View Full Version : Realnetwork to sell ipod compatible songs.
Quagmire
2004-07-25, 23:08
Of course after Jobs said no, Real is still going to due it!!! I smell a lawsuit a brewing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/26/technology/26real.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1090814666-tCB/JmrKGAJYNf1e02Hm5A
InactionMan
2004-07-25, 23:15
It's good for Real, good for Apple and good for customers. I hope Apple doesn't get all pissy about this. Besides, their focus should be on maintaining market dominance with the iPod, not iTMS. If Real is promoting it as something to use with the iPod then who cares?
Messiahtosh
2004-07-25, 23:22
Apple cares, Steve wants iTunes to be the catalyst for the iPod, not some other store. It's not good press to have another cheap brand driving sales of a prestigious brand.
But then again, we dont want this to be the mid 1980's all over again. :(
But Josh Bernoff, an analyst with Forrester Research, said that RealNetworks used a technique known as reverse engineering - observing how Apple's software behaved as it encoded songs to be loaded onto iPods.
Whoaaaa!
Reverse engineering is one of the items that's always listed as a major no-no in EULAs for commercial products. Indeed, Apple should easily be able to fight that one if Steve and company so desired.
I don't think any people are holding off buying an iPod because it wasn't open to Real's format, so this probably won't have much of an effect on anything.
My gut feeling is that this is a good thing. Other than Wolpert yacking about openness and choice, Real has had a pretty good track record lately.
Whoaaaa!
Reverse engineering is one of the items that's always listed as a major no-no in EULAs for commercial products. Indeed, Apple should easily be able to fight that one if Steve and company so desired.
It depends on the interpretation. FairPlay is a copy-protection scheme. You can't patent the concept of a copy-protection scheme. If Real's implementation doesn't steal code from Apple, then there's nothing Apple can do other than update the iPod software...
US courts have been kind to the defendants in these kinds of cases.
InactionMan
2004-07-25, 23:33
At the very least, it'll guarantee a ton more press for iTMS/iPod. I have no doubt that Apple could shut this down if they felt so inclined, I just don't think it would be good idea for Steve to put on his sucky pant and take his ball and go home.
Wasn't the PC industry as it currently stand the result of Compaq doing the reverse engineering thing to IBM? This digital music thing is fast becoming a repeat of the of the early days and I'm afraid, Messiahtosh, that it will be the 1980's all over again.
Messiahtosh
2004-07-25, 23:48
From the MacRumors forums, this guy makes sense to me.
mullmann
macrumors member
Funny how the only company with any integrity in this whole business is Apple. Regardless of what one thinks about their decision to (try to) keep iPod/iTunes a closed platform, they've at least been consistently up-front about why they want to do that: it moves the merchandise. And their results have proven that out. Glaser at RealNetworks is running his mouth about Harmony being all about "user choice," and amazingly the consumer groups are eating it up. But there's nothing altruistic here: it's really all about Glaser trying to prop up the fortunes of his own lagging, also-ran music store. The majority of the populace doesn't care about the music store, they care about the music player. In that regard, they have a ton of choices available, and they're making theirs in droves: the iPod. Glaser's got the tail wagging the dog. And why aren't any of these people busy noticing that all this "consumer choice" is really just saying let's lock everyone into Microsoft's format? There's a world of downside to that outcome that Glaser and others just pretend doesn't exist.
Wasn't the PC industry as it currently stand the result of Compaq doing the reverse engineering thing to IBM? This digital music thing is fast becoming a repeat of the of the early days and I'm afraid, Messiahtosh, that it will be the 1980's all over again.
I was going to mention Compaq vs IBM. but I was afraid it might stir a mighty legal debate among a bunch of non-lawyers. This could force Apple to go ahead and license FairPlay to other music services. It could help promote AAC, Apple and the iPod even further. Who knows...
And why aren't any of these people busy noticing that all this "consumer choice" is really just saying let's lock everyone into Microsoft's format? There's a world of downside to that outcome that Glaser and others just pretend doesn't exist.
I fail to see how this is a good thing for Windows. The WM compatibility is great for them, but it's a drop in the pond. On the other hand the iPod compatibility might do a lot for the AAC format and Apple.
Does anyone else notice the irony that an anti-piracy system could be infringing "intellectual property" law?
InactionMan
2004-07-26, 06:24
The article says Real will license the Harmony software, does that mean other music stores or other hardware manufacturers?
Depends how much they want to piss Apple off.
If only a little, just music stores. If they want to f*ck with Steve, hardware.
thegelding
2004-07-26, 09:26
ehhh, if apple wants to they add one line of code to fairplay and break harmony from using it...
then harmony changes,
then fairplay
etc etc
now the questions are:
will people with iPods buy from real...and will they buy from real if apple might make those songs "non-playable" with changes to fairplay
and, why buy from real? do they have more songs? different songs?? than the iTMS
g
PXLpainter
2004-07-26, 21:43
All I can say is if the media that Real would be distributing is even partially as poor in quality as their streaming media, they will be hard pressed to sell any to iPod owners anyway!
My major holdup on buying an iPod has been the price. But since I don't NEED a 40GB iPod, I can pick up a smaller one for a song! ;) (yeah - bad pun intended!)
I just downloaded it and the here are my initial findings: This shit don't work.
Okay, to elaborate...
1) Downloaded the RealPlayer 10.5 Beta.
2) Updated my old 2G iPod with the latest Windows software updater.
3) Bought a song from the Real Music Store... "They" by Jem.
4) Installed the iPod through RealPlayer's "Add Device" interface.
5) Added file to iPod
6) Attempted to play on iPod...It displays the progress bar and song selection for a while and then spits right back to the menu.
Maybe it's the 2G iPod? Maybe Harmony needs more work?
This is a Get Info window from iTunes.
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ceugene/adm/real/realharmony1.png
There's no way to retrieve the right key for your RealMS purchases so you can't yet play the music in iTunes...
BuonRotto
2004-07-27, 08:13
3) ought a song from the Real Music Store... "They" by Jem.
Dude, that was a free download on iTunes a few weeks ago! ;)
Dude, that was a free download on iTunes a few weeks ago! ;)
Yeah, but it has some bass beats + lips smacking + echo + other little things that make it an interesting song for a listening test. The 192 kbps RealMS sample sounded slighlty better than the 128 kbps iTMS version, IMO. Enough to care? Not really, maybe just a little bit.
Harmony works with my 3G iPod.
Messiahtosh
2004-07-27, 14:59
I think it's BS that you think you can hear a difference between the Real file at 192 and the AAC at 128. Ridiculous. :rolleyes:
Don't tell me anything about audiophile this or that, it's BS. Don't get all blue faced and crusader on me, I don't want to hear any of that audio quality debate. Nobody can tell the difference, I'd even say that if you were tested and someone said, "ok, here's the CD" but they played the AAC, you wouldnt know.
I think it's BS that you think you can hear a difference between the Real file at 192 and the AAC at 128. Ridiculous. :rolleyes:
Don't tell me anything about audiophile this or that, it's BS. Don't get all blue faced and crusader on me, I don't want to hear any of that audio quality debate. Nobody can tell the difference, I'd even say that if you were tested and someone said, "ok, here's the CD" but they played the AAC, you wouldnt know.
Not true at all. You my friend are suffering from inferior speakers or inferior ears. Now I will agree that it would be hard to tell 128 AAC from 192 AAC, but that is a 150% increase.
CD and 128 AAC wouldn't be hard. I'd have trouble with 128 and 192 though. Get some decent speakers or pick up a pair of E5's (http://www.shure.com/psm/earphones/default.asp) and you'll ear parts of music you haven't heard before.
That is what companies like Clair Brothers use and give to performers so they can hear themselves...it makes a difference.
I thought Real were using mpeg4 was the base technology for their video/audio stuff these days (just like Apple)... so all other things being equal, of course a 192Kbps Real encoding is better than a 128Kbps Apple encoding.
Unless there's something else going on. I could well be wrong.
I think it's BS that you think you can hear a difference between the Real file at 192 and the AAC at 128. Ridiculous. :rolleyes:
Don't tell me anything about audiophile this or that, it's BS. Don't get all blue faced and crusader on me, I don't want to hear any of that audio quality debate. Nobody can tell the difference, I'd even say that if you were tested and someone said, "ok, here's the CD" but they played the AAC, you wouldnt know.
I'd like to apologise. I'm so very, very sorry that you are just plain wrong. :(
applenut
2004-07-27, 22:43
I think it's BS that you think you can hear a difference between the Real file at 192 and the AAC at 128. Ridiculous. :rolleyes:
Don't tell me anything about audiophile this or that, it's BS. Don't get all blue faced and crusader on me, I don't want to hear any of that audio quality debate. Nobody can tell the difference, I'd even say that if you were tested and someone said, "ok, here's the CD" but they played the AAC, you wouldnt know.
what kind of response do you honestly expect to receive from an ignorant post like that?
pats on the back and go Nittany Lions chants? :rolleyes:
Just because YOU can't hear it doesn't mean it's not there.
Not blue-faced. Not crusader. Just the truth.
AIFF encoded .movs of a song purchased from the RealMS and the iTMS. Knock the volume down a tiny bit on the first file. If you have QuickTime Pro you can play both movies at the same time by selecting "Play All Movies" from the Movie menu. In the preferences, turn on the option to only have sound in the frontmost player window. Use tab to switch between windows.
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ceugene/adm/flaminglips1.mov
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ceugene/adm/flaminglips2.mov
Which one sounds better to you? Only those with headphones need apply.
Eugene, you need to save that first one again. It's claiming to need data from another AIFF file as if it wasn't properly flattened.
Eugene, you need to save that first one again. It's claiming to need data from another AIFF file as if it wasn't properly flattened.
Fixed. Funny thing... on my PC (Creative SB Audigy 2) the two clips are less distinguishable than when played on my Mac (M-Audio Revolution 7.1). Maybe Messiahtosh is right and I am insane!
#1 sounds better to my non-audiophile ears. Crisper highs and less-crushed lows.
Messiahtosh
2004-07-28, 08:31
The difference between 128 AAC and 192 anything is so very minimal. I am a music lover and I have a great ear, but telling the difference out of a $1k sony surround sound system or Apple earbuds is pretty hard to do...at least that's what I think.
EDIT: It seems that most people agree with me now, actually. :\ Test yourself like Eugene did, maybe you'll be surprised by how hard quality is to decipher, at such slight bit rate differences.
If by "most people" you mean "nobody," then yes...most people agreed with you. I never said the differences were egregious, but they were definitely noticeable. Test yourself with the "Do You Realize?" snippets I made.
EDIT: It seems that most people agree with me now, actually. :|
Messiahtosh
2004-07-28, 13:05
I say again, put in a CD, then play an AAC. Listen to them with $50 headphones and try to tell the difference. Most people do not have high end audio equipment, in fact, most people use their stock speakers and headphones. AAC fits Apple's market tremendously. I would still maintain that it is extrememly hard to tell any difference in quality from 128 AAC to 192 anything.
I say again, put in a CD, then play an AAC. Listen to them with $50 headphones and try to tell the difference. Most people do not have high end audio equipment, in fact, most people use their stock speakers and headphones. AAC fits Apple's market tremendously. I would still maintain that it is extrememly hard to tell any difference in quality from 128 AAC to 192 anything.
Does a pair of $60 headphones count? Extremely hard? That's a big difference from "Nobody can tell the difference." Did you listen to the clips? Quit beating around the bush. Do they sound the same to you or not?
JesusGod. OK, I don't pretend to be an audiophile, yet I have a pair of ~$100 headphones. I'm sure most people that are in front of their computer most of the day don't rely on a pair of fucking earbuds.
I also think I have a very good set of ears as well. So...Eugene...can we see what was behind doors 1 & 2 yet?
Update: I just realised I had this FL album ripped (I didn't think I'd gotten to it for some odd reason) and in 320 AAC it sounds *tons* better than either of Eugene's links. That's only ~100+ or so more than 192...so it should be negligable, or at most 'a smidge better'...right? Go figure.
I also think I have a very good set of ears as well. So...Eugene...can we see what was behind doors 1 & 2 yet?
Oh well, I was hoping for more than one reply before I spilled the beans. flaminglips1.mov is from the 192 kbps Real file. flaminglips2.mov is from the 128 kbps iTunesMS file.
#1 sounds better to my non-audiophile ears. Crisper highs and less-crushed lows.
I rule. Suck my wax-filled ears Messiahtosh. :p
applenut
2004-07-28, 22:11
Oh well, I was hoping for more than one reply before I spilled the beans. flaminglips1.mov is from the 192 kbps Real file. flaminglips2.mov is from the 128 kbps iTunesMS file.
i could tell the difference on my powerbook speakers for christ's sake
Messiahtosh
2004-07-28, 22:28
i could tell the difference on my powerbook speakers for christ's sakemmk
Messiahtosh
2004-07-28, 22:34
I'll think of it this way: if I cant tell the difference between the quality, i'm better off for it...at least my bank account balance is.
:p
http://www.pete-online.us/Images/EatCrow.jpg
:lol:
Messiahtosh
2004-07-28, 22:41
I said I couldnt tell the difference, so why should I eat you? I use the PowerBook's speakers and my earbuds for my 4G 20 GB iPod.
I think it's BS that you think you can hear a difference between the Real file at 192 and the AAC at 128. Ridiculous. :rolleyes:
Don't tell me anything about audiophile this or that, it's BS. Don't get all blue faced and crusader on me, I don't want to hear any of that audio quality debate. Nobody can tell the difference, I'd even say that if you were tested and someone said, "ok, here's the CD" but they played the AAC, you wouldnt know.
The difference between 128 AAC and 192 anything is so very minimal. I am a music lover and I have a great ear, but telling the difference out of a $1k sony surround sound system or Apple earbuds is pretty hard to do...at least that's what I think.
I say again, put in a CD, then play an AAC. Listen to them with $50 headphones and try to tell the difference. Most people do not have high end audio equipment, in fact, most people use their stock speakers and headphones. AAC fits Apple's market tremendously. I would still maintain that it is extrememly hard to tell any difference in quality from 128 AAC to 192 anything.
mmmmk. Definitely relying on your own personal experience. Yeah. Your posts reflect that as well. Thanks for not bringing us into your narrow little world.
onlyafterdark
2004-07-28, 23:37
This could really start heating up soon. Now Real might license Harmony to others.
http://www.macminute.com/2004/07/29/real
Whoops. Nice going Mr. Glaser, poke the Tiger (http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/) with a short stick.
I predict a C&D before the end of business hours Friday.
Screed
Messiahtosh
2004-07-29, 00:51
mmmmk. Definitely relying on your own personal experience. Yeah. Your posts reflect that as well. Thanks for not bringing us into your narrow little world.Narrow little world, right.
I'll think of it this way: if I cant tell the difference between the quality, i'm better off for it...at least my bank account balance is.
:pYeah, you're probably are better off. Speaking as someone who can tell The Difference, it's annoying to always be aware of the deficiencies in what you're hearing. :\
Back on topic. Real Networks to sell iPod compatible songs? Not for long (http://www.macminute.com/2004/07/29/harmony).
We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA and other laws. We strongly caution Real and their customers that when we update our iPod software from time to time it is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future iPods.
DRM is a contaminant, and it's contaminated Apple's music division with a culture of ugly duplicity.
- Barto
Merovingian
2004-07-29, 08:20
Back on topic. Real Networks to sell iPod compatible songs? Not for long (http://www.macminute.com/2004/07/29/harmony)
Interesting. :|
I never thought the RealNetworks iPod songs thingo would succeed anyway. If one buys an iPod, they automatically get iTunes, so they can transfer any music to the iPod. Hence, the easiest way to get any on-line purchased music onto the darn thing, is via the iTMS. Why would one go through another store et cetera and transfer the song over to iTunes manually? :o
This whole thing reminds me of Dell's recent "$100 off a Dell Music DJ for trading your iPod in". It's probably all about marketing. Real gets the publicity it needs, and so forth.
That's my $0.02 anyway. m.
Well there is choice, Real's store has a slightly different choice of songs. There is also that Real's store has higher quality songs (192Kbps).
More importantly, in the long term competition is vital in a market economy. A future where you have to buy music from Apple because Apple keeps other formats incompatible would not be a pleasant one. Prices would go up, restrictions on tracks would go up.
Of course, without DRM, none of this would have occurred.
Of course, without DRM, none of this would have occurred.
Without DRM, the iTMS would not have occurred. The recording industry is not about to throw in the towel and just relent to the p2p networks. At least it's not about to do that until it finds another way to generate revenue in anticipation of the future. This bunch is probably having nightmares about the impending doom of the pre-recorded music sales strategy.
In the end, 100+ million downloads say consumers can live with DRM, lossy encoding, and dollar-per-song pricing. The consumers control their own destiny.
The recording industry are f***ing morons. DRM devalues authorised distribution of creative works, effectively promoting piracy. iTMS would not have happened without DRM, true. Did I blame Apple for DRM? No. I blame DRM for corrupting Apple.
I don't claim to know a way out of mess that is the misuse and abuse intellectual property either. But Apple's absurd and arrogant statement is certainly worthy of discussion.
Barto
:err: Barto, apparently we see things differently. (Not about the industry: stupid and greedy). What would be your alternative to DRM, the honor system? (No, seriously, no sniping). How would you prevent a track from being propogated infinitely throughput a p2p network?
Meanwhile, RealNetworks swipes back (http://www.macminute.com/2004/07/29/realnetworks):
RealNetworks has now responded to Apple's statement on its Harmony technology, which allows songs purchased from Real's online music store to be played on iPods. Real says that "consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod." The company goes on to say: "Apple has suggested that new laws such as the DMCA are relevant to this dispute. In fact, the DMCA is not designed to prevent the creation of new methods of locking content and explicitly allows the creation of interoperable software. We remain fully committed to Harmony and to giving millions of consumers who own portable music devices, including the Apple iPod, choice and compatibility."
"Harmony follows in a well-established tradition of fully legal, independently developed paths to achieve compatibility," Real says. "There is ample and clear precedent for this activity, for instance the first IBM compatible PCs from Compaq. Harmony creates a way to lock content from Real's music store in a way that is compatible with the iPod, Windows Media DRM devices, and Helix DRM devices. Harmony technology does not remove or disable any digital rights management system."
Screed
The recording industry are f***ing morons. DRM devalues authorised distribution of creative works, effectively promoting piracy. iTMS would not have happened without DRM, true. Did I blame Apple for DRM? No. I blame DRM for corrupting Apple.
DRM only "devalues authorised distribution of creative works" that artists choose to subject to DRM. If an artist wants to distribute his work in DRM-less format, he has the freedom to do so. He has the freedom to sign with a more idealistic independent label. He can choose NOT enable his career through the iTMS.
Apple is clearly providing the public what it wants. When the public decides it wants something else, the iTMS will either wither or adapt. I am fine with that.
DRM doesn't stop pirates, it only stops users.
Angry mode ON: DRM IS NO GOOD FOR APPLE, FOR USERS, THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT ARE THE SCAMMERS WHO SELL THE TECHNOLOGY! IT IS A SCAM!
Eugene, that's 19th centuary capitalism: an unwavering belief that the market is always right. If iTunes Music Store doesn't die a deserved death (or loses the DRM), the market has failed to kill a product that in the long run hurts society.
Mass Appeal
2004-07-29, 22:19
If anyone can hear a difference between those two tracks they haven't been to enough live shows. Once my ears rang for a day and a half after seeing Suicidal Tendencies play.
applenut
2004-07-30, 00:42
If anyone can hear a difference between those two tracks they haven't been to enough live shows. Once my ears rang for a day and a half after seeing Suicidal Tendencies play.
been to hundreds of shows and can hear the difference very easily.
DRM doesn't stop pirates, it only stops users.
Angry mode ON: DRM IS NO GOOD FOR APPLE, FOR USERS, THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT ARE THE SCAMMERS WHO SELL THE TECHNOLOGY! IT IS A SCAM!
Eugene, that's 19th centuary capitalism: an unwavering belief that the market is always right. If iTunes Music Store doesn't die a deserved death (or loses the DRM), the market has failed to kill a product that in the long run hurts society.
I'm sorry, but I'm only seeing Utopian blather about "there shouldn't any walls, man, because walls are a negative."
Please specify an alternative. Hypothetic: I'm a musician. I want a career in music, but I'm not interested in a contract (if I could manage to get one) because it may limit me creatively. So I've written, recorded and produced an "albums" worth of songs (which can be quite costly).
Now, how do I sell my material without it being copied and spread throughout the whole of the Internet?
Go.
Screed
Eugene, that's 19th centuary capitalism: an unwavering belief that the market is always right. If iTunes Music Store doesn't die a deserved death (or loses the DRM), the market has failed to kill a product that in the long run hurts society.
If society cares, then that's where the real hurting is. How can it hurt us if it's so easily defeatable?
I never said DRM defeats piracy. What it does do is stretch the industry as far as it's willing to go at this time. That's better than sitting in a room shaking one's fist at DRM, proclaiming it to be more evil than it actually is.
I'm not sure I'm the one living in the wrong century here...or on the wrong planet. The DRM'd legal music downloads are a better start than none.
Listeners "in the know" will download your tracks, crack them and use them how they want. Some of these users will upload the tracks to P2P networks.
Listeners not "in the know" will download your tracks and face limits to how they can use them. For example, number of computers allowed to play the track, number of CDs burnt and so on. The lighter the DRM is, the less bad it is, but at no point does DRM stop being bad and start being good for users.
Pirates will download your tracks from listeners "in the know".
So, you've pissed off (strongly or mildly, depending on the DRM) the listeners of your music and the pirates still pirate it. And please tell me you don't believe there is a way to sell ones and zeros without it being copied and spread throughout the whole internet: there is no way to stop this. You just have to get enough listeners to buy your ones and zeros, you cannot force listeners to do so.
Eugene, I agree with 90% of your post (obviously not the unsupported argument that DRM isn't that bad - show me one case where DRM has worked well - you can't use iTunes as an example because Apple has obviously decided to use DRM to abuse it's market position).
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.