RealNetworks vs iTunes Music Service

[MacRumors]

Forbes reports (http://www.forbes.com/2003/08/05/cx_ah_0805music.html) that RealNetworks positioning its music service (http://www.listen.com/) against Apple.

The latest entrant is RealNetworks, which closed on its acquisition of Listen.com on Monday, and will now take control of the Rhapsody digital music subscription service. RealNetworks' Chief Executive Rob Glaser clearly has Apple in his sights.


Readers will remember the launch (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/05/20030528150931.shtml) of "RealOne Rhapsody" in May... which was based on a subscription model. ($9.95/mo for unlimited listening, per track fees for burning to CD-R)

But this Forbes article indicates that RealNetworks will soon be offering a pure per-song model, akin to Apple's iTunes Music Store.

[MovieGuy]

What format will real use? AAC, Win Media? I still think Apple should hustle with iTunes for Windows before the market is too saturated!

[arn]

Here it is:

http://www.listen.com/

I can't tell from the FAQ, but I assume some RealMedia variant.

arn

[mislabeledstar]

Bring it on.

[wondermite]

NOBODY has the ease-of-use and simple business model for music that Apple does--especially Real, known in the software biz as the clunkiest, most annoying software ever installed for multimedia use. Intel did studies that showed more users wanted to UNINSTALL RealPlayer than install it. MusicMatch was also studied, and users actually became angry when trying to use it.

Same goes for the other imitators out there. They waited for somebody to jump--but Apple is going to succeed, and they won't.

Every year Apple succeeds at doing something innovative, it is pronounced dead by "analysts". Give 'em hell, Apple. Give 'em hell.

[Ambrose Chapel]

all these windoze services competing...be interesting to see if any of them separate from the pack before the iTMS debuts for that side...

[MacUser1]

i just hope that apple will be able to get out the iTunes for Windows near Thanksgiving. That way they could increase iPod and maybe even Mac sales for the holidays.

[Chealion]

Real will definitely be much more of a "threat" then BuyMusic, and good competition is healthy for the market. Although most people have hated RealPlayer because of the horrible UI and many other issues they have had. I for one, can't stand Real, although the OS X version of RealOne at first looked real nice, but the moment you scratch the surface I found it immensely unappealing and like Windows Media Player, only use them if I absolutely have to, thanks goodness most sites I go to I can use QuickTime.

[yoshi1013]

I liked RealOne Player when I used it on a PC because I seemed to get better framerates with movies but I know it pisses off my PC user friends because the default setting has it change all your filetypes.

Since I'm still on OS9 I hate RealPlayer because it takes forever to quit just like the crappy Windows Media Player for Mac.

[edStar]

They seem really adamant on the let's knock off 20c from Apple's price. Will it really make a difference though??

I really don't think many PC users have flocked to any of these new models (that have copied alot of Apple's iTunes Music Store strategy) as Mac users have flocked to use ITMS.

I still think Apple has the winning formula, and once that Windows iTunes version comes out, we'll see Apple become a force to be reckoned with.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by edStar
They seem really adamant on the let's knock off 20c from Apple's price. Will it really make a difference though??

The really frustrating thing is that 90% of the songs you're going want are...wait for it...99 cents.

Unfortunately, and this is the problem Apple has (not to mention the entire world), people are stupid.

On another note, I think this whole subscription/buy individual songs thing is a little weird. I would happily pay $10 a month for unlimited streaming of any song. But it has to have that Apple ease-of-use. Bonus if I could even put those songs on my iPod, and it only had to check in at least once a month to make sure my subscription was still current.

I think the one thing record companies have over P2P, and the one thing that they must take advantage of, is the potential for unsurpassed ease of use. They simply have to offer a better experience, and people will pay.

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by Alexander
The really frustrating thing is that 90% of the songs you're going want are...wait for it...99 cents.

Unfortunately, and this is the problem Apple has (not to mention the entire world), people are stupid.

On another note, I think this whole subscription/buy individual songs thing is a little weird. I would happily pay $10 a month for unlimited streaming of any song. But it has to have that Apple ease-of-use. Bonus if I could even put those songs on my iPod, and it only had to check in at least once a month to make sure my subscription was still current.

I think the one thing record companies have over P2P, and the one thing that they must take advantage of, is the potential for unsurpassed ease of use. They simply have to offer a better experience, and people will pay.

Plus, the thing is if you want to burn CDs, you get royally screwed. From what I can tell, it costs 79¢ a song... So you have to pay 7.99 to burn? Nah.... not worth it.

[Snowy_River]

Yawn...

[Mudbug]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Yawn...

YAWN

yet
another
windows
nockoff (spelling, I know...)

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Mudbug
YAWN

yet
another
windows
nockoff (spelling, I know...)

I couldn't have said it better myself...

:D

[topicolo]

Great. Another two-bit company coming into a market Apple proved viable. They're definitely not getting my money. Realmedia is the only company I hate more than Microsoft

[loveshismac]

Without an easy means of playing the tunes in my car..no go

I have to be able to listen while i drive.
Apples plan works. period

all else are just flattering Apple with their knockoffs.

[Java]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Yawn...

Yet another foolish attempt by some company. Bring it on.


Are PC users really that blind to quality?

[macphoria]

I don't see how Real Network's music service can compete with iTunes which is so well designed and marketed. But they do have name recognition and their service is already utilized on Macs and PCs so they do have some edge there.

[inkswamp]

Originally posted by macphoria
But they do have name recognition

Bad name recognition, however. When I think of RealPlayer, I think ANNOYING... BADLY DESIGNED... ANNOYING... BUGGY... ANNOYING... POOR PLAYBACK... oh, did I mention ANNOYING?!?! :mad:

Real has pretty much blown their image, IMO, and the name recognition they have is strongly due to badly designed software and annoying attempts to hijack your file-type associations. It still gets on my nerves the way they hide their free player so carefully and make you jump through so many hoops on their site just to download the stupid thing. Someone else here put it best: I only have Real installed because some sites that I visit use it. It's there more out of necessity than preference. I certainly would never intentionally pay for a service that based itself on Real.

[tazznb]

Try, try, try, and try, again to be JUST LIKE iTunes.

Didn't work, yet?

WELL TRY AGAIN, DANGITT!

I am sooooOOOOooo tired of ALL these stupid unimaginative knock-offs.

GOOD NEWS everyone.... I have a G5 waiting to be shipped to me at my job.:D

[jethro421]

Originally posted by mislabeledstar
Bring it on.

exactly what i was thinking :D

[tizza]

Let's hope Mac Expo Paris will see iTMS for Windows - whilist Apple has a superior product, I think they would be wanting to get it out to the masses sooner rather than later - I guess it comes down to negotiations with the record companies rather than delays in their s/w development.

[soggywulf]

You know what sucks... That Apple has *once again* come up with an *awesome* idea--and *once again* it looks like they're getting screwed. :mad: Why the hell didn't they ramp up Win-iTunes for a simultaneous release? Did they think it was going to sell more Macs? By the time iTunes makes it out there, all these other wannabes will have saturated the market. They can't stay dumb forever--just like with windows, over time the usability and "stupidity" gap narrows and Apple is right back in the crapper with 3% and nowhere to go.

[PretendPCuser]

Are PC users really that blind to quality? [/B]

Duh, of course they are. They've never *seen* quality.

:cool:

[jethro421]

I wonder if the Red Hot Chili Peppers are aware that their "art"-form is being compromised by RealNetworks. At least DMB, Radiohead, and Metallica are being consistant.

[Jesus on OSX]

I would rather floss with Steve Ballmer's back hair while getting my testicles pounded with a sledgehammer by a guy in a Chewbacca costume than pay for their stupid service.

Say "NO" to Real Media format.

[NavyIntel007]

Either these services will put each other out of business or there will be stiff competition for iTMS for windows. Apple needs to kick this thing into overtime.... NOW.

Hey at least release a windows beta now... just to get in the game.

[MacFan26]

Originally posted by Jesus on OSX
I would rather floss with Steve Ballmer's back hair while getting my testicles pounded with a sledgehammer by a guy in a Chewbacca costume than pay for their stupid service.

Say "NO" to Real Media format.

Wow, you should send that to Real, they'd probably shut down their services in a few minutes!

[Lead Belly]

Originally posted by Jesus on OSX
I would rather floss with Steve Ballmer's back hair while getting my testicles pounded with a sledgehammer by a guy in a Chewbacca costume than pay for their stupid service.

Say "NO" to Real Media format.

Why ya gotta bring Chewbacca into this? What'd he ever do to be associated with Steve Ballmer and your testicles? :)

[weev]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Either these services will put each other out of business or there will be stiff competition for iTMS for windows. Apple needs to kick this thing into overtime.... NOW.

Hey at least release a windows beta now... just to get in the game.

No, that's wrong, sorry.

This is a not a bandwagon that Apple must desperately jump on to save itself. Apple is the leader here.

Poor imitators (ie BuyMusic) will make iTunes for Win look even better when it's released.

Let Apple bring out a fully functioning non-buggy version and the Windows world will go into hysteria. Not because they can buy music but because iTunes is in itself, a great app.

[MacFan26]

If Apple makes the iTMS available for Windows, does that mean that it will be the full program? So Windows users can use that for thier iPod instead of Music Match?

[XForge]

My home machine is a Winbox (until the revised 12" Powerbook comes out - and then when I can afford it ;) ) and I WILL NOT run anything with the word "Real" on it, on this machine. RealPlayer sucks so badly as to redefine the word "suck." It plays the media very badly, the player window is horrifically ugly and consumes massive amounts of screen real-estate, and then when you think you're done with the POS, it tells you (every time you run it!!) there's an updated version of the player and do you want to download it now? So you click "yes" and it takes over your web browser and takes you to their web site and shows you how much better the pay version of the player is and c'mon, don't you want the pay version of the player? Huh? Huh? Huh? Don'tcha?

And then of course if, when it asks you (every time you run it!!) if you want to upgrade and you tell it to ****** off, eventually a .ram file shows up that your player can't play 'cuz it's not "current!!!" So you go looking for an upgrade and oh, it's there, on the web site, someplace, really it is. Click this link - okay, put in your credit card number here - oh, you wanted the free version? Well, just click this link here, okay, now put in your credit card number... oh, you wanted the *free* version? Okay, scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and look next to the disclaimer in 1-pixel-high letters, now make sure you give us your email address so we can spam you to death, and check this box, and then click this link... now put in your credit card number... GGYAAAAAAACCCCCHHHH!!!

I'd sooner play naked Crisco Twister with Roseanne Barr than ever, ever run anything from Real on any computer I ever own.

In short, Apple has nothing to worry about. Thank you.

[Lead Belly]

Since everyone else is doing it, I'm going to announce my own iTunes-like music store. Songs will be .98 cents though, so it's totally different and much better than Apple's service. It's so easy.

Seriously, I don't see too many companies in a position to offer the end-to-end service that Apple is offering. Apple seems to be big enough and well-versed enough to provide the software, hardware, network and usability expertise, yet small enough and non-partisan enough to not be a threat to any of the music industry heavies.

Microsoft - Don't think too many music content providers are eager to give Microsoft the keys to the content. But they have enough money to do anything they want.

Sony - Has a lot of the same expertise as Apple, but Sony Music competes directly with the other music providers. You'd get Sony music and nothing else.

Comcast or some Cable TV conglomerate - It's unlikely they would offer anything other than a streamed service. That's their business model.

Roxio Napster - I wouldn't think they're big enough to have the industry's ear or gather consensus.

Nokia - This company would seem to have potential. Well respected in usability and technologically. Non-threatening. Hardware that people consider essential have a passion for, brand recognition, software integration with PCs. Given the size of my iPod, I don't know why not.

Any others?

[zim]

I love how neither of these companies are willing to actually compete with apple on the mac, seriously how hard would it be to make their service work on the macs...

REAL player sucks! always has always will.

[Fukui]

Originally posted by Jesus on OSX
I would rather floss with Steve Ballmer's back hair while getting my testicles pounded with a sledgehammer by a guy in a Chewbacca costume than pay for their stupid service.
Woah...

[Java]

As I see it, let the PC'ers have lots of fun trying to use the iTunes knock off music stores. After a few months, they'll be searching for a better mouse trap. (Insert drum roll here) Then out comes the iTunes Music Store for Windows.

Real Player files? Ya, now that is a popular choice of format.:p

Unfortunately (well, actually fortunately) all of the other competitors do not have AAC nor is their music quicktime based.

Oh ya, and how about album art built into the song? Gotta love that from Apple.

[MhzDoesMatter]

Originally posted by zim
I love how neither of these companies are willing to actually compete with apple on the mac, seriously how hard would it be to make their service work on the macs...


The iTunes Music Store is built into the latest version of a free application distributed with every currently shipping Mac OS X operating system....

But I guess if Netscape could do it.

-Hertz

Oh, wait.

[Zuckuss]

Originally posted by inkswamp It still gets on my nerves the way they hide their free player so carefully and make you jump through so many hoops on their site just to download the stupid thing. [/B]

Exactly. I tried to download Realplayer recently because I needed it or Windows Media Player for some movie file. It was so damn hard to get at the player that I just forgot about it and left the site. Nothing is worth that. My philosphy now is if it is a hassle to get, use, or do, I simply ignore it completely. If a site lacks quicktime support, I say screw 'em.

[NavyIntel007]

Hey I got an idea for a shocker. Why don't they just port it to Windows and linux at the same time. The penguin crowd will be going nuts and all these other services will be like ... doh!

[AmigoMac]

Still waiting for iTMS in Europe.... it'd be great to listen more than 30 secs. :D , Fasttrack & co. are getting boring :D :D :D ... Apple hit Europe!!!

[billyboy]

Is the Real One Player that people knock the one that plays .ram files? Maybe I am not using what I have properly, but if I download a.ram and open it, the little ugly green Real One player control box opens and the stream plays OK. Just seems very basic. Where are these other features that dont work?

I am sure iTunesMS is good enough to blow the competition away head to head, it better had, I put some of my hard earned into AAPL on the strength of what I found out a few months ago, but there isnt a level playing field and Apple have to do more than Windows tin pot music operators in order to secure their market share. Even if its crap, Real has 300 million names on its database, and even if they are all stupid people and download a song each, that´s 300 million 99 cent sales Apple wont get.

Quality product gets you so far, ie at the front door, but in this day and age you need to be a slick salesman to get into the house.

[CamelCase]

Originally posted by Zuckuss
Exactly. I tried to download Realplayer recently because I needed it or Windows Media Player for some movie file. It was so damn hard to get at the player that I just forgot about it and left the site. Nothing is worth that. My philosphy now is if it is a hassle to get, use, or do, I simply ignore it completely. If a site lacks quicktime support, I say screw 'em.

Uhm, have you considered complaining to the source? If not, then posting your complaints here will most likely do little good.

People, did anyone read the article in the OP? Apple's iTMS sales are going down, down, down. Listen.com's numbers, which existed before iTMS, are going up, up, up.

I realize the Apple faithful are never in doubt, but anything other than MS is good. Anything which makes getting music legally for a reasonable price is good. Anything which keeps the RIAA off our backs is also good.

Apple's offering is not perfect, nor is it the first, but that is a moot point. I want to pay for my music once and use it as I see fit. So far, eMusic and Listen.com suit my needs better than anything else I have encountered.

I realize I am being heretical, but iTMS is not the perfect solution. It uses a format which I can't play on non-Apple hardware (or at least the hardware I currently own), it does not have enough artists and the bitrate is marginal. Rhapsody has a lot of features I really like. I can't wait for a Mac version.

I am sure Real will make a Rhapsody for the Mac. The competition will be good for all of us.

Consider the consequences if one company controls how we access music. If a company is letting you down, I highly reccomend that you complain to them directly.

In Real's case, you should go to:
http://forms.real.com/service/emailform.html and bitch and moan. I've been doing it and it finally works: there is, at last, a prominent link to the free player on the home page.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Hey I got an idea for a shocker. Why don't they just port it to Windows and linux at the same time. The penguin crowd will be going nuts and all these other services will be like ... doh!

Now that's an interesting idea...

To the best of my knowledge, there is no legal way to download music if you're using Linux. And I know plenty of people that prefer Linux over anything that MS has to offer (myself included, though I'll stick with my PB and OS X).

[nagromme]

People can complain all they like about Real's image quality. But the imagery in this thread is crystal clear and supremely vivid, from Chewbacca to Crisco. And, like Real, very difficult to remove from your system once it's been introduced.

I will say that the OS 9 version messed up my Mac badly (the OS X version hasn't). I wouldn't be eager to use anything named Real.

[jayscheuerle]

PC users don't have the ITMS as an option, so any service is a plus for them. It doesn't have to be better than ITMS because there is no ITMS for them.

We should be knocking Apple here for failure to have the foresight to develop a Windows version of the ITMS concurrently with the Mac one.

Unless they have it already and are not allowed to release it. If that's the case, they're praying for incoherent failures until their PC ITMS hits the other 90+%...\

- j

[whatever]

I know I said something similar to this before, but here I go again. Remember what happened with the iPod. Apple first released it for the Mac and then months later they released it for the PC. Everyone thought that Apple would never regain the time they lost for not being first in the PC market, esp. with copycat MP3 players such as the Nomad. But happened, Apple took their time, did it right and they are now the number 1 MP3 (now digital music with AAC) player in the world. In fact I see the name iPod used more often than MP-3 player. When Apple is ready they will release iTunes for Windows and I'm sure a handy dandy install disc will be in the iPod's box.
You have to remember it's more than selling songs on the web, it's the experience. I think we all agree iTunes is the best computer based music player out there right.

Whatever

[whatever]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
PC users don't have the ITMS as an option, so any service is a plus for them. It doesn't have to be better than ITMS because there is no ITMS for them.

We should be knocking Apple here for failure to have the foresight to develop a Windows version of the ITMS concurrently with the Mac one.

Unless they have it already and are not allowed to release it. If that's the case, they're praying for incoherent failures until their PC ITMS hits the other 90+%...\

- j
Why should we knock Apple. Alright as an Apple share holder I think they may have been able to make more money. But as a Mac user, I could care less if they ever release iTunes for the PC. Why should I care. Apple has survived serving just the Mac market in the past. Why the hell would they ever want to support a half dozen different versions of Windows.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by whatever
Why should we knock Apple. Alright as an Apple share holder I think they may have been able to make more money. But as a Mac user, I could care less if they ever release iTunes for the PC. Why should I care. Apple has survived serving just the Mac market in the past. Why the hell would they ever want to support a half dozen different versions of Windows.

Because it would benefit Apple (therefore you) to be the biggest player in the iMusic industry. Apple would make more money to make more and better products.

Apple is surviving, but their market-share of the personal computer industry has been regularly declining. Remember, they had a greater market share than "IBM compatibles" at one time.

Knock Apple because they dropped the ball at that junction and we don't want them to do it again.

[pagemap]

I heard somewhere that apple might be forced to have stricter licensing for their windows customers. This might be why all these other services are so lacking in portability. I doubt apple will be able to make the music exec's pens dance on the dotted line again for the windows version. Just my $0.02.

[pagemap]

Originally posted by CamelCase
It uses a format which I can't play on non-Apple hardware (or at least the hardware I currently own), it does not have enough artists and the bitrate is marginal.

AAC is playable on windows, you only have to install a small plugin for winamp. I am sure there are others but winamp is what I use when I am on a PC. And the bitrate is "marginal" because it can. A 128 bit AAC file packs about the same quality as a 192 bitrate mp3. More quality in less space means more songs can fit on your iPod.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by CamelCase
I realize I am being heretical, but iTMS is not the perfect solution. It uses a format which I can't play on non-Apple hardware (or at least the hardware I currently own), it does not have enough artists and the bitrate is marginal.

But you'll need a Windows version of iTunes to access the iTMS, and that will handle the formats just fine.

The question is how the DRM will transfer between different players. Maybe you'll need iTunes to play anything downloaded from iTMS, otherwise other players would have to recognize the restrictions built into the songs...

[ryaxnb]

RealOne is annoying! It puts ads in your face and, on Windows, your taskbar, it will end up bugging you to upgrade, it's hard to go back to RealPlayer, it costs too much, overall it's a pain in the neck! I wouldn't use there music service if it were good, as long as you had to have RealOne to use it!

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by MovieGuy
What format will real use?
Probably their own format (the RA, RealAudio format).

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by Java
Are PC users really that blind to quality?
Yeah... Otherwise they wouldn't use Windows.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by zim
REAL player stinks! always has always will.
And RealOne stinks even more!

[rueyeet]

Originally posted by soggywulf
Apple has *once again* come up with an *awesome* idea--and *once again* it looks like they're getting screwed. :mad: Why the hell didn't they ramp up Win-iTunes for a simultaneous release? Did they think it was going to sell more Macs?

No, the record companies wanted a restricted audience for what they probably still see as a test case for the pay-as-you-go model of legal music downloads. If Apple had insisted on a simultaneous Windows launch, I bet the record companies would have nixed the whole thing.

Now, of course, they're looking at the iTMS' sales and greedily translating them into the larger Windows market. And instead of giving Apple the clear green-light on licensing content post-haste, they're apparently happier to work with all the usual suspects on the Windows side.

Like Real, who surely wins the prize for the most intrusive media player on the market today. Constant naggings to update, an installer that hijacks all media formats, a cluttered interface that tries to do everything all at once and consequently does none of them especially well, and a history of transgressions against user privacy. Yup, that's surely everyone's choice for their digital music format provider.

[frinky23]

Originally posted by pagemap
I heard somewhere that apple might be forced to have stricter licensing for their windows customers. This might be why all these other services are so lacking in portability. I doubt apple will be able to make the music exec's pens dance on the dotted line again for the windows version. Just my $0.02.

On the other hand, Apple is able to show why their licensing plan is working. With hard numbers. People love it, sales are beyond all expectations, and we haven't heard anything about people using it to commit copyright infringement. Apple should need nothing more than to tell the music execs that they have developed the app and beefed up their infrastructure to allow the Windows crowd to get the same experience we have been getting. And that they should expect their checks from Apple to have a couple more zeros on them from now on.

[pagemap]

A lot of windows users are ignorant towards such things as a company's history of respecting user's privacy rights (or lack thereof).

Unfortunatly these are the cold facts and I am going to lay them out.

1. Price is a BIG factor. If Real's offering is 10 cents cheaper people are going to go that route.

2. The user probably isn't going to start noticing how crappy a software/service's UI is until after they've still purchased something (and really start to USE the software), so it is important for apple to keep up the marketing pressure if they are looking reel those consumers in that are looking for a better way.

3. People don't care what format the service uses as long as they can hear it. AAC/MP3/WMA/RM, it doesnt matter. As long as they have the song and they can play it and burn it the user most likey doesnt care what goes on "behind the scenes."

4. Quality isn't an issue for most. I know many people who listen to music through their laptop's built-in speakers and are content.

Hope that helps.

[whatever]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Because it would benefit Apple (therefore you) to be the biggest player in the iMusic industry. Apple would make more money to make more and better products.

Apple is surviving, but their market-share of the personal computer industry has been regularly declining. Remember, they had a greater market share than "IBM compatibles" at one time.

Knock Apple because they dropped the ball at that junction and we don't want them to do it again.

Market share is not everything. What's IBM's market share compared to Dell, compared to Apple? Now what is their stock trading at $80.28. A little down, but...

The only reason Apple is still around is not because they captured market share early (like Digital, Compaq, and countless others where are they now). No there still around because of quality products which hooks people in and keeps them. I would love to see some industry stats on repeat customers.

Apple does not have to worry about these other companies. Do you know why, it's because unlike them Apple can afford to fail (not that they will) and go back to the drawing board. They have plenty of money and also a paid for infrastructure in place.

If the iTunes Music fails Apple could always fall back on their Computer business can Real do the same thing.

What I would love to see is Apple partner with Microsoft to include iTunes with Windows.

[pagemap]

Originally posted by whatever
What I would love to see is Apple partner with Microsoft to include iTunes with Windows.

Uh oh! We don't want the FTC lawyers contacting Apple now, do we? In reality it would only help Apple to pay MS say, $5 per copy of Windows it ships to include iTunes preinstalled with a shortcut on the desktop. It's kind of like the spam , or shotgun approach. Throw out a bunch of product and a few people will bite.

[jaedreth]

Keep in mind that Microsoft is about to receive more legal action (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/32196.html) from EU for bundling *only* Windows Media Player on it's computer.

This is an opportunity. Apple *might* be able to get QuickTime and iTunes bundled with the OS if it acts on this quickly. Long shot, but it is a shot.

Jaedreth

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by whatever
Market share is not everything. What's IBM's market share compared to Dell, compared to Apple? Now what is their stock trading at $80.28. A little down, but...

The only reason Apple is still around is not because they captured market share early (like Digital, Compaq, and countless others where are they now). No there still around because of quality products which hooks people in and keeps them. I would love to see some industry stats on repeat customers.

Apple does not have to worry about these other companies. Do you know why, it's because unlike them Apple can afford to fail (not that they will) and go back to the drawing board. They have plenty of money and also a paid for infrastructure in place.

If the iTunes Music fails Apple could always fall back on their Computer business can Real do the same thing.

What I would love to see is Apple partner with Microsoft to include iTunes with Windows.

In case you haven't noticed, Apple's computer business isn't doing so hot. Their cross-platform iPods are doing great and they're mostly bought by PC users.

Apple has failed before–The Cube (from a business standpoint, you zealots!)

IBM does not have a large market-share anymore, but in the beginning of the computer revolution (think 1982 or so), they were the PC maker. Everyone else who came along was the equivalent of UMAX for the Mac, just a clone maker.

Apple is still around because of their OS, not their machines, but they need to sell machines in order to finance their OS. Many people were happy running Apple clones that were sometimes better than Apple's offerings and many people now would jump on the chance to run OSX on a cheap PC box. Their hardware is pretty, but you wouldn't buy it if it only ran Windows.

The iTMS needs Windows users to survive the long run. Artists won't be flocking to Apple's door if a better solution that reaches the other 95% of the population comes along, regardless of who delivers it.

- j

[turtle]

To loveshismac:

You might already be aware of the iTrip from www.griffintechnology.com . but if you are not I highly reccommend it, for $35 you can broadcast your Ipod to your radio. It is great, and my PC friends are buying the Ipod just for that! Heck, if you have a few cars at a park you can sett them all to the same frequency and jam on all of them at once!
Hope this was not redundant.
Be Well

Turtle

[jaedreth]

Unless you are in the UK, then iTrip is illegal to buy and sell.

Jaedreth

[MhzDoesMatter]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
In case you haven't noticed, Apple's computer business isn't doing so hot. Their cross-platform iPods are doing great and they're mostly bought by PC users.

Apple has failed before–The Cube (from a business standpoint, you zealots!)

IBM does not have a large market-share anymore, but in the beginning of the computer revolution (think 1982 or so), they were the PC maker. Everyone else who came along was the equivalent of UMAX for the Mac, just a clone maker.

Apple is still around because of their OS, not their machines, but they need to sell machines in order to finance their OS. Many people were happy running Apple clones that were sometimes better than Apple's offerings and many people now would jump on the chance to run OSX on a cheap PC box. Their hardware is pretty, but you wouldn't buy it if it only ran Windows.

The iTMS needs Windows users to survive the long run. Artists won't be flocking to Apple's door if a better solution that reaches the other 95% of the population comes along, regardless of who delivers it.

- j

Actually, I doubt any artists will pull support from any solution that brings in the revenue that the iTMS store does.

Furthermore, your assertion that Apple's computer business isn't doing so hot is barely anecdotal. It's just as easy to say their business is struggling as it is for anyone here to chalk it up to the entire economy is struggling. Purely escapist and highly cursory, neither are any closer to truth than the Megahertz Myth.

And from a "business standpoint," the only way the cube can be regarded as a failure is if it didn't reach the minimum market success planned before it launched. It's considerably unlikely that the cube was designed to be as successful as the iMac. While I'm sure expectations were higher than reality, i doubt anyone other than Steve Jobs believed the cube would be the Next Big Thing. Now if you're willing to state the Cube's 250,000 units sold failed to even return the initial investment, and prove it, then you might not have such a hard time substantiating your highly opinionated narratives to "zealots" and more level-headed individuals alike.

Additionally, Apple survives because of the Mac platform, not simply the hardware, or exclusively the OS. The Macintosh platform, as a platform, progresses far faster than the Wintel platform. It adopts newer technologies quickly (firewire, usb, wifi), eliminates legacy redundancies efficiently (serial, parallel, SCSII), transitions more effectively (Pre-PPC to PPC, OS 9 to OSX [all utilized emulation]), and integrates more seamlessly. The platform works concertedly to offset it's weakest link, the lack of raw CPU speeds, through OS optimizations(Altivec enhancement, preemptive multitasking), hardware adaptations (direct memory access, Quartz extreme), and software customizations (Altivec Enhancement).

Apple is surviving because of the exclusiveness of its brand image. Apple isn't in trouble because of its niche in the market. They're doing quite well because of it. A dedicated user-base, an appearance of quality and a reputation for elegance as well as extravagance are all qualities of a Luxury item provider, amongst the likes of Mercedes, Loiue Vaton, and Cartier, none of which are going out of business because they just sell cars, leather, or jewelry.


-Hertz

[pagemap]

Originally posted by MhzDoesMatter
Actually, I doubt any artists will pull support from any solution that brings in the revenue that the iTMS store does.

Furthermore, your assertion that Apple's computer business isn't doing so hot is barely anecdotal. It's just as easy to say their business is struggling as it is for anyone here to chalk it up to the entire economy is struggling. Purely escapist and highly cursory, neither are any closer to truth than the Megahertz Myth.

And from a "business standpoint," the only way the cube can be regarded as a failure is if it didn't reach the minimum market success planned before it launched. It's considerably unlikely that the cube was designed to be as successful as the iMac. While I'm sure expectations were higher than reality, i doubt anyone other than Steve Jobs believed the cube would be the Next Big Thing. Now if you're willing to state the Cube's 250,000 units sold failed to even return the initial investment, and prove it, then you might not have such a hard time substantiated your highly opinionated narratives to "zealots" and more level-headed individuals alike.

Additionally, Apple survives because of the Mac platform, not simply the hardware, or exclusively the OS. The Macintosh platform, as a platform, progresses far faster than the Wintel platform. It adopts newer technologies quickly (firewire, usb, wifi), eliminates legacy redundancies efficiently (serial, parallel, SCSII), transitions more effectively (Pre-PPC to PPC, OS 9 to OSX [all utilized emulation]), and integrates more seamlessly. The platform works concertedly to offset it's weakest link, the lack of raw CPU speeds, through OS optimizations(Altivec enhancement, preemptive multitasking), hardware adaptations (direct memory access, Quartz extreme), and software customizations (Altivec Enhancement).

Apple is surviving because of the exclusiveness of its brand image. Apple isn't in trouble because of its niche in the market. They're doing quite well because of it. A dedicated user-base, an appearance of elegance and a reputation for elegance as well as extravagance are all qualities of a Luxury item provider, amongst the likes of Mercedes, Loiue Vaton, and Cartier, none of which are going out of business because they just sell cars, leather, or jewelry.


-Hertz

Well stated, thank you.

[pimentoLoaf]

Originally posted by macphoria
I don't see how Real Network's music service can compete with iTunes which is so well designed and marketed. But they do have name recognition and their service is already utilized on Macs and PCs so they do have some edge there.

One possible reason (http://www.palm.com/us/support/accessories/audiokit.html) it could compete...

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by MhzDoesMatter
Actually, I doubt any artists will pull support from any solution that brings in the revenue that the iTMS store does.

Furthermore, your assertion that Apple's computer business isn't doing so hot is barely anecdotal. It's just as easy to say their business is struggling as it is for anyone here to chalk it up to the entire economy is struggling. Purely escapist and highly cursory, neither are any closer to truth than the Megahertz Myth.

And from a "business standpoint," the only way the cube can be regarded as a failure is if it didn't reach the minimum market success planned before it launched. It's considerably unlikely that the cube was designed to be as successful as the iMac. While I'm sure expectations were higher than reality, i doubt anyone other than Steve Jobs believed the cube would be the Next Big Thing. Now if you're willing to state the Cube's 250,000 units sold failed to even return the initial investment, and prove it, then you might not have such a hard time substantiating your highly opinionated narratives to "zealots" and more level-headed individuals alike.

Additionally, Apple survives because of the Mac platform, not simply the hardware, or exclusively the OS. The Macintosh platform, as a platform, progresses far faster than the Wintel platform. It adopts newer technologies quickly (firewire, usb, wifi), eliminates legacy redundancies efficiently (serial, parallel, SCSII), transitions more effectively (Pre-PPC to PPC, OS 9 to OSX [all utilized emulation]), and integrates more seamlessly. The platform works concertedly to offset it's weakest link, the lack of raw CPU speeds, through OS optimizations(Altivec enhancement, preemptive multitasking), hardware adaptations (direct memory access, Quartz extreme), and software customizations (Altivec Enhancement).

Apple is surviving because of the exclusiveness of its brand image. Apple isn't in trouble because of its niche in the market. They're doing quite well because of it. A dedicated user-base, an appearance of quality and a reputation for elegance as well as extravagance are all qualities of a Luxury item provider, amongst the likes of Mercedes, Loiue Vaton, and Cartier, none of which are going out of business because they just sell cars, leather, or jewelry.


-Hertz

Well stated of course, but...

I didn't say artist's would "pull" support from the iTMS. I said they wouldn't "flock" there. The difference is in the effort required. If Apple isn't compliant to a standard format, which will be determined by the % of adoption, not the quality rate, artist's will not make the "effort" to support Apple's store. Programmer's write to support Internet Explorer because everybody has it, not because it's the best browser.

Apple's tower sales had been flat before the introduction of the G5. iMac sales have fallen off dramatically as well. Only their notebooks have been doing well. The lack of tower sales had nothing to do with the state of the economy. A large part of the appeal of a computer like the iMac is its cutting edge design. Unfortunately, products like this need to be externally upgraded more often as they lose that appeal relatively quickly.

The cube was a failure in that it didn't live up to the numbers that Apple was hoping to sell. Not even close. Aside from that, it's still a beautiful machine with a devoted fan base and its design made the current iMac possible. It was simply priced too high and would have sold far more machines at 2/3 the price.

You really can't separate the Mac platform, but the desire to do so is widely heard. PC boards are full of people who would love to run OSX (providing it would run their Windows programs). Apple wasn't so quick at adopting USB2, CDRW, DDRAM or video-conferencing. Integration is expected when you control the hardware and the OS. Though I love OSX, its high overhead and system requirements only made the lack of raw CPU speed more evident. Many are hoping that the dual 2gHz G5 with 2 gigs of RAM can give OSX the snappiness that OS9 had with a 233 iMac.

Apple's brand image doesn't seem to permeate or resonate with many others than the installed fan base. Sure, there are switchers here, but the numbers show that many others have switched the other way. Unlike luxury car makers, Apple is dependent on others companies for its survival, namely software writers. If Apple's market share drops too low, software will not be written for the platform (save the iApps). Luxury cars drive on the same roads as econo-boxes. This is an often-used, but flawed analogy. There are some ultra-high end cars of which a half-dozen may be produced per year, but you can drive them anywhere. An OS without software feels a lot like loading up the OSX public beta– gee, this is neat, but what can I do with it. Market share is important when you are depending on other companies to make an effort for you.

- j

[unSane]

Originally posted by Java
Are PC users really that blind to quality?

The answer is in the question.

[billyboy]

Originally posted by pimentoLoaf
One possible reason (http://www.palm.com/us/support/accessories/audiokit.html) it could compete...

A reason why it won´t? The link to the support page doesnt work, but it seems the pleasure of RealOne mp3´s with the following SD/MMC card capacity @128Kbps is
32MB 30 minutes
64MB 60 "
128MB 120 "

[abdul]

Originally posted by XForge
there's an updated version of the player and do you want to download it now? So you click "yes" and it takes over your web browser and takes you to their web site and shows you how much better the pay version of the player is and c'mon, don't you want the pay version of the player? Huh? Huh? Huh? Don'tcha?

And then of course if, when it asks you (every time you run it!!) if you want to upgrade and you tell it to ****** off, eventually a .ram file shows up that your player can't play 'cuz it's not "current!!!" So you go looking for an upgrade and oh, it's there, on the web site, someplace, really it is. Click this link - okay, put in your credit card number here - oh, you wanted the free version? Well, just click this link here, okay, now put in your credit card number... oh, you wanted the *free* version? Okay, scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and look next to the disclaimer in 1-pixel-high letters, now make sure you give us your email address so we can spam you to death, and check this box, and then click this link... now put in your credit card number... GGYAAAAAAACCCCCHHHH!!!


or you can go to bbc.co.uk then to audio/video and then download realplayer without the hasle. isnt amazing how another website promotes the simplicity of realplayer installation

[mwpeters8182]

While I am a big fan of iTMS, I woudln't knock the listen.com service as a"knockoff" or anything, since it's been around before the iTunes store was. It's actually not a terrible service, especially if you have an always on service, like I do at college. you can listen to cds without downloading, and the quality is good. However, since I got my iPod, I like to listen to my music in the car. This makes the iTMS the better service for me. It's whatever works best for people.