?

[SuperKendall]

All Apple has to do is send out a warning that music purchased from other places not selling MP3's will not work, then throw the switch...

I think the majority of people would blame Real, not Apple - they know where they bought the songs from. It has the potential to be a huge blunder for Real with very little risk for Apple should they decide to counter.

Concern for the consumer

[inkswamp]

I love how Real wears their concern for the consumer on their sleeve, like we're all buying that line. Does anyone really think lower prices for consumers is Real's motivation or do you think lining their pockets with some of Apple's hard-earned innovation is the motive. Gee, I have a guess. I have no problem with Apple keeping this goodie to themselves. They practically invented this market--a market that others repeatedly claimed wasn't there, couldn't be done, would never happen because of P2P networks, etc., etc. Now all the nay-sayers want a slice of it. Too bad.

At one point Real had a serious head-start on everyone else in terms of streaming audio and video technology. I remember the first time I used Real to listen to streaming audio and watch streaming video. I was blown away and everyone else played catch-up with them for a while. Remember that?

I've said it before: Real should have been the ones to create the iTunes music store and the software and maybe even the iPod, but they squandered their lead. Now they want to latch on to the company who beat them at their own game? They should stop hiding behind embarrassingly disingenuous claims of concern for the consumer. If Real were genuinely concerned for consumers, they would never have let their products become as crappy as they currently are and would never have tried coasting for as long as they did on what little innovation they managed in their heyday.

Re:Still not enough

[GarfBond]

Right. Can you prove that there's spyware in RealPlayer? I'd very much like to see current stats on that.

I'm not talking about RealPlayer 8, or the 'Message Center' (which can be turned off), or any autoupdate features. I'm talking about honest-to-god spyware found in RealPlayer 10-10.5beta. You know, spyware that actually spies on what you browse and reports on it back to Real (the bundled Google bar doesn't count either, cause that's, well, Google).

Most people at least say "they did it before, not sure if I trust them just yet," but *you* made the claim that they're still doing it. Now I say prove it.

Re:Yeah but it's the smart minority

[That's Unpossible!]

Finding something I like involves a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work... but I actually find that more interesting than being spoonfed Very Popular Radio Hitz complete with useless yet encumbering software designed around the premise that I am a thief. I keep a few bucks in a Bitpass account, a few bucks in my Paypal account, it's all pretty easy.

It doesn't sound like it. You said it involves, "a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work."

Now using iTunes is easy. I don't see how that point can even be debated, the interface is awesome, the songs are what they say they are, the downloads are fast, you can sample 30 seconds of a song before buying (more than most CD stores allow), etc.

Yet you try to marginalize it by pretending all the music in itunes is "Very Popular Radio Hitz." I'm sorry, but that is just plain old horseshit.

Then you say that iTunes is "useless yet encumbering software designed around the premise that I am a thief."

It obviously is not useless. For one thing, it saves me from having to do "a little extra digging, sampling, and detective work." It lets me buy music in a setting where the legality is not in doubt. It makes it easy to do all of this. Useless?

iTunes doesn't have a "premise that [you are] a thief." iTunes is there to make it easy to organize, buy, and use your digital music.

It may be a minority but who's spending smarter money?

In your case, what with all your detective work, digging, etc for music, I would say you're only spending your money smarter if your time is worthless.

Mine isn't, so I use iTunes.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I'm sure I'm in the minority...

[Anonymous Coward]

The assertion is based soley on the premise that digital copies are perfectly reproducible, and therefore a greater threat than lossy tape.

I am getting tired of the "perfect digital copying == The Devil" bogeyman. Some people respond to it by pointing out types of degraded copying, as if it is degraded copying that gives us our rights. I think we ought to tackle it head-on.

The ability to share ideas and expressions is precisely why they cannot be property. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, property is a social invention to prevent conflict over things that cannot easily be shared (like houses). If you can share by copying, there is no inherent need to create property.

The nature of property pretty much demands that government enforce it. (No enforcement, no keeping Jones and Smith from shooting at each other over the possession of the best house.) Copyright's different. It's not a deed -- it's just an optional incentive to create stuff that we (eventually) will all be able to share. If the incentive becomes so strong that it wipes out all possibility of that sharing, copyright law has failed.

Perfect digital copying is not a curse. It's a blessing in line with Jefferson's views about the beneficial nature of the spreading of ideas; in line with the fundamental benefit of the printing press. It doesn't signal the end for publishers -- despite all of the record industry's kicking, and screaming, and alienation of their own customers, they're still raking in the dough.

DRM is the curse. We have copies of Shakespeare's writings, the KJV Bible, the Constitution, etc. precisely because the authors of those works did NOT lock up all/most of the copies of the works in scrambled formats designed to impair copyability. If the next Duke Ellington's or Alfred Hitchcock's works are left to rot away in some DRM format, will our descendants forgive us?

Re:Well, why would you trust them less than Apple?

[Excelsior]

Your assertion that mp3s offer you choice to the ITMS is very flawed. This isn't an alternative for legal music on an IPOD. There are only two ways to get mp3s on your IPOD.
1) Steal Music
2) Go to the store, buy an album, rip an album in mp3, move mp3s to IPOD.

Option 2 is the only legal option, and it is hardly an option to ITMS. It is like considering driving to the store and buying blocks of ice as an alternative to paying for electricity to cool your refridgerator.

Same with CDs and DVDs

[tentimestwenty]

There might have been a small consortium that started these formats but the reality was that there were other formats competing for the same dollar from the consumer. ONE COMPANY'S standard eventually won out and THEN it was licensed to others. It's not like you could play a Betamax tape on a VHS machine, why should you be able to play a Real file on an Apple machine? Apple has already "licensed" iTunes so you can play their tracks on ANY personal computer. It's obvious that once they sew up their format and DRM as the market standard they will license it to other portables as well. The reality is that there is still enough risk in the marketplace (re: Microsoft) that they can't just freely license things now otherwise they'd lose their revenue streams.

Re:Well, why would you trust them less than Apple?

[druhol]

That's just because the vast majority of other music services use DRM'ed files (or proprietary file formats) that wont work on an iPod. If Napster or any of the others used MP3 or AAC, then their music would be fine for the iPod. But that's their choice not to, and it's hardly Apple's fault.

Re:Well, why would you trust them less than Apple?

[dourk]

Regarding option 2: How about the 4-500 CDs that I already owned before the iPod was invented?

Those songs went on the iPod nicely without having to buy a thing.

Re:Real Alternative

[Baricom]

Even if the outlets you mention understood the political reasons not to use a particular streaming technology, what alternative would you suggest? Apple, Real, and Microsoft all have many bad spots on their records. Yet, there's really no fourth platform that would reach any sizable audience.