Realnetworks Rhapsody DNA Platform

[Chris Gohlke]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.realnetworks.com/company/press/releases/2006/rhap_DNA.html' target='_blank'>http://www.realnetworks.com/company/press/releases/2006/rhap_DNA.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"RealNetworks®, Inc. announced the launch of Rhapsody DNA, a new technology platform that enables device makers to deliver a seamless Rhapsody experience to consumers via a broad range of portable, mobile, and in-home devices. In conjunction, Real announced that it is teaming with SanDisk® Corporation to integrate Rhapsody DNA into Sansa MP3 players this fall in the United States. The RealNetworks/SanDisk partnership will feature groundbreaking new features embedded in a line of SanDisk's Sansa e200 series of portable players. The collaboration will allow consumers to personalize their device and take full advantage of both Rhapsody's unlimited access model and SanDisk's flash-based MP3 player capabilities and capacity. The e200s with the special Rhapsody DNA platform will come equipped with nearly 32 hours of pre-loaded music from hundreds of the world's most popular artists on EMI Recorded Music, SONYBMG Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group, as well as leading independent labels. The players also include unique capabilities, such as automatically updating with new music based on a consumer's personal tastes and historical music preferences."</i><br /><br />Using the all-you-can-eat music plans to automatically introduces users to new music based on their likes and dislikes is a cool concept. I've never found music recommendations (like what Amazon does) to be very effective in predicting what I would like beyond recommending another song by the same artist. I'd also be interested to see how much of the recommended content was actually based on good recommendations as opposed to whatever the labels were pushing. For example it would not surprise me to see everyone get pushed the same "next big pop hit" regardless of what their preferences are.

[Vincent Ferrari]

No Real Networks product has ever crashed, hung, or otherwise performed badly for me.

Of course that's because I refuse to install anything they make, but that's a whole other story.

Honestly, I got so tired of being burned by them, their viral installations, their half-assed uninstallers, and all the other "fun" of real including their continuous e-mail notifications, update reminders, and on and on and on, that no computer I ever own will actually have a Real product on it. If a site I want to visit only uses Real, I move on.

[egads]

No Real Networks product has ever crashed, hung, or otherwise performed badly for me.

Of course that's because I refuse to install anything they make, but that's a whole other story.

Honestly, I got so tired of being burned by them, their viral installations, their half-assed uninstallers, and all the other "fun" of real including their continuous e-mail notifications, update reminders, and on and on and on, that no computer I ever own will actually have a Real product on it. If a site I want to visit only uses Real, I move on.

I agree 100%, you could not pay me to use anything from Real Networks.

[Jason Eaton]

I have to throw in my 'ditto' as well.

Real has burned so many bridges that they could create the 'next big thing since sliced bread' and I would never know or want to know about it.

And really... why is sliced bread so great? :wink:

[Janak Parekh]

Honestly, I got so tired of being burned by them, their viral installations, their half-assed uninstallers, and all the other "fun" of real including their continuous e-mail notifications, update reminders, and on and on and on, that no computer I ever own will actually have a Real product on it. If a site I want to visit only uses Real, I move on.
The irony is, of course, that the most recent version of RealPlayer has done away with virtually all of their classic viral annoyances. Of course, they burned a lot of bridges with tired and frustrated users. However, I finally broke down and reinstalled Real. Amongst other things, their Mac support is head-and-shoulders-above-Microsoft's -- and the software has behaved.

Back to today's announcement -- I'm guessing this is Real/Sandisk's own DRM technology. See what Zune hath wrought. :? I think WMA PlaysForSure is dead...

--janak

[Felix Torres]

Yes and no...

SanDisk is just signing up for Real's Helix technology, which is interoperable with MS-DRM. It means the Sandisk boxes are still Playsforsure capable, just as Zune.

Question: did anybody really expect MS to wait forever for the DAP vendors to get their acts together while Apple ran away with the market unchallenged?

Zune uses Playsforsure tech, whether they advertise it or not; the firmware is a superset of the Windows Mobile 2.11 software MS licenses out. MS is simply showing the DAP vendors what they *should* have been doing *themselves*. Its not enough to build and ship boxes; you have to sell a story. The pod story is called "heap, cool". The Zune story is "connected, sharing." If the Zune story sells, Zunes are going to sell in clusters because of network effects. Big if, big pay-off.

Regardless of what happens with Zune, the DAP vendors still face the challenge of figuring out how to *market* their boxes, regardless of where they get the DRM. If they had figured this out at any time over the last three years there would be no need for Zune today. The fact that they didn't suggests they probably won't any time soon.

Regardless of the quality of their products--and most of the name brand, non-Apple DAPs are actually excellent devices--they are competing against cool, not against quality hardware. Cutomers aren't buying quality hardware when they buy pods, they're buying image, style. They want to be different: just like everybody else with the glossy white belly-button.

Talk about an empire ripe for the taking.

That is what Zune is about: proving non-pod players can be cool.
Once consumers get that into their minds, maybe *then* they'll pay attention to the hardware.

Zune might end up being good for the Playsforsure crowd.
And if it isn't, it'll still be good for MS. :twisted:

[Janak Parekh]

Zune uses Playsforsure tech, whether they advertise it or not; the firmware is a superset of the Windows Mobile 2.11 software MS licenses out.
Well... here's the thing: Microsoft has, to date, shied away from guaranteeing PFS compatibility between existing services/tracks and the Zune. If that backward compatibility doesn't exist, that is going to send some ripples through the current WMA PFS community.

That is what Zune is about: proving non-pod players can be cool.
Well, I actually think Zune is more about the ecosystem than just coolness. In fact, based on my initial reaction to various DAPs, I'd say the Sansa is closest to the "cool!" factor apart from the iPod, and certainly far ahead of the first Zune device.

--janak

[Felix Torres]

I dunno, but Zune is supposed to play back DRM-ed WMA and WMV, in addition to unprotected AAC, MP3, MPEG4, etc.
How does it serve any of Microsoft's many agendas to deny people the ability to play older DRM-ed WMA tracks they've previously bought? Possibly from MS itself? (remember, MS already has a pretty good download store at MSN Music.)

I could see some value in making it incompatible with other subscription services, to force Zunesters to go with *their* service, but plenty of existing Playsforsure devices lack that capability altogether. Leaving it out woukd not be a repudiation of PfS. And the meat of PFS (for consumers) is the transportability of purchased tracks; subscription tracks stay behind when you change subscription providers, anyway.

Since MS traditionally eats their own dogfood (XBOXes are built off modular Windows, MSN TV2 runs off CE, as did their late, lamented routers, Zune itself is built off Windows Mobile...) I would expect they would use all the capabilities that come with PMC 2.x and not go out of their way to inconvenience their customers. In other words, why don't we wait until the Zune crew actually does something stupid before assuming they *will* do something stupid.

MS may or not promote Zune as a PFS device but the odds are that it is.

[Janak Parekh]

I dunno, but Zune is supposed to play back DRM-ed WMA and WMV, in addition to unprotected AAC, MP3, MPEG4, etc.
How does it serve any of Microsoft's many agendas to deny people the ability to play older DRM-ed WMA tracks they've previously bought? Possibly from MS itself? (remember, MS already has a pretty good download store at MSN Music.)
Can you find a link that says that? I agree with you completely, and yet I have found no official confirmation of this. 8O

In other words, why don't we wait until the Zune crew actually does something stupid before assuming they *will* do something stupid.
Because articles like this (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004910.php), this (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/285407_software18.html) and this (http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/14/the-engadget-interview-j-allard-microsoft-corporate-vice-presi/) make it seem that they're going to do exactly that. I agree that it's correct to take a wait-and-see approach, although we shouldn't have to -- Microsoft should have made it clear by now.

--janak

[Felix Torres]

It may be just me, but I've never really associated the eff/open source crowd with unbiased info about MS DRM tech. Dunno; just a "slightly" hostile vibe they give off... ;-)

Here's the thing: Playsforsure is a licensed spec.
It means there are licensing hoops that every device has to go through to claim a given level of PFS compatibility. Odds are, Zune hasn't passed the certification process, thus MS, by its own rules, can't talk of PFS compatibility.

Second, with all the folks out there looking to put the most negative spin on anthing DRM-related (e.g. the viral-DRM scare even before Zune ships) they may just be avoiding talk of DRM altogether; it wouldn't take much for "Zune plays copy-protected WMAs" to get twisted into "Zune *only* plays copy-protected WMAs".

What I *have* seen is the promise that Zune songs will be playable on the 360 and in Windows Media Player, both of which currently support unprotected music *and* PFS music and which *only* do so via standard MS DRM. So, while it *may* be that MS is going to all the trouble of inventing a whole *new* DRM tech just to undercut their own revenue-generating DRM product, I find the idea just a wee bit unlikely. Enough so that I'm willing to ignore rumors and inferences from outsider sources and just wait and see if they are that stupid to start with. They might be, but I can't really assume that.

While we all are eager to find out the answers to our burning questions at the earliest, preferably before anybody else, sometimes the best thing to do is sit back, wait for the official unveiling, and kill time watching the new tv shows, baseball play-offs, and WS, even if the suspense is killing us. ;-)

[Janak Parekh]

It may be just me, but I've never really associated the eff/open source crowd with unbiased info about MS DRM tech. Dunno; just a "slightly" hostile vibe they give off... ;-)
Yes, they do have their agenda. That's why I also linked to two more standard news venues. The third one is quite interesting, as J Allard himself dances around the subject a lot more than necessary. He essentially voices the Zune and PFS as two separate ecosystems.

Here's the thing: Playsforsure is a licensed spec.
It means there are licensing hoops that every device has to go through to claim a given level of PFS compatibility. Odds are, Zune hasn't passed the certification process, thus MS, by its own rules, can't talk of PFS compatibility.
I understand your argument, but I don't agree. The Zune hasn't been released. Why wouldn't they be able to say "it will support WMA DRM"? Don't hardware manufacturers now announce that on their products before they're released? I think so...

it wouldn't take much for "Zune plays copy-protected WMAs" to get twisted into "Zune *only* plays copy-protected WMAs".
That was shot down already, so I don't think anyone's under that wrongheaded perception.

Anyway, as you've implied, I think we've talked this out enough already. We'll wait and see. I personally would not be surprised to see this going either way.

--janak