Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

RealNetwork's Rhapsody

I think this is a good thing. Apple and Real competing will lower prices, add features, get more music videos and exclusive tracks, add more music players that can play the music (after the ipod and tivo, a module for your hifi, a car radio,...)

Too bad Apple didn't beat Real to the punch with Windows availability. But all is not lost though, neither of them have entered the international market yet.
 
Is it $0.79 per track to burn songs onto CD, or per album?

Also, it's funny how it never says what format the songs are in. MP3? AAC? or (yet another) crummy Real format?
 
Originally posted by RHutch


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.
Click to expand...

you're not talking about the 970, right? ;)
 
Re: Re: Re: Not worth it

Originally posted by Flowbee
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
Click to expand...

but the article also says that people spent 3:48 on average on apple's site as opposed to 11:55 for the industry average. Now, that could be because apple's site is much easier to use than the others, or because people take one look and run away. Besides, site traffic doesn't mean much in and of itself.
 
not downloads

Correct me if I am wrong, but the .79 is for a "CD burn" you can play in an audio CD player. Not a download you can load into jukebox type software, a portable mp3 player or share on a local network, etc.

From Listen.com's website:


"9. Can I get downloads in RHAPSODY?
No. RHAPSODY is an on-demand streaming service. This means you don't have to wait for downloads to listen to CD-quality music. Once you've used it for a while, you may never want to download a music file again. If you want to take your music with you, we offer CD burning for an additional fee per track, when you are subscribed to the All Access subscription plan at $9.95 per month.

If you're looking for portability beyond the CD player, stay tuned, because we are working on bringing RHAPSODY to wireless and net-attached consumer electronic devices in the near future."

Sure, you can burn the CD, then rip it to mp3, but this is rather inconvenient to say the least and I'm not sure that CDDB would pick up the track names and info using this method, meaning you'd have to manually enter stuff.

Also, I did not note any prices for whole albums. Anything more than 12 songs per album and you will pay more than the albums on iTMS (many of which are $10, including ones with 20 or more songs).
 
The 79 cents a track is definitely misleading. As others have pointed out, thats how much you pay to burn it to a CD (and every time you burn it, as far as I can tell from the documentation). And when you eventually cancel your subscription, those burned CDs are all you will have. I suppose you can rip the CDs back to your computer, IF they haven't figured out a way for the DRM to exist on the audio CD.
 
I'm not worried.

This is almost exactly what Rhapsody used to be!

The 79 cent downloads can't be played on your computer, and it looks like you can only burn them once! :rolleyes:

It's almost useless compared to the iTMS! With iTunes, I can burn unlimited CDs (just shuffle those songs every now and then) and pack my iPod full of high-quality audio.

What Real isn't thinking about is the fact that a lot of people don't burn CDs, they have these crazy things called "MP3 Players." :rolleyes:

As for Rhapsody's quality and format, the only clue I've found is "CD Quality." Sounds like mp3 or Windows Media to me.


By the time Apple enters the PC market with iTMS, Rhapsody may already be on its way out. Even if it isn't, I think I'll trust Apple to point out not just the fact that the iTMS is better, but that it's way better. ;)
 
I bet that Rhapsody does what Apple does as far as reripping a CD. They make it so that it won't come out right the second time. There are too many question that come with this service and it binds you. The iTMS is still king of the hill.

P-Worm
 
real pain in the butt.

yes i would love to pay 9.95 a month to look at annoying advertising and disgusting yellow and green color combinations using an awkward interface rather than use iTMS. riiiiight. it still comes back to the subscription. i cant stand that.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not worth it

Originally posted by QCassidy352
but the article also says that people spent 3:48 on average on apple's site as opposed to 11:55 for the industry average. Now, that could be because apple's site is much easier to use than the others, or because people take one look and run away. Besides, site traffic doesn't mean much in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I referenced the article only to make the point that it's too early to say that the iTMS is failing to sell more Macs, as someone stated earlier. I think it's reasonable to assume that increased traffic to Apple's website will result in increased hardware sales (though certainly not proportionally).

As for the time difference, one explanation may be that Apple's computers have far less custom configuration options than most other manufacturers. I think people spend a lot of time pricing lots of different configurations on the other sites.
 
A few things I noticed about the press release:

* it's not an out of the blue idea by Real but an acquisition of an existing service (listen.com)
* it's not (yet) up-and-running (that is as 'Real Rhapsody')

So from this perspective the news seems less 'scary'.

Btw. I saw some comments on why the Windows-version wasn't already around. The reason seems obvious to me. The 'Big 5' would first 'test' the working of the iMTS model on a restricted target audience, before making the big leap, internationally and cross platform.
 
Re: Re: Re: Not worth it

Originally posted by RHutch
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. ;)
Click to expand...
I like how you glossed over the 1st paragraph as if I had not even written it... :rolleyes:

I will try to refrain from multiple topics/examples in 1 post...
 
Doesn't hold a candle to Emusic (but then, neither does the ITMS...)

It's not really an option for people who only listen to major label content, but Emusic is still the best deal for the non-mainstream listener. All-you-can-eat 192K VBR MP3s with no DRM, for $9.95 a month. Nothing other (legal) option comes close.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not worth it

Originally posted by QCassidy352
but the article also says that people spent 3:48 on average on apple's site as opposed to 11:55 for the industry average. Now, that could be because apple's site is much easier to use than the others, or because people take one look and run away. Besides, site traffic doesn't mean much in and of itself.
Click to expand...
lol :)

Or maybe the Windows guys thought; "this sounds cool... hmm... Mac only... (clicks over to apple store) still too pricey!!! (clicks over to CNN or whatever)..." :rolleyes:

Who knows. Website statistics are about as ambiguous as this:

"76% of all statistics are made up."
 
Originally posted by RHutch
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.
Click to expand...
i dont understand it either. im sure most of those people who code at apple know how to code for a x86 platform. apple also makes quicktime, appleworks, filemaker, .mac utilities all for windows, they have people who can do the job.

iJon
 
how about unlimited streaming w/.Mac?

I agree that Real's downloading restrictions discussed here seem to be a particularly unappealing aspect of the service. I also agree with arn that the "no commitment" aspect of Apple's service is a big plus.

But I still also wouldn't mind seeing an unlimited streaming option through iTMS. First of all, it's a great way to preview music before buying it. 30 second snippets aren't really that useful for determining whether you like a song or not -- let alone a whole album. If, say, I were to hear about a new band, it would be great to be able to listen to their album over and over again (even in fairly restricted situations, i.e. only through my computer with a broadband connection), before deciding whether to buy the whole album or just the single or nothing at all. (In a way, this approach also offers a "no commitment" benefit -- try out a song or a band all you want before buying it and then get broader usage rights if you do.)

Also, access to unlimited streaming is a great way to occasionally revisit music you wouldn't necessarily want to own. There's been many a day when I've had an irrational hankering to hear, let's say, Motorhead's "Ace of Spades" or Def Lepard's "Rocket" or even a little Gorky Park (anyone remember them?), simply for nostalgia's sake -- not stuff I'd ever want to own or load up on an iPod. Wouldn't it be great to have instant access to a massive music collection of stuff you don't necessarily want to cart around on your harddrive for the rest of your life?

Real's 10 bucks a month might be a bit steep for this, but it's not an approach without merit. I think Apple could either offer a flat rate monthly unlimited streaming plan with discounted downloads (in addition to the no-commitment .99/song approach) -- OR BETTER YET, include access to unlimited streaming at the iTunes Music Store as another benefit to subscribing to a .Mac account.
 
the question is will Windows users wait to iTunes for Windows which will be released God knows when or would they use Rhapsody which is currently available now?
 
Originally posted by noel4r
the question is will Windows users wait to iTunes for Windows which will be released God knows when or would they use Rhapsody which is currently available now?
Click to expand...

I think even Windows users will understand the advantages of the iTMS over Rhapsody. :p

Rhapsody is basically the same business model that has failed to catch on with Windows users... only with a slightly lower disc burning charge. Big whoop.
 
Originally posted by noel4r
the question is will Windows users wait to iTunes for Windows which will be released God knows when or would they use Rhapsody which is currently available now?
Click to expand...

Rhapsody has been available to windows users even before the iTunes music store. It was one of those examples of "how not to do it" in steve jobs example.

It is subscription based streaming. Stop paying 10$ a month, and all your music is gone. You can't listen to the music when you are offline, or on your portable music player.

You can burn the music to overcome these disadvantages, but each time you burn it is .79$. They are not unlimited burns, just 1, every track, every burn.

The only thing that changed with before is that an unsuccessfull music-service lowers their prices a little bit, and gets involved with Real network. Neither are enough to really compete with iTunes Music Store.
 
Missing points...

Originally posted by yzedf
I like how you glossed over the 1st paragraph as if I had not even written it... :rolleyes:

I will try to refrain from multiple topics/examples in 1 post...
Click to expand...

I guess I glossed over it because I didn't think there was much there worth responding to and that what I had written would cover it. But if you insist,...

1) You have no idea how much time will have passed between the introduction of this service from Real and the iTMS for Windows, so your "4-6 month" assertion doesn't really mean anything.

2) You really think that it is so important for people to be able to have custom radio stations that they will be willing to pay $9.95 per month for them?! There is so much talk here about the rights/ability to burn the songs. I think people are way more concerned about getting something that they can hold onto forever. I don't see custom radio being a clincher at all. Would you pay $10 a month for custom radio? Maybe some people will, but I just don't see it being what makes this service superior to iTMS. I would much rather buy they music, arrange it however I like, and own it forever.

3) Being used to something for, as you claim, 4-6 months does not mean that people will stick with it. If they see a superior service or get tired of paying for music that they can't keep, I don't think that a year would matter.

Did I miss anything this time?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not worth it

Originally posted by yzedf

Who knows. Website statistics are about as ambiguous as this:

"76% of all statistics are made up."
Click to expand...

82% of all people know that :D
 
Everyone please WAKE UP!

This is a competitiion between Apple and Microsoft. Not Apple against Real Networks.

This new service from Real is exactly the same as Press Play. There even the same price! Go to Press Play's about service area . Look at at the Unlimited Plus offering. Its $17.95 a month. This includes unlimited streams and 10 burnable songs per month. That would be the same price as Real ($9.95 + 10 songs @ .79 = $17.85). A little different way of doing it but basically the same.

All of these services us Microsofts DRM technology. Microsoft is all for subscription and only subscription. Cnet article from the other day.Cnet

Usher (Microsoft) said the company's DRM technology is flexible enough to be used in numerous music schemes, including $1 download stores like Apple's. He added that he's confident consumers eventually will warm up to subscription services once they support wider copying rights and their value is better understood.
Click to expand...

Now one likes Press Play and they won't like Real. Subscriptions for music will not work.

Now for the people saying Apple is too late because itunes for windows isn't out. Apple doesn't have competition right now and won't for the forseeable future. Why?

1. Everyone else is working of Microsoft's technology. This is not warming up to consumers as Press Play's poor success has proven.

2. Why do you like itunes/apple music store? Because the interface is good, downloading and buying songs is easy, and you get to do what you want with that song (burn it, transfer to ipod, leave on computer, etc).

The only thing Apple doesn't have is mp3 players, other than the ipod, supporting AAC. Once this happens Apple wins! This is a huge gamble for Apple but it looks very promising.

So, in short, Apple is trying to get companies to go with AAC. If they don't and they stay with Microsoft's DRM technology, consumers won't buy from the Apple store because they can't play it on there Jukebox/Zen/Achros player.

Do you see it clearly now?
 
Potential switchers?

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
Read the forums from the yahoo article...Most of the reply are from window users...And many want the ITMS!:

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?...5&sid=37138445&tid=afpusinternetmusic&start=1
Click to expand...

I just read every one of the posts on the board quoted above. The people posting there seem excited about the iTMS, for Windows or otherwise. They also seem down on the RealNetworks model--not wanting to spend $120 and have no music to show for it at the end of 1 year--except for the ones that they had to pay AN ADDITIONAL $0.79 to burn each time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back