Quote

A long time from now, people will look back at our announcement and say it was a great benefit for Apple," Mr. Glaser told The New York Times.

Ha!
Hahahahahahaha

Glaser is such a humanitarian.

And what's with the record companies? Talk about being passive aggresive.

Quote

"Up to now, the world of downloads has been far too close to a world where the CD you buy in one store wouldn't play on the CD player you bought in another," Larry Kenswil, president of Universal Music's eLabs division, said in a statement. "We applaud RealNetworks' efforts to help correct this situation and appeal to all people and companies in this area to work toward a world of universal interoperability."

Record companies encouraged non-interoperability by requiring DRM in the first place. It's hard to pin down who's actually the bigger PoS...Glaser or Big Music.

Buy independent music at cdbaby.com instead. The only thing big labels understand are $$$$$$$$. Vote with your wallet.

i think this is an awesome thing for apple, this just means that there will be more music stores that are ipod compatible. i think apple would be stupid to sue realnetworks and take this thing off the market.

although the wma music stores are failing so far, id give microsoft credit for giving customers a choice by licensing wma to everyone. unfortunatly, this really doesn't matter at this point. the same artists and the same albums are at all the mainstream music stores, and usually at similar prices. it's not really a big deal. even if you dont have an ipod, you could download an album from some other music store and burn it to an audio CD and rip it again to your computer as unprotected anything you want. blank CDs are practically freebies anyway. the whole music store hype is blown way out of porportion. most people only use unprotected music files whether it be from a purchased CD or off a file sharing network.

Isn't Real using AAC? Glaser may actually be right this time in that this could be the start of everyone standarizing around the iPod's prefered file format, AAC. The AAC vs WMV vs Altrac war just got interesting.

*sigh*

Apple wants to keep iLemmings trapped in its closed iPod/iTunes service, Steve Jobs doesn't want consumer choice, why compete when he can keep raising prices at iTunes.

As more and more iLemmings can't resist the shinny iPods, the prices at iTunes keep on climbing just like cable TV rates. Apple is trying to create an MS-like monopoly signing exclusive deals like the Pearl Jam concert for $19.99 that is only available for iLemming victims.

It gives people more of a reason to buy an iPod and use AAC. iTMS still blows away any other online music store, so why clamp down? Competition just makes you improve.

I didn't understand why Apple wouldn't work with Real to start with.

Apple want's to sell more iPods. Apple makes more off of iPods than off of iTunes songs. Having companies out there selling songs that will play on iPods will help to drive sales of iPods. Seems like a no brainer to me, but then I'm a geek not a marketing wonk or a lawyer.

Apple wants to make money on both. And supporting other companies' money-losing ventures with the iPod isn't in their best interest. At the margins Apple makes on music, they need volume to be profitable. The analysis they'd have to support for not fighting is something like the following:

Allowing Real customers to more easily use the Real service with the iPod will both increase sales demand for the iPod AND increase the total demand for the legal download market such that we (Apple) sell more than we would if Real had not released Harmony. That is, we will gain more online music customers from this than Real will.

I doubt that anyone can make that case internally at Apple. One of the mystic analysts could make it, but I doubt that I would find it to be convincing. I don't think Apple management will find it convincing, either.

Real is offering a nicer, higher bit rate, and heck, I'd consider buying a few songs for 99 cents even if I could only burn to CD right away. I know they could easily do that. They have proven they can integrate OS components in their latest OS X player, and CD burning is just another OS component.

Really though, I think the bigger money might be in whomever can port a $10/month unlimited listen service to the Mac first, Real or (perhaps) Napster (whom I have heard is working on such a beast). There is already a $15/month unlimited listen service (Using WMA no less!) at streamwaves.com that works on the Mac (OS 9 and X) but it's a bit too pricey for me.

Glaser learned his trade at the MS school of business, that's one good reason to avoid Real.

iTunes store makes a profit, break even seems to be around 2.5 million songs per week. More volume = more profit and higher margin.

Does Real convert to another format (like Sony's WMA > ATRAC and Apple's WMA > AAC) reducing quality?

Real is now a bit player in this market, Apple's breaking it or taking it will make little difference. It is now Apple vs MS and I don't believe Apple is going to drop the ball.

I half expect Windows XP SP2 to break iTunes, it breaks Windows

CRN Article - Windows XP Service Pack 2: Install With Care

[Edit: Put URL into link format for page width reasons - Bryan]

In the article from Reuters about this subject they said "Until now, the iPod has only supported digitally protected songs, which carry restrictions on their use, purchased from Apple's own iTunes Music Store."

Far from accurate. iPod supports AAC (up to 320 kbit/s, protected and not protected), MP3 (up to 320 kbit/s), MP3 Variable Bit Rate (VBR), WAV, AIFF, Audible.

Usually Reuters is pretty accurate in their reporting, but this time someone got lazy.

The one reason I could think that Apple wouldn't want other DRM-enabled music stores to interface with the iPod is to assure a consistent user experience. And with the level of support that alternate media players offer on Mac OS X, I as a user would be concerned about ongoing support. I mean, look at the Windows Media Player on OS X.

What I find amusing is all the folks who somehow think it is their right to benefit from Apple's success with iTMS. They took the risk, they made the investment, they set the rules. If you don't like it, there are countless alternatives in the Windows space...

This is less about the iPod and more about clout in the music business. The higher the sales volume the better the distribution terms.

Before being branded a legally established monopoly (similar to Microsoft's legal status in the OS business established in the original anti-tust trial and held up on appeal), Apple will license FairPlay and open the iPod to WMA support.

Until Apple comes close to reaching that point the company will leverage the iPod's popularity to gain influence and market domination in the digital music distribution business.

Regardless of the number of services that may eventually offer music for sale with iPod compatability, I'll continue to use iTMS for the benefit of integration through iTunes.

However, opening the iPod to other services may in the long-run help iPod sales and keep Apple from the risk of establishing a legal monopoly and thus having restrictions placed on the manner in which Apple can use its dominant position in the digital music distribution business to benefit other product sales.

The halo effect from iPod sales (people choosing to buy a Mac after exposure to Apple products via of the iPod) is important to Apple's continuing growth and increasing profitability.

I would be surprised if there is. Generally people use iTunes to move music to the iPod. It is an elegant design and the "industry standard" when it comes to the iPod.

For Harmony to work on the iPod there is going to need to be a way to not only make the downloaded music compatible with the iPod, but also a simple way for the music to be downloaded into iTunes. Any other approach, such as burning a CD then loading into iTunes, defeats the basic compatibility objective. Full integration is going to probably step on a few of Apple's toes, in a legal sense, Does this get down to a situation where Real violated Apple's license to meet their goal or is there some sort of Rube Goldburg procedure to move the music around?

I have a feeling that the lawyers are going to make more money on this than Real.

Quote

The higher the sales volume the better the distribution terms.

I don't think we've seen this yet, and I don't expect that we'll see it until the total market share for legal downloads is somewhere from 25-35% of the total music market.

In fact, I think that what you'll see is potentially that the reverse will be true in the near-term. Popular services may be targeted for "special" attention from the big record companies as they experiment to try to see just how much they can squeeze consumers and resellers in this market. Blaming tech companies for not working together is just good tactics on the part of the record companies. That Glaser makes it easy for them to deflect attention from the real deficiencies of the legal download market (deficiencies created by the record companies themselves) shouldn't win him any points.

You'll see Steve Jobs embrace Glaser in a heartbeat when and if Glaser ever does something that's designed to grow the market. Glaser is wanting to fight over the existing market now -- and doesn't necessarily want it to grow in the process -- because he knows that if the market expands too far before his market share numbers change for the better that Real will simply end up with a smaller piece of a bigger pie. And he can't accept that,even if it will eventually make him more money. It's not surprising that Jobs doesn't want to play into that.

Quote

Wings wrote:
Usually Reuters is pretty accurate in their reporting, but this time someone got lazy.

I think you might be interpreting the Reuters comment incorrectly due to confusing grammar. They aren't saying the iPod supports only digitally protectd song files. Instead, they are saying that the only digitally protected song files the iPod supports are those from iTMS.

Glaser is just "picking a fight" for marketing purposes. The key to having his music work on an iPod is to have it work with iTunes. Any two-bit programmer can move MP3s to an iPod, no reverse engineering required. The question is whether these RealNetworks guys can get their tunes to show up in iTunes and still keep them DRM protected. My bet is they don't, that instead they send out lower quality MP3 or something they have gotten the record companies to agree to. What RealNetworks really wants is for Apple to support Real's preferred DRM on the iPod, and that's just totally ridiculous. Glaser knows he's in a serious losing position, which is why he's acting like such a loser.

to keep your attention diverted from the dying Mac. And it is working.

Quote

Guest wrote:
*sigh*

FUED???!!! Nice typo, Bard!
-Ken P

Quote

Guest wrote:
This is just a deliberate distraction to keep your attention diverted from the dying Mac. And it is working.

Yeah, right, this comment makes PERFECT sense. You're claiming that Real went to ALL this trouble just to divert attention away from Apple's declining (?!) Mac sales? Huh?!!!

Talk about your RDF! What bothers me is that this boldly-clueless GUEST is actually a Mac user, and that he/she thought this twisted conspiracy theory post contributed ANYTHING to the discussion!

I continue to be astounded by some of the inane opinions posted here at TMO... not that they don't have the right to post them, but maybe they should first take a breathe and actually READ what their little fingers typed before submitting such gems! C'mon, people... raise the bar a little!

-Ken P

I see legal action from Apple as Reverse engineering is a no, no. No matter who you are or how good your lawyers are you will be in trouble for reverse engineering. Mr. Glasser under esimates Apple in so many ways and he has done it again and has gone to far this time.

Steve Jobs made himself clear when he said no.

If Apple wanted to play dirty they could do the same with Reals code quite easily I'm sure but Apple knows the legal implications of such an action unlike some companies.

Five bucks says the judge (assuming this gets serious) will laugh this one right out of the courtroom. Real is based here in Seattle and is one of the least respected companies in the Pacific Northwest, with everybody (WinDell and Mac) realizing their products are garbage. Shame on you Real. I'm embarrased to live near your HQ.

If Apple doesn't sue to stop this, what message does it send to the rest of the developers who want in on their Fair Play technology but don't want to be patient for them to license it or pay for it once they do?

I personally believe laws have been broken here and reverse engineering is a no-no. What's to stop Napster from reverse engineering Real's software and pirating it?

This could get really ugly.

I don't know what the big deal is. It is a common misconception that iPod only play music from iTunes Music Store. Wrong. You can import your CDs into iTunes and it will play, without FairPlay. All Real has to do is to sell music without DRM and in mp3 or AAC format for it to be playable on the iPod. Is that what is happening?

Real wants Apple to open FairPlay to other music distribution outleats. It won't happen at this time unless a partner comes along that offers real advantages to Apple in terms of expanding the market for the iPod.

As I've said before, Real is in real trouble and without a service that works with the iPod it will be very difficult for Real to establish a viable music distribution service.

Real's service offers no advantages to iPod owners and iTMS in my opinion is a significantly better product.

It's one more way for Real to try and get Apple's attention.

Quote

oldmac wrote:
I don't know what the big deal is. It is a common misconception that iPod only play music from iTunes Music Store. Wrong. You can import your CDs into iTunes and it will play, without FairPlay. All Real has to do is to sell music without DRM and in mp3 or AAC format for it to be playable on the iPod. Is that what is happening?

Nope. Real is attempting to illegally force Apple to use their DRM format.

There exist very clear rule son how reverse engineering can be done.

Apple's license agreement is clear about this. And it's pretty much irrefutable. "Except as and only to the extent expressly permitted in this License or by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof."

Find an applicable law that allows you to worm your way into their license without paying them royalties or have a binding agreement please.

Look it is possible that they just agree to let other companies use their formats. In my opinon I love Sony's ATRAC Plus format (got a cd/mp3/atrac player in my car) Its the best as far as quality and space but the folks at sony refuse to relase the code for use to the developers, now acc and wma,wmv are also outstanding. The issues are corporate greed. I think that music piracy will increase then we all will lose and for what a few corporate money grabbin draggons want all the money for themselves. We as consumers need to take a stand but as you can see consumers don't stick together. I don't like what is going on here.

Look it is possible that they just agree to let other companies use their formats. In my opinon I love Sony's ATRAC Plus format (got a cd/mp3/atrac player in my car) Its the best as far as quality and space but the folks at sony refuse to relase the code for use to the developers, now acc and wma,wmv are also outstanding. The issues are corporate greed. I think that music piracy will increase then we all will lose and for what a few corporate money grabbin draggons want all the money for themselves. We as consumers need to take a stand but as you can see consumers don't stick together. I don't like what is going on here.