News

RealNetworks: Apple, Microsoft Using the Wrong Model

Friday, July 28th, 2006 at 9:25 AM - by

Apple's iPod+iTunes and Microsoft's new Zune products follow the wrong business model, according to RealNetwork's CEO Rob Glasier. During the company's quarterly earnings conference call, he said that Microsoft's decision to follow Apple's lead and develop a closed media player and content download service was an over reaction, and provides a new opportunity for the Rhapsody music service.

Mr. Glasier commented "We think this is a case where our technology competitors have literally thrown the baby out with the bath water. Microsoft's decision to join Apple and the vertical camp provides as a great opportunity to partner with other companies who are open to it and agree with our Rhapsody software."

RealNetworks' Rhapsody is an Internet-based music subscription service that supports several different portable digital music players. In comparison, Apple sells individual songs at its iTunes Music Store instead of requiring customers to pay monthly fees to be able to continue to listen to the music they download. Songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store use a copy protection scheme that only works on the iPod. Microsoft's Zune players and service will likely be closed, just like Apple's.

Prior to the announcement of the Zune product line, Microsoft licensed its software and technology to MP3 player manufacturers instead of producing its own products. With the introduction of Zune, however, many of these partners feel snubbed, and RealNetworks hopes to lure them to its Rhapsody service.

"We think a lot of consumers will want Rhapsody," Mr. Glasier says, "Because it gives them the best way to get more of the music they love."

24 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

+ show options

Your current settings, click to change: Sort Oldest First, Show Guest Posts, Hide Community Stats

Small White Car said:

member since 02 Jul 2004 with 1937 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:03 am

On the one hand, he's right...he'll probably get a lot of 'Play for Sure' partners to come join his camp.

On the other hand, they'll all lose lots of money as Microsoft eats up the remaining market that Apple doesn't already own.

So...uh...while he's CORRECT, they're still not going to make any MONEY.

Quote this post ↓

Mikuro said:

member since 15 Jun 2002 with 444 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:25 am

When has RealNetworks ever produced anything that wasn't crap? Seriously, RealPlayer is possibly the most hated cross-platform program. Mac users hate it. Windows users hate it even more. Linux users hate it most of all.

I think most computer geeks will avoud Rhapsody merely out of hatred for RealNetworks, no matter what they do. And I really wonder if such a service can survive without geeks backing it.

And there's no such thing as open DRM. I'm so tired of this rhetoric.

Quote this post ↓

bryson said:

member since 05 Mar 2002 with 79 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:27 am

I suppose the correct model would be one that on includes his unnecessary company.

When in a CEO's life comes the point where they think their company has an inherent right to exist?

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:11 am

Quote
Mikuro wrote:
When has RealNetworks ever produced anything that wasn't crap? Seriously, RealPlayer is possibly the most hated cross-platform program. Mac users hate it. Windows users hate it even more. Linux users hate it most of all.

With apologies to Smokey Robinson, "I second That Emotion", that is one crappy player.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:20 am

Yea sure, donut boy. That's why Apple's iTunes has 80% of the market share and you have maybe 1%. Okay, Apple has the wrong market, yea sure. Closed format? How? Yours works on PC's and what else? iTunes works on Macs and PC's. Can you make a CD with Rhapsody? No, unless you want to pay extra. Can you make a CD with iTunes? Yes and you can make several more if you like and it doesn't cost a penny more except of course for the blank CD. Rhapsody you have to pay every month just to access your music. iTunes you pay for the song or album you buy just once and you can play it anywhere at anytime. Rhapsody you better check in or your account will cancel and your music will go bye,bye. iTunes if you don't want to buy anymore music for the next year it doesn't matter you will still have and be able to play what you already bought with no problems. Yea donut boy it's a really closed system, moron!

Quote this post ↓

Biff said:

member since 08 Apr 2004 with 1479 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:32 pm

Quote
Small White Car wrote:
On the one hand, he's right...he'll probably get a lot of 'Play for Sure' partners to come join his camp.

On the other hand, they'll all lose lots of money as Microsoft eats up the remaining market that Apple doesn't already own.

So...uh...while he's CORRECT, they're still not going to make any MONEY.

Well said!

Quote this post ↓

dhp said:

member since 22 May 2003 with 176 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:36 pm

Important journalistic tip: When you write an article about someone, spell his name correctly. G-L-A-S-E-R.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:47 pm

Quote
Mikuro wrote:
When has RealNetworks ever produced anything that wasn't crap? Seriously, RealPlayer is possibly the most hated cross-platform program. Mac users hate it. Windows users hate it even more. Linux users hate it most of all.

I agree 100% with this and the previous Guest who also agreed. As I'm sure many, many others out there also agree. RealNetworks' player sucks so bad, I can't express my disdain strongly enough.

Just yesterday I wanted to listen to something from NPR (or maybe it was some NPR associated site). Anyway, the link was a stupid .ra file. I reluctantly tried to listen to it. Not only is the RN Player's interface (on OS X) fugly, but the whole application is poorly designed and coded. I listened to part of the audio stream, but got distracted for a minute with something else. I then tried to go back to the approximate location where I had missed what had been said and the stupid player got into a loop where it kept trying to download (and re-download and re-download) the same stream without actually playing anything. I gave up. As a software engineer, I can categorically say this is bad on so many levels it's not even worth discussing. For a (supposedly) release 10 version of a player to exhibit this kind of behavior is pathetic. I truly despise RN and the garbage they foist upon unsuspecting consumers who might actually believe that what RN offers is a viable option for playing media.

I could go on, but it would just be me repeating how much I hate RN and how much I hate companies who have bought into their PR and (attempt to) disseminate media in RN's crap format.

Rob

Quote this post ↓

rpaege said:

member since 16 Dec 2005 with 70 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:04 pm

Well I disagree with Mikuro and the others about Real Player. I happen to like it and I totally resent having someone else speak for me. Blanket statements such as "Mac users hate it..." just piss me off. I use the app fairly regularly, and while it's certainly not the best player I have ever used, it is in no way the worst. In fact, I'm glad they even have a player because without it I would be totally locked out of some content such some streaming sports and music I happen to really like. So please Mikuro and you others who agree with him, speak only for yourselves.

As for guest and his "it's not even worth discussing...." comment, well, I'll take that for what it's worth since he obviously felt strongly enough about it that he commented in a public forum.

I don't hate Real Networks. I think competition is good. I don't like their music rental model and I will never use it, but I'm glad they are around to lob the occasional pot shot over Apple's and Microsoft's bow.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:33 pm

Quote
rpaege wrote:
Well I disagree with Mikuro and the others about Real Player. I happen to like it and I totally resent having someone else speak for me. Blanket statements such as "Mac users hate it..." just piss me off. I use the app fairly regularly, and while it's certainly not the best player I have ever used, it is in no way the worst. In fact, I'm glad they even have a player because without it I would be totally locked out of some content such some streaming sports and music I happen to really like. So please Mikuro and you others who agree with him, speak only for yourselves.

As for guest and his "it's not even worth discussing...." comment, well, I'll take that for what it's worth since he obviously felt strongly enough about it that he commented in a public forum.

I don't hate Real Networks. I think competition is good. I don't like their music rental model and I will never use it, but I'm glad they are around to lob the occasional pot shot over Apple's and Microsoft's bow.

You wouldn't work for Real or something? I just speculating because your handle begins with RP, and your lack of recent posts.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:43 pm

philosophy vs implementation.

i think that its agreed that RN's implementation is crap. End of.

So now on to the meatier topic of subscription philosophy & music provider as a service. I believe that there is definitely a market here, but just as a bin full of foodstuffs is hardly a restaurant that many would pay for neither is RN's subsciption offering. If it were prepared well* then it would be well worth a subscription.

*(that is a well curated, evovling, contemporary, mainstream( and beyond) catalogue, had commentary and extras from interested people who care about the subject, and fostered some sense of community)

Assuming that this could be done (and a viable delivery service) it would position the service not as a head-on/anti-thetic competiton to the iTMS model, but as complementary. Then all it would need is an attractive price model.

hmm... Apple could well do this before Real twigs to the fact there is more complexity in business models than right&wrong.

-- that's my 2 bits (albeit extended, but we'll call that inflation)

Quote this post ↓

Small White Car said:

member since 02 Jul 2004 with 1937 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:35 pm

Quote
rpaege wrote:
I happen to like it and I totally resent having someone else speak for me. Blanket statements such as "Mac users hate it..." just piss me off.

Ok, ok...

"All Windows users and all but one Mac user hate Real Player."

Is that more accurate? It's certainly in line with the people I know. Everyone I know has been so pissed off by Real products in the past we have vowed to never use anything they make again. Yes, I hear the Mac version of Real player is a lot better than the PC one...I hear it's actually usable. But still, no one I know uses it because of all the crap Real Player did to our PCs years ago.

I can't think of a single other company in existance that I've avoided for over 5 years. I'll even go back to a fast food place that served me bad food eventually...but not Real...they crossed the line far too many times with their software and I'll never trust them again. And no, I can't speak for everyone. I can only say that everyone that I know agrees with me. That's not "everyone" but it's telling that I don't know anyone who dissagrees with me on this.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:45 pm

There is no reason for Mac users to be hostile to Real. I'm a huge fan of Apple AND of Rhapsody, which is a terrific stand-alone program (alas, only for XP) and Internet application. It's a great deal at 10 bucks a month. Apple should have a subscription service as well. The RealPlayer is fine and the Real codec is excellent, by the way.

Quote this post ↓

Small White Car said:

member since 02 Jul 2004 with 1937 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:08 pm

Quote
Anonymous wrote:
There is no reason for Mac users to be hostile to Real.

http://jogin.com/weblog/archives/2004/02/29/real_obnoxious

This just scratches the surface. There are links at the bottom of that post that lead into yet more info.

I understand that this is a few years old and it's talking about the Windows version...things are different on the Mac version and probably different on newer versions.

But it's not the details that matter. What all of this shows is that the Real company has never been interested in producing a quality media player...they have ALWAYS been about trying to upsell, cheat, and bully the customer into buying other things, cramming ads and spyware-type things into their programs, and generally taking over the system and doing things without the user's permission.

It's just not worth it.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 971 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:46 pm

In Mr. Rob Glasier's defense, I'd like to see any of you build a crappy music service and muster maybe 1% market share. I'd like to see any of you get yourself quoted in your own press release.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:46 pm

Quote
Guest wrote:
Quote
Mikuro wrote:
When has RealNetworks ever produced anything that wasn't crap? Seriously, RealPlayer is possibly the most hated cross-platform program. Mac users hate it. Windows users hate it even more. Linux users hate it most of all.

With apologies to Smokey Robinson, "I second That Emotion", that is one crappy player.

I third it. I will leave a site that has Real content faster than a rat out of an aqueduct.

Quote this post ↓

Jonkun227 said:

member since 02 Mar 2004 with 238 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:47 pm

As I read the article, and continuing as I read the first few comments, I was thinking to write that I only know of one person in the world who likes Real Networks, Real Player, or Rhapsody. I know him on a professional level, and have never valued his opinion about anything. When we're in a group setting everyone just knows to tune out what he has to say because his ignorance is beyond description, and to try to educate him about anything is just a waste of time. I can't say I feel that way about anyone else; I'm not like that. It's just this one guy. (Normally I look for anything valuable to be learned from anyone, no matter how much I dislike them or what they have to say.) I'm not in any way saying that this is true of all users of RN's products. I'm just saying that he's the only one I've ever met who uses them willingly and I can't take his opinion seriously.

It's interesting now to read about a couple more people who use their stuff. I honestly have been baffled for years at how they are still in business because /virtually/ everyone I know hates their products. And, as mentioned by others, that includes Mac users, Windows users, and Linux users. I've yet to come across any content worth loading their player.

On the other hand, I have read many reviews about the video codec. Many people use it because the compression is so efficient with comparatively minimal destruction. But of all the people I know who utilize that codec, none use the intended player.

It's so funny to hear Rob say that Apple has the wrong business model. Has anyone ever copied anything Real Networks has done? (I'm legitimately asking, not claiming that it hasn't been done.)

- Jon

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:12 pm

Quote
Guest wrote:

I third it. I will leave a site that has Real content faster than a rat out of an aqueduct.

Before you leave the site drop a note to them and let them know why you are leaving.

Quote this post ↓

JonGl said:

member since 12 Jan 2006 with 93 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:43 am

I am slightly surprised at the negative comments re: Real Player. I use it most days to listen to a streamed radio station, and on the rare occasion, video and other things. My only problems are with streaming and network issues. As for performance, unlike iTunes on my old, souped-up Pismo (550mhz G4 thrown in it), it doesn't slow down my whole system when listening to streaming content. As to Real as a company, and their other "services" I have no comment, other than to say that I have no interest in them, and doubt that the majority of people do either. However, _hatred_ for Real??? Hm. Makes me wonder if people have a real life! (pun intended) I mean, to dump a web site because they use Real, and to write them telling them? Isn't that a bit of an over-reaction? I thought so.

the market place will winnow out the losers, and then, where will be for my internet audio? Window Media Player? Honestly, which is worse?

-Jon

Quote this post ↓

metavurt said:

member since 16 Jun 2003 with 163 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Bosco you nimrod - that's like saying, after someone's criticized a movie "I'd like to see you get your mug up on the screen. i'd like to see you get a part in a blockbuster film"

come the #@!$ on. you can SO present a better argument than the pansy ass one you posted.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:33 pm

Quote
dhp wrote:
Important journalistic tip: When you write an article about someone, spell his name correctly. G-L-A-S-E-R.

And here's a tip for Mr. Glaser:

Use dictionary.com to learn the definition of "literally".

I think the word you wanted was "figuratively". It's sort of the OPPOSITE of the word you chose.

And you want me to use your product? No.

Quote this post ↓

A guest said: (hide)

Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:28 pm

Completely self-serving comments. Real Audio is such a non-player in the mp3 arena, except for the odd dweeb out there.

Quote this post ↓

Bosco said:

member since 03 Jun 2002 with 971 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:41 am

Quote
metavurt wrote:
Bosco you nimrod - that's like saying, after someone's criticized a movie "I'd like to see you get your mug up on the screen. i'd like to see you get a part in a blockbuster film"

come the #@!$ on. you can SO present a better argument than the pansy ass one you posted.

Sorry. You're right. I could do better. OK...

How many of you would give yourself an "A+" when asked to grade your own paper? How many of you would pick your nose if it were really itchy and absolutely nobody was watching? How many of you would give one of your retarded friends a baseball bat and ask him to whack the knees of a competitor so you could win?

Do you guys even know what it takes to sell digital music? Brass balls.

Quote this post ↓

JulesLt said:

member since 06 Jul 2005 with 136 posts, unranked, send him a message or view his profile

Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:42 am

The reason WHY Real are in the position they are is that they had a killer streaming codec at the moment when was required, and sufficiently good player software. On that level they beat Quicktime to the punch. They were good on the server side, and a good technical firm, but they're struggling to become a consumer firm.

(A lot of PC people hate Quicktime too. Why is it that the developers of streaming media clients always make nagware???).

>the market place will winnow out the losers, and then, where will be for my internet audio? Window Media Player?

Flash. Since they brought in the Flash Video codec it does what Real started out doing - lightweight web streaming, rather than making any play for a media delivery service. It's got really high market penetration and it allows sites to skin their own player, in such a way that the end user doesn't even know it's Flash based.

Subscription :

Historically the market has shown that people prefer to own things rather than rent them (from the obvious, like housing and cars, through bookstores vs libraries, right down to the one no one predicted - the huge retail market for movies already available on video rental and cable-TV). I'm not convinced people are going to want to rent their music, unless it's bundled with some other service (maybe teenagers will pay as part of mobile phone)

. I am, on the other hand, a very happy user of emusic, which is subscription based.

Quote this post ↓

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.


Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.