Real CEO: "Open iPod to other Music Services"

[Kent Pribbernow]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5177914.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5177914.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news</a><br /><br /></div><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/ipod.jpg" />Real Networks CEO Rob Glaser publicly lambasted Apple for locking consumers into its own music download service. Currently the iTunes Music Store only supports Apple's AAC audio format. 95% or all competing services such as Napster, Wal-Mart, and BuyMusic.com all support Microsoft's highly popular WMA audio format....a format which the iPod does not support. <br /><br />"Apple's (market) share will go down if they continue to do this. The only way to presently put songs on an iPod is to (buy) them from iTunes," Glaser said, referring to downloads purchased from online music stores. In addition to iTunes songs, the iPod can play files encoded in the MP3 format, including tracks ripped from CDs.<br /><br />Glaser predicted that customers will say, "I bought an iPod and can only shop at one store. What is this? The Soviet Union?"<br /><br />Although one could interpret this as sour grapes (Real's Rhapsody music service competes with iTunes), I agree with his argument. I've often vented this opinion as well. Apple is making a strategic mistake by locking consumers into ITMS. While Apple's service is far more popular than any other, the <b>entire</b> industry is standardizing on Microsoft's audio format. Which means iPod owners won't have access to competing services, which stifles competition. For example, Wal-Mart recently launched it's own venture, offering tracks for just $.88 while Apple charges $.99. Since iPod owners don't have the option of choosing Walmart, they are at the mercy of Apple to lower prices, which may not happen. If this policy does not change, iTunes could be squeezed out, not by one player, but by the cumulative effect of dozens of competing vendors offering better options and pricing.

[entropy1980]

Since iPod owners don't have the option of choosing Walmart, they are at the mercy of Apple to lower prices, which may not happen. If this policy does not change, iTunes could be squeezed out, not by one player, but by the cumulative effect of dozens of competing vendors offering better options and pricing.

I don't see this happening at all... why? Well because it seems that the strategy is to get people to buy music from ITMS then they buy an Ipod (music sales driving Ipod sales as Apple makes no money on the music they are selling) Walmart should also be noted as losing money on their operation, their main goal is to drive more traffic to their site in hopes you buy other products while you're there. It's the integration that is selling Ipods, you have a product that a trained monkey could setup and operate and a music store and software that's tied together making equally easy to setup. Apple has taken the thinking out of getting your music, then getting it onto a device by making them work with only their product. Apple has always excelled by keeping things working well together because it's all in house. I think people know what they are getting into wheen they buy an Ipod and it doesn't seem to be slowing as you can see by this announcement (http://www.mobileslash.com/content/news/apple-delays-ipodminis-gl.shtml).

[Raven]

Here's an old article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33850.html) from The Register.

Either way (whether Apple decides to lower song prices or not), the next few months will give us a good look at where Apple's priorities are...

[Janak Parekh]

I think people know what they are getting into wheen they buy an Ipod and it doesn't seem to be slowing as you can see by this announcement (http://www.mobileslash.com/content/news/apple-delays-ipodminis-gl.shtml).
Agreed, but I also agree with Kent: long-term, this is a very risky strategy. Apple dominated the GUI market with the original Macintosh, but by tying software to hardware, allowed MS to catch up and surpass them with Windows. The iPod is popular, but you can't assume it's going to eclipse every other device for forever.

--janak

[entropy1980]

Agreed, but I also agree with Kent: long-term, this is a very risky strategy. Apple dominated the GUI market with the original Macintosh, but by tying software to hardware, allowed MS to catch up and surpass them with Windows. The iPod is popular, but you can't assume it's going to eclipse every other device for forever.



Point taken and I think Apple is already planning the next step...
as seen in this article (http://www.dancefrontdoor.co.uk/article2591.html). I don't think you'll catch Apple as flatfooted this time around. They are in it to dominate the music player market they are expected to make a huge amount of money just Ipods I think if they begin to lose any momentum you will see them open up functionality, until then why should they they are leading the market no reason to open it up to anyone else especially when AAC is making some big inroads with not only DVD-ROM consortium this week but also even in Motorola's MPx series supporting it.

[c38b2]

WMA is a proprietary format made by Microsoft no less - why can't the industry standardize on AAC which is based on the MPEG-4 codec? Real's statement makes as much sense as telling Apple to put Windows on their computers which, of course, is unfathomable.

http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/standard.html

[Janak Parekh]

WMA is a proprietary format made by Microsoft no less - why can't the industry standardize on AAC which is based on the MPEG-4 codec?
Because AAC standardization is not enough. We need devices to standardize on FairPlay -- Apple's proprietary DRM layer on AAC -- and as of yet I've seen no inclination on Apple's behalf to even license the darn thing. If they did, I think we'd see consumer manufacturers snapping it up.

WMA is proprietary. And so is Windows. But by decoupling it from hardware, it makes a big difference long-term.

--janak

[klinux]

WMA is a proprietary format made by Microsoft no less - why can't the industry standardize on AAC which is based on the MPEG-4 codec? Real's statement makes as much sense as telling Apple to put Windows on their computers which, of course, is unfathomable.

http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/standard.html

Many people in the Apple camp make this arguement which I don't buy. WMA, RA, ATRAC, and AAC are all as proprietary as one another. You are not free to modify it or distribute its encoder or decoder for free. The term standard is fishy as well because every single company call its codec the standard. Consumers decide what the standard is. If consumer prefers say, DTS over AC3, VHS over Betamax, KDE over GNOME, etc then THAT is the standard.

If VIA wants its product adopted, why doesn't it lower its licensing fees?

[David Horn]

I agree with you here, Kent. Apple annoy me intensely with the iPOD - partly cause it's way overpriced and partly because they've delayed the UK launch of the MiniPod till July.

However, nearly my entire music collection is WMA and it's going to take ages to re-rip it. And I don't like iTunes. How come Apple aren't being pressured by the DOJ for restricting access to other companies?

Finally - and a shot at Real - they drive me up the wall. They complain about Microsoft bundling WMP free with Windows, saying it's bad for them and illegal. Did it ever dawn on them that their software's crap? I will never install something that tries to hide spyware on my PC and pops up ads from time to time. It runs on my Dad's PC so he can listen to BBC radio stations and that's it.

Give me WMP any day.

[entropy1980]

How come Apple aren't being pressured by the DOJ for restricting access to other companies?


Are you out to lunch or what!? Apple is not a monopoly you have many options for MP3 players! If you don't like what Apple's doing don't buy go get one of those "awesome" WMA players! :roll:

[Kent Pribbernow]

Apple is not a monopoly

Um...yes it is. Apple has complete control over it's own product, from software to hardware. Apple may not have control over the personal computer market, but it has COMPLETE control over the Mac market. In fact, if you analyze the vertical integration aspect, including the retail stores, you see that Apple breaches the boundaries of fair business and competition far more so than even Microsoft. This is why I can't understand why people threaten to dump their PC and go for a Mac. You're just trading one monopolist for another.

That's not to say that Apple is an abusive company. They simply are no less a monopoly than Microsoft. Just on a different (and smaller) scale.

[entropy1980]

Um...yes it is. Apple has complete control over it's own product, from software to hardware. Apple may not have control over the personal computer market, but it has COMPLETE control over the Mac market. I

From webster's dictionary:
Monopoly : a commodity controlled by one party


Apple does not control MP3 players. They have a large market share but do not control it. Apple does not control PCs ( A Mac is a PC, it's a different brand other than Dell etc but it's still a PC). Your basically saying Chevy is a monopoly on Chevy's when in fact there are many car manufacturer's. So yes Apple does have a monopoly on Ipod's (just like car manufacturers have a so called monopoly on their brands) but not on MP3 players.

[Kent Pribbernow]

From webster's dictionary:
Monopoly : a commodity controlled by one party


And that definition fits Apple.

Apple does not control MP3 players.

No one said they did. In the digital audio market, Apple has a competitive and legitimate lead.

Apple does not control PCs ( A Mac is a PC, it's a different brand other than Dell etc but it's still a PC).

No, a Mac is not a WinTel PC, so you can't compare them to Dell. Macintosh is a completely distinctive platform. Apple controls its own platform, and that makes them a monopoly. Just as Palm was a monopoly until they began licensing the OS to other vendors. Apple may not control the PC market, but they control the Mac market.

Your basically saying Chevy is a monopoly on Chevy's when in fact there are many car manufacturer's. So yes Apple does have a monopoly on Ipod's (just like car manufacturers have a so called monopoly on their brands) but not on MP3 players.


Your Car analogy doesn't hold water. Is GM a monopoly because they are the only company that produces Chevy? No, but if a Chevy ran on special fuel available only from GM, used parts that could only be manufactured by and sold by GM, and models were sold only direct from GM, then that would give GM monopoly hold. Cars use industry standard components (with the exception of the powertrain).

You are making it sound like Apple is just another PC vendor, which is a ludicrous argument. Apple compares more to Microsoft than a PC vendor.

[klinux]

David:

I was in a bind like you too. First I ripped my music to MP3. Then the superior WMA came along and I ripped and re-ripped some music to that. Then I got a Mac and the superior AAC came along, I ripped and reripped music to that.

Now, I am back to ripping (and reripping) my music to 256kbps VBR to MP3. At the bitrate, my ears cannot hear the difference between the MP3 and the CD file (at least on my iPod) and this way I guarantee my music is fullt transferrable from my PC to my Mac to my iPod and to my PocketPC. In the future, I am sure that music will be fully transferrable to my Palm, Linux machines, cell phones, PVR, car, etc.

So - back to MP3!!!

Ken

[entropy1980]

No one said they did. In the digital audio market, Apple has a competitive and legitimate lead.


Well when David Horn says Apple should be pressured by the DOJ to include someone else's codec because they are a monopoly I'd say that's pretty much calling them a monopoly by no means should Apple be forced to include someone else's codec, as there are many many alternative MP3 players no one is forcing you to buy an Ipod.



No, a Mac is not a WinTel PC, so you can't compare them to Dell. Macintosh is a completely distinctive platform. Apple controls its own platform, and that makes them a monopoly. Just as Palm was a monopoly until they began licensing the OS to other vendors. Apple may not control the PC market, but they control the Mac market.


No a Mac isn't a Wintel PC but I didn't say it was.... I said it was a PC (Personal Computer)which fundamentally it is. There are Linux PCs and heck Linux runs on Mac hardware so even if you want to take it to an extreme a Apple is no more a monopoly than any other PC manufacturer. So you would say Microsoft isn't a monopoly because they allow other vendors (Dell, HP, Gateway etc.) to license and use Windows?


Your Car analogy doesn't hold water. Is GM a monopoly because they are the only company that produces Chevy? No, but if a Chevy ran on special fuel available only from GM, used parts that could only be manufactured by and sold by GM, and models were sold only direct from GM, then that would give GM monopoly hold. Cars use industry standard components (with the exception of the powertrain).


Apparently you don't work on cars I can not take parts from a Ford and make them work on a Chevy no more than you can take Windows software and run it on a Mac. So that would make Microsoft a monopoly and chevy a monopoly and anyone who produces anything that can be used universally on similar products a monopoly, that's just silly.


You are making it sound like Apple is just another PC vendor, which is a ludicrous argument. Apple compares more to Microsoft than a PC vendor.

Yes but they differ in that they make the hardware as well. I am willing to bet Apple makes much more money on hardware and software so i fell they can be closely compared to a hardware company especially when talking on topic about Ipod's they are the Hardware manufacturer.
Look I am not going to argue silly semantics about whether or not Apple products are a PC or not.

Bottom line?
Does Apple make the only MP3 player? Does Apple control what anybody else puts into their MP3 player? NO. You have a million options when it comes to a portable music player. They don't even control more than 50% of the portable music player market (http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=3009).... I hardly call that a monopoly! :roll:

[Ed Hansberry]

I am so sick of Real. They cry foul at everyone not using their RealAdvertising software on their machine. I'd be happy if they went out of business, RealQuick.

[Ed Hansberry]

Apple is not a monopoly

Um...yes it is. Apple has complete control over it's own product, from software to hardware. Apple may not have control over the personal computer market, but it has COMPLETE control over the Mac market.
Huh? Quicken has a complete monopoly on the Quicken Market. Dell has a 100% monopoly on the Dell market. '

The market isn't a brand, it is an environment and in the computing environment, Apple doesn't have didly. They don't even have a monopoly on having a jerk for a CEO.

[entropy1980]

I am so sick of Real. They cry foul at everyone not using their RealAdvertising software on their machine. I'd be happy if they went out of business, RealQuick.
LOL!! I have been waiting for them to take up some SCO type tactics and start suing everybody who streams media!

[entropy1980]

The market isn't a brand, it is an environment and in the computing environment, Apple doesn't have didly. They don't even have a monopoly on having a jerk for a CEO.
Glad someone got my point :) I can think of a couple of other CEO's that come to mind (McBride, McNealy, hmmm I am seeing a pattern here :lol: )

[Suhit Gupta]

Huh? Quicken has a complete monopoly on the Quicken Market. Dell has a 100% monopoly on the Dell market. '

The market isn't a brand, it is an environment and in the computing environment, Apple doesn't have didly. They don't even have a monopoly on having a jerk for a CEO.
You are right that Apple doesn't have a monopoly over the PC market, but your analogy of Apple to Quicken and Dell doesn't hold in my opinion. I have to agree with Kent here. Apple has a 100% complete and utter control over the Mac (and other Apple products) market. This is not the case with Quicken or Dell as those can be re-sold by other resellers. Do you see the difference. In fact this is one of the reasons why Apple did so poorly in the mid-to-late 90's, as no one but Apple could produce or resell mac compatible stuff. They had a complete monopoly over their own products and since there was no one to compete with them on their own turf, they were more and more isolated.

Suhit

[Ed Hansberry]

Huh? Quicken has a complete monopoly on the Quicken Market. Dell has a 100% monopoly on the Dell market. '

The market isn't a brand, it is an environment and in the computing environment, Apple doesn't have didly. They don't even have a monopoly on having a jerk for a CEO.
You are right that Apple doesn't have a monopoly over the PC market, but your analogy of Apple to Quicken and Dell doesn't hold in my opinion. I have to agree with Kent here. Apple has a 100% complete and utter control over the Mac (and other Apple products) market. This is not the case with Quicken or Dell as those can be re-sold by other resellers. Do you see the difference.
No. I can buy a mac at the local CompUSA if I wanted to.

So, now you want to go after SOny for having a total monopoly in the Playstation Market? Nintendo for having a total monopoly in the Gameboy market? Their hardware more closed than the Mac is and they actually have a thriving business.

You can buy hardware that works with Macs that isn't Mac hardware. Mac isn't a market in and of itself. It is a bit player in the overall computing market. Just like Commodore and TI were in the early 80's.

By the way - you guys are totally missing the problem with monopolies. Monopolies are legal. Abusive ones aren't. The only thing abusive about the Mac is the UI. :twisted:

[Suhit Gupta]

No. I can buy a mac at the local CompUSA if I wanted to.
But this hasn't always been the case, has it? :?
So, now you want to go after SOny for having a total monopoly in the Playstation Market? Nintendo for having a total monopoly in the Gameboy market? Their hardware more closed than the Mac is and they actually have a thriving business.
But you will notice that there are a number of companies making games for the Playstation or GameCube/Boy. This really wasn't the case until relatively recently with the Mac.
By the way - you guys are totally missing the problem with monopolies. Monopolies are legal. Abusive ones aren't. The only thing abusive about the Mac is the UI. :twisted:
No, I do understand what you are saying ;-), but I believe that Apple was a bit harsh with its policies. How else do you explain why the mac did not do well as compared to the PC even though they were launched at about the same time and started off with approximately the same featureset? It is entirely possible that I am missing something but this is just the way I understand it.

Suhit

[Janak Parekh]

No. I can buy a mac at the local CompUSA if I wanted to.
But this hasn't always been the case, has it? :?
It has been for years, and more than just CompUSA. There was a small Mac retailer near my home 15 years ago. Compare that to Dell, which is only available in one or two national retailers (or is it zero? Can't remember -- most people get Dells direct, actually).

But you will notice that there are a number of companies making games for the Playstation or GameCube/Boy. This really wasn't the case until relatively recently with the Mac.
I don't understand. People have been making software for Macs since day 1. I think Ed's analogy still holds fine.

No, I do understand what you are saying ;-), but I believe that Apple was a bit harsh with its policies. How else do you explain why the mac did not do well as compared to the PC even though they were launched at about the same time and started off with approximately the same featureset?
Because Apple kept the software-hardware interface proprietary, which historically kept prices high. That doesn't mean it's a monopoly though.

--janak

[Jon Westfall]

I am so sick of Real. They cry foul at everyone not using their RealAdvertising software on their machine. I'd be happy if they went out of business, RealQuick.

Interesting conversation in this thread - but these remarks by Ed are what I most agree with. Real, and their horrible excuses for software, need to be removed from the scene... by force if necessary.

[Ed Hansberry]

No. I can buy a mac at the local CompUSA if I wanted to.
But this hasn't always been the case, has it? :?
Dunno. You could always by non-Apple hardware for it though.
So, now you want to go after SOny for having a total monopoly in the Playstation Market? Nintendo for having a total monopoly in the Gameboy market? Their hardware more closed than the Mac is and they actually have a thriving business.
But you will notice that there are a number of companies making games for the Playstation or GameCube/Boy. This really wasn't the case until relatively recently with the Mac. The games are the software for the game machines. SInce day one, non-Apple companies have been making software for the Macs. The game console is the proprietary hardware, just like the Apple box itself. Except the Apple box can be expanded with non-Apple RAM, non-Apple hard drives, etc. You can't even crack open a game machine and expand it unless you hack the mobo.By the way - you guys are totally missing the problem with monopolies. Monopolies are legal. Abusive ones aren't. The only thing abusive about the Mac is the UI. :twisted:
No, I do understand what you are saying ;-), but I believe that Apple was a bit harsh with its policies. How else do you explain why the mac did not do well as compared to the PC even though they were launched at about the same time and started off with approximately the same featureset? It is entirely possible that I am missing something but this is just the way I understand it.
Because DOS already had the spreadsheet market and business got spreadsheets. Lotus 1-2-3 made the PC the dominant machine, period. It didn't hurt that initially, IBM - Big Blue - had the PC and was selling it to business. In the 80's, you could never get fired for buying IBM they said, and were right. So, Lotus 1-2-3 caused the PC market to explode and merger mania in the 80's possible. Then slap on a word processor for the secretary and you are done. People in IT were used to text based mainframes. The GUI of the Apple happened too early and 1-2-3 didn't make it to the Mac until the very early 90's. It had Excel but Excel didn't replace 1-2-3 until Excel 5 came out. Then it was game over but that was 94? By then, Windows had been installed on all of those non-GUI DOS boxes and Win95 was around the corner and Lotus was on the ropes. They quickly dropped the Mac version, Unix version and mainframe version and focused on Windows. Everyone and their grandmother had written interfaces to their mainframes/AS/400's/Unix boxes through PC software or even PC hardware (I hated those stupid connectronix AS/400 cards!).

The Mac was relegated to the artsy fartsy design department, often left totally off of the network.

In the 80's, the Mac was answering questions no one in business or IT was asking. It got crushed. Had nothing to do with their hardware or business model, other than they were just targeting the wrong people. They still did in the 90's. What where they smoking when they came up with the "sell it to schools and those kids will buy Macs when they get in the busines world" concept? How many kids buy computing hardware after they are hired? Zero. KPMG Peat Marwick actually made a go of the Mac in the late 80's. Lasted a few years. They dumped everything and went to WinTel because their auditors couldn't interface or work with their client's PC systems. They spent half the afternoon exporting/importing CSV files between PC/Mac spreadsheets and redoing formulas that blew up.

[bryus]

Real never fails to amaze me with their ignorance and ego. They manufacture, by far, the worst media program on earth. I don't know why ANYONE would ever use their crapware. It is so thoroughly invasive and system strangling. They have a serious Microsoft complex. They thing that everyone should be required to use their crapware.

Personally I only use MP3 format because I don't want to be tied to MS's proprietary WMA format. I don't have an MP3 player but regardless of which one I get someday, it will still play MP3s.

As for Apple being a monopoly? PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE! Your arguments are a joke. They are a company who desires to maintain strict control of their product in order to maiximize profit and customer experience. This is not monopolistic, merely anal retentive. If Apple controlled 90% of the OS market and used its position to push it's products and formats on other companies and consumers they would be a monopoly, oh, wait, that's MS!