My only hope is that this does not attract people like most of the women I know (no offense, mainly referring to my Mom, sister, and some old girlfriends), who buy things just because they were on sale, regardless of how much it still costs (even w/ the sale) or how bad a product it was/is in the first place. But I doubt it will; hopefully most people will see through this and actually use it to see what sleezeballs Real are.

At $0.49 a song, Real will be losing money here, considering the cost of licensing, storage and bandwidth. Normally a company will have a "loss leader" in order to sell something else (Epson practically gives away printers, but nails you on the ink and paper). But what is the upside for Real? They may see a surge in sales of their songs (and subsequent loss for the above named reasons), but it is doubtful that it will be sustained as the price goes back up. That, combined with the very strong possibility that Apple will kill Harmony in a future iPod software release, may make this only a blip on the music download screen.

A candle burning twice as bright burns half as long.

Real offers higher quality music at 1/2 price, but watch all the iLemmings say I'm not going to buy because it's not from my Apple's music store. Even if Real gave away higher quality music, they won't touch it.

Intruder hit the nail on the head. While Real may get an influx of sales, there is nothing keeping the user at Real's store when the price goes back up. Switching costs are too low.

And notice how much people question whether someone can use a Mac in a Windows world (and this is with MS producing Mac software). It'll probably be even worse for Real.

Real had better hope Apple doesn't respond with matching price reductions. With a huge wad of cash in the bank and iPods to sell, Apple is in a better position to withstand losses at its music store. A price war would drive most other (music only) competitors out of business.

Real's entire hypothesis rests on a shallow foundation: that because the Apple doesn't license FairPlay, the iPod is closed. They're only right in the very limited sense that you can't buy DRM-protected music from anyone but the iTunes Music Store. They're wrong in that the overwhelming majority of music is still bought in the traditional form and then ripped and stored in the average person's music collection in the form of non-DRM-protected MP3 and/or AAC files. And guess what? The iPod plays files without DRM applied. It does so happily, and well!

I realize this is a newflash to the Real defenders. Please, stop drinking the koolaid and find another cause to hang your hat on.

Glaser, who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "ambiguous," opens in new Broadway production of Don Quixote, but low turnout leads him to launch a vocal attack on better produced shows, pay hecklers to visit better produced shows to disrupt them, and finally slash ticket prices in an effort to provide consumers with "a choice" most have already made. The show will close faster than Taboo.

But fortunately for Real, it won't cost them as much money as Taboo cost Rosie, since nobody really wants to shop at their store. Based on my love for the experience that is Real Player, Real can expect me to visit approximately ZERO times to buy a song.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Using ANY Real product is just asking for trouble.

iLemmings apparently aren't the only ones that won't bite. Real predicts $2 million in lost revenue by selling at a 50 cent discount. That means they expect to sell 4 million tracks during the promotion. iTunes Music Store has sold over 25 times that amount. They aren't exactly coming in droves to Real's music store.

Real's motivation seems to be a vendetta against Apple. Vendetta makes for a lousy business model and Real's shareholders should be outraged.

What SmallWhiteCar said.

And Jimothy, too.

Wanna download a song on the mac? Forget it. Only works in Win 98 or higher on a PC.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Real offers higher quality music at 1/2 price, but watch all the iLemmings say I'm not going to buy because it's not from my Apple's music store. Even if Real gave away higher quality music, they won't touch it.

Actually, RC. iLemmings won't buy it because Real hasn't made the software available for Mac users. Oh yeah -- and if Apple manages to break Harmony in software, what good will all those half-price music tracks be anyway?

Regardless, this campaign is ridiculous. If REAL cared about 'freedom of choice,' they'd be fighting the Big Industry Playahs to have DRM removed so all music can be played regardless of hardware, software, or player platform. (Oh, and they'd allow the REAL codec to be built into QuickTime, too.) As it is this is a sham to try to trick people into using their mediocre service.

And even if REAL's bitrate quality is better -- which is debatable -- as someone else has pointed out, iTMS's 128K AAC files are more than good enough for the majority of users. The ones that care about quality loss are going to go buy CDs and listen to or encode them themselves. There aren't that many people who will realistically say, 'You can pry my 192K files out of my cold dead hands!!' ... if you know what I mean

BTW, if you haven't looked at it yet, take a glance and REAL'S online "Hey Apple, Don't Break My iPod!" petition, before they wise up and take it down:

http://www.petitiononline.com/r4apple/petition.html

Some of the comments are downright hilarious.

While it will indeed cost Real a good deal of money to slash prices, think about the real purpose of the music stores. Even apple music store is giving the musicians around 5 cents for every track sold. That is not exactly a good deal of money, and it's almost entirely profit for Apple.

While there was a big deal about Apple only carrying the "Big 5", even now that they do carry many indie labels, the inclusion is somewhat bittersweet.

But I digress...

So with real chargin .49, artists get, what, 1 cent? 1/4 cent? Doesn't sound that appetizing to me, especially with apple threatening to update their software to eliminate compatibillity.

Such is life.

Let's see: without Harmony Real will loose 1 - 3 cents a share and with Harmony they loose 3 - 5 cents a share. LOL - not that's a stock that RC will want to buy.

I think it's good that they try, however. They need to show that they can produce a better app than iTunes (since you won't be able to use iTunes when using Harmony), that you can still sync and get your Calendar and Address Book synced and that they can provide first rate customer service when things go wrong as Apple sure as hell won't be providing support to Harmony users.

A failure will be good for the industry as it will show competitors that they have to develop a full package - player, store and jukebox app - that are equal to Apple's if they want to be in the business. Customers can only win if Real delivers a real dud. Let em try.

Quote

spxyu02 wrote:
hopefully most people will see through this and actually use it to see what sleezeballs Real are.

So... a company trying to provide an alternative in the marketplace is a bunch of sleezeballs? You might want to take a look into your mighty Apple Inc. Isn't choice a good thing?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
So... a company trying to provide an alternative in the marketplace is a bunch of sleezeballs? You might want to take a look into your mighty Apple Inc. Isn't choice a good thing?

What makes them sleezeballs is the reverse engineering or whatever of the DRM to play their songs on iPods, or whatever it was. This promotion is just stupid, as we've proved multiple times in the posts above, but Real as a company is just stupid and slimy.

Quote

Guest wrote:
So... a company trying to provide an alternative in the marketplace is a bunch of sleezeballs?

No, what makes Real sleazeballs is everything they've ever done aside from this. They've been a treacherous, lying, sneaky company who gives their customers shoddy software, shoddy service and attempts to hogtie them by crippling their computer.

If this 'Harmony" thing had been done by a different company - or even the open source community - I might have thought differently. I would've at least had an open mind about it. But Real long ago frittered away whatever goodwill it had in my mind (and I suspect many others').

I'm perplexed about people's ranting at Real for offering a cheaper alternative. It's Apple that's hurting us (and ultimately itself) by refusing to license their DRM. As the MO Spin points out, Real could force ITMS to increase its bit rates. That would be an example of a good result of competition.

Apple's behavior is justified, at least in the short run, by the same thing that justifies Real's behavior: pursuit of higher profits. They're both trying to screw us (the consumers), and the only thing we've got in our favor is that they're competing with each other. That's how capitalism works.

It's weird to me that Apple consumers don't see this, since we've been struggling against a monopolistic system for years. Competition is good, and limits on it are bad. For instance, the only reason Windows is as good as it is is that it was competing against Apple. (For those who say Windows is trash, which I wouldn't exactly disagree with, compare Windows XP to DOS.) Also, look at the technological stagnation at Internet Explorer since Netscape effectively lost the browser wars. Competition is what spurs innovation and general capitalistic good behavior. So why are you cheering Apple's efforts to stop it?

One more thing, much as we complain about Real, it's another major competitor against Microsoft. The day when Real dies is the day when we have no choice other than WMP for streaming video at most websites. Will that be a good thing? I'd love to see more of MS's competitors (Apple, Real, Palm etc.) cooperate with each other instead of trashing each other.

Ok and one more thing, for those who condemn Real for reverse engineering, it's legal in this situation, it's commonly done and it benefits us. What exactly are you complaining about? Are you really just complaining on the basis of ethics and morals? Do you condemn file sharers (99% of us), since they are engaging in outright theft? The protection of intellectual property in the US due to copyright protections is at an all-time and irrational high, high enough in my opinion to stifle a lot of good innovation and competition. So if Real is able to convince a judge that their reverse engineering is legal, I'm perfectly willing to give them a pass.

Quote

jimothy wrote:
iLemmings apparently aren't the only ones that won't bite. Real predicts $2 million in lost revenue by selling at a 50 cent discount. That means they expect to sell 4 million tracks during the promotion. iTunes Music Store has sold over 25 times that amount. They aren't exactly coming in droves to Real's music store.

jimothy, the Real promotion only goes through Labor Day. The iTunes figure you cite is for over year of sales.

Even if you register, you have (a) no way to comment on the UTTER STUPIDITY of several of the articles and (b) no way to submit questions for "Rock On" Rob Glaser?

Gimme a break. If you're going to preach openness, Real, then be big enough to allow your detractors room to express dissent.

At least 99.9% of my music collection is on CDs, half of which is on my computer. I've bought a total of 1 song from iTMS -- and that was in fact an accident. Apple isn't abridging ANY of my freedoms, and my tracks aren't encumbered with DRM.

It is immoral to share files. Period. Whatever legal questions arise, there is simply no excuse for defrauding the music industry... distributors, labels, producers, artists, and everyone else. I don't care if the labels ARE corrupt and the impact on individual artists is "negligible". I don't care if distributors rake in 97% profit (an exaggeration, but that underscores my point). It simply doesn't matter! Fraud is fraud no matter how you'd like to spin it.

If it weren't for the "99%" of you (a claim I dispute, though I concede the actual number is alarmingly high), WE WOULDN'T BE COMPLAINING ABOUT DRM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Why don't people SEE that?!

Quote

Scott Reynolds wrote:
If it weren't for the "99%" of you (a claim I dispute, though I concede the actual number is alarmingly high), WE WOULDN'T BE COMPLAINING ABOUT DRM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Why don't people SEE that?!

So you're saying if it weren't for P2P sharers, we wouldn't be encumbered with DRM? Dude, with all due respect, get a clue. If it weren't for P2P, there wouldn't BE iTMS, and we'd probably be paying $25 for a CD now (which is staggeringly close to what they do cost now - so, more then).

I mean, I'm not defending music pirates, but the recording industry doesn't give one whit about you. Apple does, and that's why you see so many exciteable defenders.

Quote

DavidPhila wrote:
I'm perplexed about people's ranting at Real for offering a cheaper alternative. It's Apple that's hurting us (and ultimately itself) by refusing to license their DRM. As the MO Spin points out, Real could force ITMS to increase its bit rates. That would be an example of a good result of competition.

I'd love to see 160 or 192 Kbps AACs on iTMS. Maybe you're right. It's not what Real did that bugs me personally so much, it's Real the company. And besides that, how can they preach about choice, when Apple CHOSE not to work with them. Apple knows dead weight when it sees it - and Real is Dead Weight. They don't want this rotten company associated with their Crown Jewel. And neither do I.

This is the last, frantic, desperate gasp of a dying company. Good riddance.

(And to whoever said that about Real being a competitor to Microsoft, that doesn't mean they're good for consumers. There are plenty of other ways to stream content - QuickTime comes to mind.)

Quote

Billy K wrote:
So you're saying if it weren't for P2P sharers, we wouldn't be encumbered with DRM? Dude, with all due respect, get a clue. If it weren't for P2P, there wouldn't BE iTMS, and we'd probably be paying $25 for a CD now (which is staggeringly close to what they do cost now - so, more then).

Well, I do have a clue, actually, but I'm know I'm overstating my point. You have to know that DRM is the new kid on the block. It didn't get a push until the industry realized that P2P sharing was quite literally killing their business. (And, really, it still is.)

That's a pretty fine leap to go from illegal P2P to legal music downloads. I've always viewed the iTMS as a logical extension of services like the now-defunct MP3.com. Surely you're not saying that P2P was responsible for that service, too?! (I submit to you that it's the other way around.)

By the way, I'd really like to know where those almost-$25 CDs are coming from. I cringe at the thought of even paying $15. There are plenty of legitimate, legal ways to get music on the cheap. Only the conspiracy theorists can't seem to see that.

Quote

DavidPhila wrote:
I'm perplexed about people's ranting at Real for offering a cheaper alternative.

Well, for starters, their cheaper alternative is only available to Windows users. Where's the choice for Mac users?

Besides, Real is just a despicable company. I'd be embarrassed to ally myself with them, no matter how grand the cause. Just look at their actions in the past few months: They openly threatened Apple to try to get them to allow Real's music on iPods, saying they'd be forced to go to Microsoft otherwise. Which turned out to be an empty threat, since a few weeks later they announce this reverse-engineered Harmony software, which apparently hijacks the unsuspecting user's computer from using other media players.

Competition is certainly a good thing. I think it's telling that there are dozens of other portable music players out there and a number of different music services available, yet the iPod is still the leader by a wide margin. I think that says that either the iPod is a clearly superior product, or that the iTMS is a superior user experience; probably both. (And don't forget that many iPod users probably don't care about online music sales; they just rip their existing music collection from CDs.) I have no doubt that Apple will partner with and license their technology with the right people (like HP and Motorola already) when the right time comes, or when a clearly competitive product encourages them to; I don't think strongarm attemps by irrelevant companies like Real should or will be what does it.

Quote

DavidPhila wrote:
Do you condemn file sharers (99% of us), since they are engaging in outright theft?

As a matter of fact, I do. I hate the RIAA and their tactics as much as anyone; but 'outright theft,' as you call it, is not a helpful way to fight them. Why? It still doesn't put any money into the artists' hands -- in fact, they earn even less than they do under the RIAA. I think services like iTunes are paving they way ... even though they had to make a deal with the Devil (music industry) to release mainstream and popular music now, they're paving the way for the building of a functional online purchase system where someday we can buy music directly from artists, cutting out the RIAA altogether.

And for all the big philosophical talk of fighting the corrupt system and such, I've never met a P2P user whose primary motivation wasn't to avoid paying for the music they listen to. I don't think anyone has ever actually 'downloaded the song and sent a buck to the artist.' Yeah right.

Quote

Scott Reynolds wrote:
... the industry realized that P2P sharing was quite literally killing their business. (And, really, it still is.)

I've always viewed the iTMS as a logical extension of services like the now-defunct MP3.com. Surely you're not saying that P2P was responsible for that service, too?! (I submit to you that it's the other way around.)

By the way, I'd really like to know where those almost-$25 CDs are coming from. I cringe at the thought of even paying $15. There are plenty of legitimate, legal ways to get music on the cheap. Only the conspiracy theorists can't seem to see that.

P2P has nothing to do with "killing" the recording industry. The recording industry is doing just fine. The only harm being done is self-inflicted. I doubt you'll agree with me, but it's a true fact.

For that matter (and to ramble off even more), record labels are quickly becoming defunct anyway, due to technological advances and years of abusing artists and customers. Let's see - what do you need a label for? Recording? Not anymore. Promotion? Not as much - soon to be not at all. They really serve almost no purpose at this point, other than to be a middle-man distributor that takes 90% of the profits. THAT is why they're on the way out. All the artists I know (and I know many, that's what I do) do better without a label. Nobody makes money on CDs. They haven't for years. It's all merch, live bookings and publishing. This is true for big and small artists alike. And don't even get me started on why labels take half your publishing revenue...

Did Napster come from MP3.com or the other way around? Who cares. MP3.com was a pretty good idea implemented badly. You're probably right - iTMS may, indeed be closer to MP3.com than P2P, but iTMS came into being because there was only one way to get music on the internet - stealing it (yeah, I know, there were some free downloads on bands' web pages, but I'm talking big, warehouses of music).

$25 CDs? Been to a Tower or Virgin lately? $18.99-$19.99 is not uncommon. I meant to say $25 because it would be a big shocking number, then I realized we're close to there already - despite evertyhing that's happened in the music industry. I won't pay more than $15 for a CD, personally. Usually $10-$12. But you would think the labels might consider lowering their prices, seeing as how they're "faced with extinction,' as they've said. And the outcry from customers has been pretty clear - better songs on lower-priced CDs. They don't want to pay $20 for 2 songs.

It's pretty simple, but they simply don't care.

And now we're totally off topic. Sorry, guys.

You gotta love (read sarcasm here) Real's "Choice" positioning. It is irony at it's best.

Real came out with a lame rental service that did not provide for the user rights we want. It is the poster child for bad rental services that don't let you put your music on multiple machines, or burn CDs, or take them on portable players, etc. for less than the cost of a song on iTunes. Real is about making money, not user rights.

Whereas Apple came out with the first music store that let people buy songs at a reasonable price and have the rights to do what we want with them (put them on multiple computers, put them on iPods, burn CDs, etc.).

So the choice is that we should be able to buy music from a crappy company with a crappy service that wasn't able to champion users' rights (eg. Real) instead of from a company that has built a great service and fought for the rights people wanted from the music companies? Thanks Rob, that's really looking out for the consumer. You can pretend not to remember this but stupid do you think we are (RC aside)?

Quote

Billy K wrote:
but it's a true fact.

Thank goodness, because I hate those false facts

Now as for artists earning money on songs sold: how does that work? I was under the impression that the bulk of an artists pay was through record contracts that, while possibly containing bonuses for reaching certain sales plateaus, were mostly signed off on before the artist/band has sold even one song on an album they're going to start work on. Maybe I'm off (probably), but I think whatever that argument is with artist's not getting paid is total crap.

But I like that we can all agree that real is total crap. And as for the streaming comment, I hope everything ends up streaming in Quicktime in the future. Watching expn.com video in wmp is the most painful thing ever.

If Real was really all about "Freedom Of Choice" then
they would offer their content beyond the "Windows
Only" crowd.

I want to see Real practice what they preach. Give us
"Freedom Of Choice" and offer your goods to not only
just Windows, but Mac, Linux, Amiga and etc...

It's time to give consumers "Freedom Of Choice" and
finally break the "Windows Only" experience!

Real's "Freedom Of Choice" falls short in the true
meaning of the phrase. Consumer freedom spans beyond
just "Windows Only" and I think it's time that these
companies start realizing that.

If you download their Windows product, you'll see the following disclaimer in tiny little letters on the bottom of the screen:

"Certain intellectual property and related right of the iPod player and various things associated with it are claimed by Apple Computer, Inc. The use here by RealNetworks(R) is for identification purposes only. Real is not affiliated with or sponsored or endorsed by Apple. That being said, they seem like cool folks and we certainly wouldn't mind grabbing a beer with them."

That pretty much admits they they are just riding Apple's wave. What really makes them look like a bunch of scumbags is this part of the EULA in the DRM section:

"RN is not responsible for the operation of third party DRM in any way, including revocation of your content. RN is not responsible for any communications to or from any third party DRM provider, or for the collection or use of information by third party DRMs. You consent to the communications enabled and/or performed by the DRM, including automatic updating of the DRM without further notice, despite the provisions of AutoUpdate defined in Section 6(c). You agree to indemnify and hold harmless RN for any claim relating to your use of a third party DRM."

In other words, "We hacked Apple's DRM, but if something doesn't work right in the future, it isn't our fault."

None of this would be the case if people would just sit tight and wait for Apple to license their FairPlay DRM, with end-user support that licensing would require. The end result is that this will no doubt turn into a hassle for the users, while the people that are legit licensees (HP, Motorola) will enjoy a decent user experience.

Quote

spxyu02 wrote:
Now as for artists earning money on songs sold: how does that work? I was under the impression that the bulk of an artists pay was through record contracts that, while possibly containing bonuses for reaching certain sales plateaus, were mostly signed off on before the artist/band has sold even one song on an album they're going to start work on. Maybe I'm off (probably), but I think whatever that argument is with artist's not getting paid is total crap.

Artists and labels negotiate a contract, and there's a fixed percentage or dollar (actually cent) figure they agree on beforehand. Most artists are lucky to make $1.40 per CD sold.

Doesn't sound bad, does it?

Well, the problem is, the labels get the money they put up for the CD reimbursed before the band sees a cent. that doesn't sound too bad, either, except that practically no band ever recoups. it's kind of an industry joke. Try it sometime - mention 'recoup" to anybody you know who is, or has been signed to a major. And don't forget to duck.

The game is totally weighted against the artist. They've got to pay for studio cost, manufacturing, shipping, marketing, etc. before they get paid. Basically, the labels are banks. They lend money to an artist and then hook them up with the contractors to (hopefully) make a record a hit. Add to all this the fact that it takes about $500,000 in payola to get airplay today (really) and that the label's bookeeping is always shady - bands make no money on CDs. Last i knew - I still owed thousands to a tiny little minor label I was once on. If you sign a contract, you're basically signing your life away for the chance to ride a tour bus, party and have a lot of sex for a few years before the label dumps you and sues you for what you owe them.

Check this link out:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Really - even if you don't want to read the whole thing, just scroll down to the table - scan it, and pick your jaw up off the floor.

This is why nobody likes record labels.

Guest speaks the truth. Performers make jack - and the lavish lifestyle is usually on borrowed funds and loans (which sound so much nicer as "advances").

Quote

cooner wrote:

Quote

DavidPhila wrote:
I'm perplexed about people's ranting at Real for offering a cheaper alternative.

Well, for starters, their cheaper alternative is only available to Windows users. Where's the choice for Mac users?

Besides, Real is just a despicable company. I'd be embarrassed to ally myself with them, no matter how grand the cause. Just look at their actions in the past few months: They openly threatened Apple to try to get them to allow Real's music on iPods, saying they'd be forced to go to Microsoft otherwise. Which turned out to be an empty threat, since a few weeks later they announce this reverse-engineered Harmony software, which apparently hijacks the unsuspecting user's computer from using other media players.

Competition is certainly a good thing. I think it's telling that there are dozens of other portable music players out there and a number of different music services available, yet the iPod is still the leader by a wide margin. I think that says that either the iPod is a clearly superior product, or that the iTMS is a superior user experience; probably both. (And don't forget that many iPod users probably don't care about online music sales; they just rip their existing music collection from CDs.) I have no doubt that Apple will partner with and license their technology with the right people (like HP and Motorola already) when the right time comes, or when a clearly competitive product encourages them to; I don't think strongarm attemps by irrelevant companies like Real should or will be what does it.

Quote

DavidPhila wrote:
Do you condemn file sharers (99% of us), since they are engaging in outright theft?

As a matter of fact, I do. I hate the RIAA and their tactics as much as anyone; but 'outright theft,' as you call it, is not a helpful way to fight them. Why? It