RealNetwork's Rhapsody

[MacRumors]

RealNetworks launched their music download service today -- called RealOne Rhapsody. The new service is Windows-only and provides a hybrid model - with both subscription and per-download sales.

RealOne RHAPSODY offers consumers unlimited, ‘all you can eat’ access to the broadest library of major and independent label music with more than 330,000 tracks available for on-demand listening and more than 200,000 songs available for transferring to CD, aka ‘burning.’ At only 79¢ per track, RealOne RHAPSODY offers subscribers the lowest per-burn price available to U.S. consumers through any of the new generation of digital music services.

After a 14 day free trial, the monthly fee is $9.95/month.

[TheInevitable]

<sarcasm>Gee! That's a great idea! Where'd ya get it?"</sarcasm>

[yzedf]

Apple needs the competition to provide a reason to keep the music available fresh, as well as to add new features or services to the product. Custom radio streams for example...

Yeah, whatever.

<sarcasm>Gee! That's a great idea! Where'd ya get it?"</sarcasm>

From Listen.com not Apple! Or maybe even MP3.com before that... or how many others? Apple made it better, but was not first. And now they are being undercut by 20% per song, and it is available to 90% of the desktop market, TODAY.

[vniow]

Mmmm....competition....I hope this only means good things for online music.http://forums.macrumors.com/attachme...&postid=251585

[RHutch]

In order to be worthwhile, a user would have to download 50 songs EVERY month in which they want to use the service. Only at 50 downloads does the price per download + subscription cost yield the same cost per song as iTMS.

While this does offer service to Windows users, I think that it is inferior to iTMS and is the wrong approach. I think that Windows users will choose iTMS over this service once iTMS is available to them.

[yzedf]

Originally posted by RHutch
In order to be worthwhile, a user would have to download 50 songs EVERY month in which they want to use the service. Only at 50 downloads does the price per download + subscription cost yield the same cost per song as iTMS.

While this does offer service to Windows users, I think that it is inferior to iTMS and is the wrong approach. I think that Windows users will choose iTMS over this service once iTMS is available to them.

Why would they bother to switch? By the time iTMS is available for Windows users, 4-6 months will have slid by, with everyone getting used to the Rhapsody serrvice. The clincher is probably the custom radio thing. If iTMS doesn't have it, Rhapsody people won't bother to change to something else.

iTMS has not created a rush of Mac sales... and the switch campaign is a dud... and OS X has mainly shot blanks as far as convincing most users that Windows is not worth staying with... Apple's market share is declining overall, Jobs is one of the highest paid CEO's in the USA ("bonus" = salary = 25% of Apple's profits in $), for no apparent reason.

[arn]

Well... the beauty of the iTMS is that there is no reason NOT to try it. There is no obligation... there is no monthly fee. You just buy a song if you want it, or not....

arn

[DGFan]

There doesn't seem to be support for listening on a computer (or portable player) that isn't connected to the internet via a high-speed service. Am I reading that right?

[RHutch]

Originally posted by yzedf
Why would they bother to switch? By the time iTMS is available for Windows users, 4-6 months will have slid by, with everyone getting used to the Rhapsody serrvice. The clincher is probably the custom radio thing. If iTMS doesn't have it, Rhapsody people won't bother to change to something else.

iTMS has not created a rush of Mac sales... and the switch campaign is a dud... and OS X has mainly shot blanks as far as convincing most users that Windows is not worth staying with... Apple's market share is declining overall, Jobs is one of the highest paid CEO's in the USA ("bonus" = salary = 25% of Apple's profits in $), for no apparent reason.

Maybe you misread my post. I did not suggest that Windows users will switch to Mac OS. I'm not talking about that kind of "switching". I just think that people will get tired of paying $9.95 per month when they won't be able to think of 50 songs to download every month. And I don't think that the custom radio will be such a big deal.

If you don't understand the price per song comparison, then maybe the rest of the country won't either. And Real will be happy to take in your money even though you could have gotten the same thing for less from iTMS. Maybe Real will win out after all.

[Abstract]

My question from another iTMS thread:

The other competitors listed in the first post didn't actually say that they were going to go with a subscription service in the future, did they? So if they want to compete with Apple in the "per-song" download business, won't they need an agreement with all 5 major record companies as well, much like Steve Jobs needed to fight for? If so, then won't it be a long process for them to get all of that worked out? Maybe by the time these companies work out a deal with the music companies, iTunes for Windows would have been out for a long enough time to gain market share early.

Okay, so I guess it was quite easy for Realplayer to get the Big 5 to commit to this project as well. Apple always puts in the legwork to innovate, and a month later, you always hear of someone else using the same idea. Why invest so much money, time, and effort into something if you know that somebody else is going to invest 10% of the effort and time to do the exact same thing, simply because they waited for somebody else to innovate? Its not like Apple is prospering because of their valiant efforts.

[Macmaniac]

They better get iTunes for windows fast, I'm afraid they've lost their chance to take the windows music market, once again we have been beat

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by yzedf


iTMS has not created a rush of Mac sales...

I think it's a little early to know what the effect of the iTMS is on Mac sales. It looks like it may be quite positive, however.

This is from "Internet Retailer" last week:

"Apple Computer Inc.'s Apple.com led all computer hardware sites in number of shoppers for the week that ended May 11, according to Nielsen/NetRatings' AdRelevance report. Apple.com logged 3.75 million unique visitors, 73.7% of all visitors to hardware sites, which hosted 5.09 million shoppers for the week."

Here's the full story:
http://www.internetretailer.com/dailyNews.asp?id=9361

[foniks2020]

Originally posted by DGFan
There doesn't seem to be support for listening on a computer (or portable player) that isn't connected to the internet via a high-speed service. Am I reading that right?

That's the killer as far as I can tell AND the reason why soooo many people have been using file trading instead of audio on demand streams... if you can't take it with you or at least download an album over night it just won't work for 95% of the internet. It's the same reason people wanted to abuse the iTunes streaming... they wanted to keep those songs around for later, not have to go find them or rely on someone else's generosity... which isn't wrong per se but the problem comes when no method of compensation is provided.

We still need a working micropayment system, credit accounts just aren't cutting it for this type of commerce, too much overhead per transaction. Unfortunately subscription based payment, which is the only viable alternative, isn't appropriate for this scenario either.

[dethl]

Didn't Steve say that subscription services weren't that good, and so thats why iTMS goes the path of 99 cents a song, no contracts, etc?

[Foxer]

What's the bit rate of thier songs? I can't seem to find mention of it on the site? Since they certainly aren't using AAC, it is probably safe to assume that iTMS provides a higher sound quality at 128 AAC.

For some reason, I've always really disliked Real, so I hope this dies some painful death.

[BobX]

Apple Music's value propositions are:
* Freedom to listen to it where you want and in the way you want to (as long as you stick to Apple products a la iPod) and unencumbering, nearly invisible DRM.
* Legal rights to use in home movies and slide show (a big value add that others cannot easily duplicate)

But it will all boil down to selection -- there is no value if I cannot acquire the music I want. (Seems like Rhapsody has a larger library right now, though a good portion of that library is stream-only.)

[tjwett]

Okay, thsongs are 20 cents cheaper BUT there is a ten dollar per month membership fee. So let's say I download 10 songs this month. At 79 cents per song that's $7.90, PLUS the $9.95 monthly fee, that's about $18.00
I could get those same ten songs from Apple for $9.90, almost HALF the price. Hmmm, that's a tough decision. I guess they are just hoping to get all the Windows users who can't use iTunes at the moment. But they better watch out when iTunes for Windows is released because it's obviously a much better deal than this.

[gregorypierce]

Some key questions here to consider:

1) Why Apple waited so late (apparently) to get started on the Windows version of iTunesMS.

2) Will Windows users still want to pay a subscription fee once the alternative comes along. I use both OSX and Windows everyday and I know that I'm not paying a subscription to anyone, so if real even wants to be competitive they need to dump the subscription.

3) Does Apple have the ability to grow its music library faster. The current offerings are kinda .... old or don't appeal to me. The strength of the Apple library is really what they need to work on moreso than anything else. I'd pay 0.20 more to get a song for certain rather than pay a subscription so that I can wait for the songs I want to 'maybe' become availeble.

4) Is Apple seriously talking with independent talent. In doing so, Apple has the potential to be a real 'player' in the music space.

5) The biggie - what form of DRM will Real employ. How much annoyance will there be for the end user. This I think will justify spending money. If its easy to move songs around - Real can probably do some decent numbers. If however they are still doing the ludicrous timebomb subscription model (or similar), once itms comes to Windows people will leave the Real service in droves.

[iJon]

i dont think this will get very big. the problem is will Real advertise on TV, maybe, doubtful though. Will too many people hear about this service, no. I know I have told many customers about the music store, people that dont follow Apple to much, but they have a Mac and I have directed them to the Music Store and showed them around. When you walk into an Apple Store you will see the Music Store, when you go to dell.com, a compaq reseller, gateway store, best best and so on, how many of the employees are gonna advertise this. I do not think Apple is beat, same thing with the iPod, took them a while to get the iPod to work on Windows, but look at them now, leader of the pack. I think once Apple gets iTunes for Windows and they iTMS, they are gonna soar. Lets wait and see how many songs they sell of accounts are made in the next week, if it's 1 million then I think Apple should get scared.

iJon

[jdstoddard]

Thumbs down for Real Networks. Who in their right mind would pay 10 dollars a month to rent the music and then on top of that, if they want to burn a cd its .79 cents per song?!! HAHAHA. iTMS wins hands down.

[RHutch]

Originally posted by gregorypierce
Some key questions here to consider:

1) Why Apple waited so late (apparently) to get started on the Windows version of iTunesMS.

I have seen many comments before about how long Apple waited to start on the service for Windows. The evidence cited most often is how recently the job was posted for working on the Windows version of iTMS.

I don't claim to know much about Apple's history or any other specific information, but why couldn't this be the scenario?

Apple has been working on the Windows version for quite some time, doing as much as they could with the engineers they had. As the version gets closer to done, they advertise for someone with Windows certification to make sure the job is finished up properly. So they might not be that far from having the Windows version ready to go.

This doesn't contradict anything I have read from Apple. All that I know that Steve said is that the Windows version would be ready later this year. June? September? Who knows? Just later this year.

Maybe the competition assumed, like many here have, that Apple is just getting started. This could be a bit of baiting. The competitors are more likely to jump in if they think they have a chance. And then Apple is ready to go earlier than expected and blows them all away.

I'm not saying this is what is going on. Only that it is another possible scenario, just as valid as others that have been put forth.

[BobX]

RealNetwork's press release claims that "There are more than one million subscribers to RealNetworks’ subscription services."

Of course it's hard to tell if that whole one million subscribers are all on Rhapsody subscription or is that a grand total that includes RealNetwork's other subscription services. But if it's one million paying Rhapsody subscribers, that's $10 miliion a month in revenue, not counting any CD-burning revenue... not too bad! Considering that even as Apple announced their one-million-tunes-sold-in-a-week result, the revenue is still smaller than that of vinyl in the same time span. (Read that statistics on AppleTurns.com, but forgot the original source... some music industry group that publishes sales number by media type regularly.)

[e-coli]

Originally posted by Abstract
My question from another iTMS thread:



Okay, so I guess it was quite easy for Realplayer to get the Big 5 to commit to this project as well. Apple always puts in the legwork to innovate, and a month later, you always hear of someone else using the same idea. Why invest so much money, time, and effort into something if you know that somebody else is going to invest 10% of the effort and time to do the exact same thing, simply because they waited for somebody else to innovate? Its not like Apple is prospering because of their valiant efforts.

That's been Dell's strategy from day 1.

But this isn't a new idea, and iTMS is still better.

[merge]

Originally posted by TheInevitable
<sarcasm>Gee! That's a great idea! Where'd ya get it?"</sarcasm>

Well is this the same as Audiogalaxy's Rhapsody??
did Real buy it?

This has been out for months... I downloaded it as a free trial...
IMHO, Apple did the right thing with no subscription costs...

Apple is still cheaper if you average less than 50 songs per month...

Through Apple 40 songs in 1 month = $39.60

Through Rhapsody 40 Songs in 1 month = $41.55

or... 40 songs in 1 year with apple... = $39.60

and Rhapsody = $151

[redAPPLE]

Originally posted by Macmaniac
They better get iTunes for windows fast, I'm afraid they've lost their chance to take the windows music market, once again we have been beat

actually, i agree with this point. Apple should have given Windows users the ability to download (= buy) songs and albums from the iTMS.

well, maybe Apple was thinking... we lose revenue in G4 sales, why not in iTMS.