Poll: Should Apple license AAC/FairPlay (iTunes music store format) to RealNetworks?

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll: Should Apple license AAC/FairPlay (iTunes music store format) to RealNetworks? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=400)

[jasonj]

I guess I thought that the beauty of the AAC format was that it was not proprietary... so it's only logical that Apple would "share" with whomever was interested... so that the format might become a true standard.

[SiliconAddict]

People misunderstand. Apple can't Lic AAC. Its not owned by them. They own AFAIK Fairplay the DRM wrapper for AAC. So technically anyone can use AAC they just can't distribute AAC FP wrapped songs.


But for my vote.....

HECK YES!!

Apple get your brains out of your butt and do this thing!!

[dombi]

This would help in the long run. MS is doing a great job gathering companies behind their technology. Allpe needs to do the same. We need to build a wide base as well to ensure the long life of this technology.

Apple might be number one now...but that could change in the future if Apple does not play nicely with others. Let's do this deal with Real, it might benefit us in some other ways as well.

[AmigoMac]

Vote: Poll: Should Apple license AAC/FairPlay (iTunes music store format) to RealNetworks? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=400)

YES! & A S A P... :eek:

my cent...

[wordmunger]

No. Real Networks is their direct competitor. They should license the technology to companies that add value to the basic service, not companies that compete directly with iPod or the ITMS. It's not good for Apple, and it's not good for Apple customers. Why would I go to Real to get something I can get from ITMS?

They *should* license to car stereo companies, home theater companies, home stereo companies, PDA companies, and cell phone companies, so that we can use iTMS songs in places where Apple doesn't offer a product line.

[winmacguy]

I voted no although I seem to be in the minority, I personally dont think Apple needs Real since they have the deal with HP. It will be interesting to see what happens between Rob and Steve.

[ebow]

In Star Trek VI, when the Klingon empire was months from collapse and they came to the Federation to discuss an alliance, Kirk first exclaimed "let them die!" But cooler heads, who saw the potential of such an alliance, prevailed. And the result was a number of intersting Next Generation episodes. ;) Oh, and a better future for both, for example uniting against common enemies like the Romulans and the Borg.

Holy crap am I geeky. :eek: :D

[bennetsaysargh]

i say yes because if apple is the only one using aac, it might be harder to get it accepted like wma. not to mention iPod being the official player might boost iPod sales a tiny bit.

[Trowaman]

DO IT!!!!!!!

[crazzyeddie]

No. Real Networks is their direct competitor. They should license the technology to companies that add value to the basic service, not companies that compete directly with iPod or the ITMS.

Right now, the problem is that most companies only support WMA with DRM because "everyone" has a PC which comes with Windows Media right out of the box, no worries. Apple needs to get other companies in on the FairPlay bandwagon, and fast. Remember when Quicktime was the ONLY video on the internet? Now most of the video you find is in WMV, and some in MPEG1. AAC is far superior to WMA, and WMA with DRM isnt Mac compatible at all. We need to get more far spread support for AAC+DRM!

[michaelrjohnson]

yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes

[IndyGopher]

Why stop there? I say pay them to use it. Give 'em a dollar for every hour they stream

edit: Monetary figure is for example only.. let the bean counters come up with a good amount.

[eric_n_dfw]

I voted no although I seem to be in the minority, I personally dont think Apple needs Real since they have the deal with HP. It will be interesting to see what happens between Rob and Steve.HP doesn't have a music store though.

Remember, iTMS exists mainly to sell iPods. If people start buying more iPods because Real's music store(s) work with it too, then that's more $$ for Apple.

[numediaman]

Gotta play nice in the sandbox -- so "yes".

[winmacguy]

HP doesn't have a music store though.

Remember, iTMS exists mainly to sell iPods. If people start buying more iPods because Real's music store(s) work with it too, then that's more $$ for Apple.

Its not the music store that is going to benefit Apple in the long run. (At this stage the US is the only country where you can legally buy music online.)
Apple needs to partner up with another supplier who can provide them with access to a HUGE(107,000) amount of distribution channels worldwide and a BIG chunk(40%) of the PC customer market world wide. With Apple partnering with HP they get both of those as well as the "quicker turnover" of people replaceing old PCs with new ones which will now come with iTunes preloaded.

Real Networks can offer Apple a subscriber base and an MP3 player but they dont have a huge distribution network (if they did they wouldnt be chasing Apple). Apple already has the best MP3 player and a Mac/(significant and growing) PC customerbase. While a proposed partnership between Apple and Real might have some short term benefits, they do not compare with the benefits to Apple from the HP deal and hopefully others like it.

[areyouwishing]

In Star Trek VI, when the Klingon empire was months from collapse and they came to the Federation to discuss an alliance, Kirk first exclaimed "let them die!" But cooler heads, who saw the potential of such an alliance, prevailed. And the result was a number of intersting Next Generation episodes. ;) Oh, and a better future for both, for example uniting against common enemies like the Romulans and the Borg.

Holy crap am I geeky. :eek: :D

I couldn't agree with this analogy more. Real and Apple need each other, its NOT about adding value, its about MARKET SHARE.

Real would probably help sell a marginal amount of iPods, but the nice thing is that it gets more people hooked on AAC.

Hypothetical situation.
1. Person buys music from Real, then decides that he or she needs a music player, Real suggests the iPod because it works with the Real Service.
2. Person buys Ipod and Apple gets the money, plus more market share.
3. Person now has choice, buy music from iTunes, or RealService decides that iTunes has better selection and is easier to use (real does NOT make easy to use software.)
4. Person switches to primarily using iTunes and Real when there are only songs on Real's service.
5. Person buys iMac because of iTunes, "If the computer is as easy as this program, i should get one."

This is WIN WIN WIN for Apple, its a different starting point for consumers, but it will always lead back to consumers switching, with Real, the likelihood is even GREATER.

[areyouwishing]

one more comment,

come hell or high water, when microsoft releases their store, there will be a software update, and POOF the store is integrated into windows media player, this world is made up of lazy people, and the lazy people WILL use this service. It is important to have as much installed base as humanly possible BEFORE microsoft does what its best at... bundling.

[IndyGopher]

one more comment,

come hell or high water, when microsoft releases their store, there will be a software update, and POOF the store is integrated into windows media player, this world is made up of lazy people, and the lazy people WILL use this service. It is important to have as much installed base as humanly possible BEFORE microsoft does what its best at... bundling.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I want to clarify your feelings on this. Are you saying it's wrong, or bad, or unethical, or what to make the music store part of the player? Or bundle the player with the OS? Apple does all of these, so I am unclear on what you are saying.

[MattG]

I voted no.

I loathe RealNetworks and everything they stand for. Pop-up ads, SPAM, a really obnoxious process involved in installing their software...I have to deal with their software at the school I work at, and I hate it. I would prefer Apple to not be affiliated with them in any way.

[macridah]

Got to do it Steve ...

[Sailfish]

Glaser is a wild mouth and a drama king.

Any deal with him would need to have him zipper his mouth and not distract the iTMS>iPod>Mac hardware lure that's bringing Apple so much attention.

Apple needs to continue to sell hardware, so in this aspect all I can see Real becoming is a iTMS with a Real branding.

Like the HP iPod.

Really there is only room for two players, three makes a crowd. So Real should just be absorbed into Apple.

It has no hardware or OS to back up it's play.

[MacCanuck]

No. Real Networks is their direct competitor. They should license the technology to companies that add value to the basic service, not companies that compete directly with iPod or the ITMS. It's not good for Apple, and it's not good for Apple customers. Why would I go to Real to get something I can get from ITMS?

They *should* license to car stereo companies, home theater companies, home stereo companies, PDA companies, and cell phone companies, so that we can use iTMS songs in places where Apple doesn't offer a product line.

iTMS is not a profit vehicle. The stated goal by Jobs and co is to sell more iPods. The margins are slim to none on iTMS and given the latest Q results and over 800,000 iPods sold it is evident what is really driving their revenue growth. If Real can stimulate iPod sales they should partner. The best store experience will win regardless. Apple needs more people hopping on their bandwagon. The alternative is the continued dominance of WMA and WMA music devices which deters iPod sales where Apple makes an increasing part of their revenue.

Apple could also extract a royalty out of the licensing of their DRM to make up for any margin lost from not using their store. Even 5 cents a song would generate pure margin without the need for Apple to bear the capacity investment to support more users to achieve that profit. The devil is in the details of the licensing arrangement for FairPlay. Nobody says Apple has to give it away.

MacCanuck

[MacCanuck]

Its not the music store that is going to benefit Apple in the long run. (At this stage the US is the only country where you can legally buy music online.)

Actually this is not true. Puretracks is available in Canada but is WMA based. I'm sure there are other services available in other countries. Us Apple faithfull with iPods up here in Canada are waiting though for it to come here ASAP. I'm not interested in WMA solutions as I love my iPod. Apple come on eh? :)

[MacCanuck]

HP doesn't have a music store though.

Remember, iTMS exists mainly to sell iPods. If people start buying more iPods because Real's music store(s) work with it too, then that's more $$ for Apple.

HP is bundling iTunes on their desktops and as a result pointing their customers at iTMS.

[punter]

i feel sorry for real. This must be the last option they ever wanted.... BWAHAHAHAHA.

now I feel sorry for me, first post of second page :(

[wdlove]

I voted yes, Apple definitely can use a bigger source base. Apple can use more markets.

[areyouwishing]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I want to clarify your feelings on this. Are you saying it's wrong, or bad, or unethical, or what to make the music store part of the player? Or bundle the player with the OS? Apple does all of these, so I am unclear on what you are saying.

There is a BIG difference between what the two companies do, you can uninstall itunes, ical, safari, etc etc. you CANNOT uninstall microsofts bundled apps, no matter what Add/Remove tells you.

It's convenient for Mac users to use itunes to purchase music, just as it will be for windows users to purchase music within the soon to be windows music service.

I see the point you're making, but that was a battle fought long ago, microsoft won, and thats why apple isn't really questioned when they bundle their apps, plus their is much less competition on the mac side.

[pinto32]

Steve has said over and over again the the whole point of the iTMS is to sell iPods....so, anything that sells iPods is good for Apple, reguardless of what happens to iTMS....besides, what do you think is more profitable for Apple: a 99 cent song or a $499 iPod??

[AngryLawnGnome]

Yes, definitely. Spread it!!!!

[MrCommunistGen]

Though I voted "no" I'm really undecided. Everybody remembers what happened when Apple licensed the MacOS to create clones... they almost dug their own grave and jumped right in! On the other hand, a partner would provide more dispersion of AAC over the market... The two effects could cancel out. That's my take.

-MCG

[blue&whiteman]

the guy who founded real (can't think of his name) is cool and has done a lot of good things with all his money over the years. I think this would help him and apple so I vote yes.

[winmacguy]

Actually this is not true. Puretracks is available in Canada but is WMA based. I'm sure there are other services available in other countries. Us Apple faithfull with iPods up here in Canada are waiting though for it to come here ASAP. I'm not interested in WMA solutions as I love my iPod. Apple come on eh? :)

There are other limited country specific stores (OD2 in Europe and some legal down load services are running in Australia) But no country has yet gotten its services running in more that that companies country of origin. iTMS is the only US based store to do its own .AAC format. As we all know you can rip tracks to the iPod via iTunes from CDs from Windows and Mac.

[Chealion]

Real isn't cool enough to use FairPlay. ;)

If they knew what FairPlay even meant.

[Dippo]

What does Real bring to the table????

Nothing as far as I am concerned....

[ryanw]

No. Real Networks is their direct competitor. They should license the technology to companies that add value to the basic service, not companies that compete directly with iPod or the ITMS. It's not good for Apple, and it's not good for Apple customers. Why would I go to Real to get something I can get from ITMS?

They *should* license to car stereo companies, home theater companies, home stereo companies, PDA companies, and cell phone companies, so that we can use iTMS songs in places where Apple doesn't offer a product line.
You misunderstand apple's business model for the iTMS & the iPod relationship. the iTMS is a LOSS LEADER. Which means they put it out there planning to lose money on people using the iTMS but in turn then want to sell iPods and accessories for it.

Licensing the FAIRPLAY wrapper is a win, win for Apple. Another company would be promoting sales for the iPod and taking burden off of apple's network making their iTMS cheaper to run.

Seems like a no brainer UNLESS apple is trying to get greedy (like always) and want to try to keep their small nitch market for as long as they can until it just crumbles underneath them.

[simX]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I want to clarify your feelings on this. Are you saying it's wrong, or bad, or unethical, or what to make the music store part of the player? Or bundle the player with the OS? Apple does all of these, so I am unclear on what you are saying.

Um, isn't it clear what he meant from what Microsoft has done in the past? It has nothing to do with the bundling or the integrating, it has to do with the illegal leveraging of its monopoly position in order to further increase the market share of its products (i.e.: forcing vendors to install Microsoft's software and not third party software, deliberately breaking third party software in Windows updates, threatening to cancel products that benefit a third party if they don't help establish the Microsoft products as the dominant ones, etc.).

[wrldwzrd89]

Yes, of course Apple should license FairPlay! This will help promote AAC, which is better than both MP3 and WMA, and deserves to be #1. Licensing FairPlay (not AAC, which Apple does not own the rights to) would also bring revenue for Apple and sell iPods, both of which help Apple's bottom line. In fact, I can't find any reasons NOT to do this.

[jer2665]

the only thing I worry about, is people know that aac is itunes. Well a lot of people do. i never seen it anywhere before, and not even since. I just don't know if apple wants to be lumped together with their terrible obtrusive clumsy hardware. im sure a lot of people can differentiate between the two, and that apple is only licensing the m4a format or whatever it is, instead of them working with them. Because i personally have had nothing but problems with any of reals terrible products. The real one player, or the game player thing they have. Horrendous, between the popups, spam, it's icredibly intrusive in my eyes, I don't want people to say "eh, f this, i don't need aac that bad, i'll go use wma on napster or whatever."

[ifjake]

i think AAC should become open source, free for anyone who wants to use it. it's not like this would really hurt iPod sales or anything. people don't buy iPods because of AAC, they buy it because it's one sweet player. i wouldn't be surprised if there were some people who didn't even know that AAC existed on their iPod, or what it is. if Apple should be pushing anything it should be iTunes. it's a good introduction to the innovative thinking of Apple, like saying to people "this is how you're entire computer can be like, running even better on the hardware it was designed to run on."

on a related note, the QuickTime's AAC encoder could use a little bit of updating on it's psychoacoustic modeling. making it open source would definitely help this. imagine a LAME AAC encoder.

[whooleytoo]

Surely this would be a winner for Apple?

If both Real and Apple used AAC/Fairplay, people would compare them on pricing (probably identical) and software (Apple's UI is far simpler and more elegant, IMO), and Apple would be the winner.

Plus, Apple's iTunes/AAC/Fairplay would be perceived as a more open standard, which could only help push adoption in the PC world.

It could certainly help Apple sell more iPods, I can's see how it could hurt them..

[Lancetx]

Obviously Steve made the right decision. Glaser is a laughing stock right about now.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-5193027.html

[tuftywhite]

It's a bit like your cars.

Ford, VW, Mercedes, et al make the best cars they can and you buy them because of the qualities of the vehicle and the cash in your pocket. The vehicle being the iPod.

If you can only buy petrol (gas for you US people) in one place you're a bit stuffed. Loads of people sell petrol, you can get it anywhere, more cars can be used, hooray!

All Apple have to do is make the MP3 player that people prefer and everything is lovely.

I voted yes. Apple shouldn't behave like Microsoft just because they have this market covered, for the moment.

All things change!

:rolleyes:

[bertagert]

I voted no because I don't think Real is the one to partner with. Their business model is not effective. The software they produce is bloatware and a lot, not just a few, people really hate it. Real will die in the coming years. The letter to Apple proves that Rob Glaser is grasping at straws. I say let Real croak.

Should Apple let others use its FairPlay technology? I think they are lying about itunes becoming profitable. As i see it, the day will come where everyone will have an ipod or someother mp3 player. When that happens, Apple will need to pull revenue in from the itunes store. If that's the case, hold off a few more years and then license out the Fairplay. If they let it go now, the other companies will want the music to be played on other devices. That will of course eat into the ipod sales.

Apples in a tough spot right now. The good thing is they have dominated the market thus far. If they play the cards right they'll be able to retain it for years to come. If that happens, Apple just beat MS. Imagine that!

[rueyeet]

I voted no.

I loathe RealNetworks and everything they stand for. Pop-up ads, SPAM, a really obnoxious process involved in installing their software...I have to deal with their software at the school I work at, and I hate it. I would prefer Apple to not be affiliated with them in any way.

Amen to that. I won't re-post my Real rant from that other thread.

I don't really see what value Real would add. Are they going to stop selling WMA in favor of Fairplay'd AAC? Then sure, go ahead....that would be one major Windows choice gone over to Apple's format, maybe others would follow, and theoretically that could lead to the toppling of WMA.

But otherwise, what does Real bring Apple? They take buyers away from the iTMS, thus further distancing consumers from the Apple brand (and increased marketshare won't come without some major mindshare), and open Apple up to bad customer perceptions based on a company they have no control over. All that for a few measley licensing fees...'cause we know Real isn't selling like iTMS is selling.

There's already a place to buy Fairplay'd AAC files: iTunes. Why go to Real at all? The only other benefit I could see would be if Real customers were allowed to re-download their purchases in AAC so they could buy iPods, but somehow I can't see the RIAA sitting well with that one.

[mrsebastian]

i agree with the fact that realnetworks is probably not the right fit with apple. that said, apple does need to strike some more quality partnerships such as hp. for the simple fact they need affirm continued dominance in the online music and music hardware markets. don't want to see apple go the way of beta back in the vhs/beta battles.

[Alte22a]

Any competition is good competiton. If Realnetworks produce a good service, it should keep iTMS on its toes.

[macnews]

I think the deal would have been good for Apple in the long run. They don't need Real now, but down the road the market share might be nice have. Not to mention helping sell a few more iPods and bringing in some extra revenue.

It is difficult to say if this would be worth the trouble though. Yes, market share is nice, and I'm not trying to double talk, MS does have the ability to take over a vast market share. Remember when Netscape had 95% market share? No those tables are 110% flipped.

The big problem I think that killed the deal was Real's "threat" to go with MS. What the hell were they thinking? MS is already a threat. Adding a non-threating Real to the basket doesn't make a difference. Could have left that out, had some humble pie and might have actually had a chance. Guess the more money you make the bigger your ego is and sometimes lack of common sense.

[wrldwzrd89]

Obviously Steve made the right decision. Glaser is a laughing stock right about now.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-5193027.html

After reading the article, I now see why Steve turned down the offer. It seems to me that Real is dying and needs help, but their tactics aren't going to impress Apple one bit. The market conditions supported the deal, but the tactics blocked it in the end.

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

No. Real Networks is their direct competitor. They should license the technology to companies that add value to the basic service, not companies that compete directly with iPod or the ITMS. It's not good for Apple, and it's not good for Apple customers. Why would I go to Real to get something I can get from ITMS?

You got one flaw in that, Apple earns ~0 dollar on the iTunes music store. But they earn billions on the iPod.

You do the math.

[iMeowbot]

If you can only buy petrol (gas for you US people) in one place you're a bit stuffed. Loads of people sell petrol, you can get it anywhere, more cars can be used, hooray!

That analogy really doesn't work. We have to travel to certain places to get fuel, but the digital media outlets are all located in the same spot, at the end of our network connections. The music isn't burned away when we use it, either.

Given that all these music services are offering similar prices and libraries, what advantage is there for the customer to buy the same thing from more than one company? Most of the money ends up with the same recording companies anyway.

[pbooktebo]

I think that the question here should be "when will Apple begin to liscense their FairPlay technology?"

Apple would be foolish to never open it up, but they are obviously milking it right now so that they can get the most iPods out the door (and look at last quarter's profits to see why).

That said, I think RealNetworks would be a poor first choice, as they are pretty ghetto (hidden "free" player, spam, etc.).

To me, it comes down to this: Apple is winning the download wars by selling the most songs in their FairPlay format, which increases the likelyhood that people will use iTunes and buy an iPod. At the point where they sense a competitor moving towards seriously threatening their dominance, or when Apple thinks the time of serious profit-making is at a lull, they'll start to sell FairPlay.

Good for them: go Apple!

[DigDug]

Of course I hate Real, but I believe we're all better off with a third player in the market; Real has marketshare on both platforms and serves to de-polarize the situation. This encourages fair competition based on the quality of the service, which we all know will be dominated by Apple. As soon as Real expires, Microsoft will have only one target and will do everything it can to take Apple down. At the same time, Apple will start to look more and more like a monopoly in its own right and will get no sympathy from free-market advocates when MS starts to get sleazy.

Of course, if Sony can successfully launch its service, which I assume is based on ATRAC, that will do just fine.

[Mr.Hey]

In Star Trek VI, when the Klingon empire was months from collapse and they came to the Federation to discuss an alliance, Kirk first exclaimed "let them die!" But cooler heads, who saw the potential of such an alliance, prevailed. And the result was a number of intersting Next Generation episodes. ;) Oh, and a better future for both, for example uniting against common enemies like the Romulans and the Borg.

Holy crap am I geeky. :eek: :D

:D :p silly ;)