MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

In a perfect world everything would work together no problem with the technology best suited for the job. Apple of course. Bill Gates has same vision but only in his dreams does it all work perfectly.
Maybe one day Apple will open up iPod but not yet.

Glaser says "Apple's (market) share will go down if they continue to do this." If this were really true then you would think that he would WANT Apple to continue to lock out other contenders, thereby losing market share. No, Glaser says what he says because he's losing and he's desperate. Go Steve! Go Apple!

"Open iPod or shrivel" sounds like a threat, one that Apple can dismiss as empty rhetoric. Real is not selling any content that the iTunes Music Store does not allready sell so there is no incentive for users to buy music from them. Statements like "The only way to presently put songs on an iPod is to (buy) them from iTunes" are nothing more than lies; iPods can play MP3, WAV, AIFF, AAC and M4P files ripped from CDs and encoded by any application. Perhaps Apple should set the record straight on exactly what files can be used with iPods since the competition has resorted to these dis-information campaigns.

So, all of these other music services want Apple to open up iPod, yet none of their services have opened up to Mac users. How ironic.

Alec nails it.

Real needs to just co-brand iTunes like HP did. No one else can make money selling tracks, only Apple has the profitable plan: iPod sales. So Real should be smart and just co-brand iTunes music store. This way Apple bears the cost and Real can keep their customers using the Real player. Any other way is just real digging a money pit for themselves. They need to think out of the box. Music Stores are about selling the player. Since Real doesn't sell hardware, let them co-brand the music store and make it an option on their player.

Gorog just got a friend.

Even if iPod/iTunes worked with other systems, I still would not use. Apple has best solution. That is the bottom line. That is why they get my $$$. The company who gives me what I want...ease of use, cool factor, functional hardware/software, reasonalbe pricing (cheaper is not always better)...is the owner of my hard earned dollar. Those who can't compete on technology, compete on price. The REALNETWORKS CEO should strive to raise the bar, not lower it so he can compete.

When real stop making inferior versions of realplayer for mac, and stop having all that rubbish telling you to register, when you dont want to. And stop telling you to upgrade.

Then I'll understand him.

LOL, Glaser: "we are dying Apple, we beg you to open up iPod, so some will buy from us too"

Pathetic.

As far as Apple losing market share... how since the iPod is gaining market share constantly?

A LITTLE CHEESE TO GO WITH THAT WHINE SIR?


How about Rhapsody offering their music in ACC format with Fairplay DRM?

ACC format is now becoming the accepted standard because of it's higher quality and neutrality. The DVD community has embraced it.

The Fairplay DRM is made by a third company and I'm sure that company would be happy to license it.

Since these johnny come lately music services don't have a decent iPod to sell, and are not making any money selling music, they will have to be forced to adopt different formats in order to remain in buisness.


---
Make the world a better place, run a small application on your Mac or PC and together we can give scientists around the world the answers they need to eliminate Mad Cow, Parkinsons disease and many others.

Join the Mac Team today I'm signing up dozens every week and doing my part, come do yours. Thanks

The pressure's starting to bite guys. Check out the stats. Buymusic, Napster and Musicmatch are dropping significantly in their traffic. Napster's at it's lowest since release and a long way behind even Musicmatch who are also falling. Buymusic might as well put Tommy Lee back in the rock coffin where he belongs, they're finished.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1y&size=large&compare_sites=apple.com, musicmatch.com, napster.com&url=buymusic.com#graph

Man that FUD is so good I want to masturbate to it. Well the streets work both ways.

But you have to keep the perspective of what is really being said. "Can I be your whipping boy Stevie?"

Seriously though hasn't anyone thought of 2 things:

1. Develop your own DRM and wrap that around AAC, which is the better format, love the super unleaded.

2. Approached Apple to get Fairplay from them. Sure someone could bring a MS license to them and say, I'll rip this up and take yours. Its about time for it.

One way or the other, this rocks.

Gee Rob, who knew you were such a caring, giving sort of guy.

It's so kind of you to want to save the PC customer from the effort of installing iTunes on their system, and also to save them the effort of installing that annoying QuickTime software as well.

You know, if I was a cynic, I'd almost suspect you had another agenda. Thank God you're not a con-artist like that nasty Steve Jobs character.

Hmmmmm…

Sailfish I have looked all over and can't find anyplace you can license Fairplay. The closest I get is the Veridisc site and that is so out of date they have lost their DNS to a porno site.

http://64.244.235.240/info_about.asp
http://64.244.235.240/explained_get.asp

Apple isn't being open about this (and why should they?) but I think that they control Fairplay and are leveraging it to harvest the first mover profits. This is great but at some point they should open up Fairplay to other players and lock in AAC/Fairplay as the de facto standard. That way whenever ANY player gets sold, Apple would get paid. Unfortunately AAC itself is more expensive to license than WMA:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/licensing.aspx#link2

And that is why all the other players are going with it. It is available and it is cheaper. Tag on Fairplay licensing costs and it is really gonna be hard for other players to compete but what choice will they have?

This is all decidedly M$ish as a strategy but it is about time someone beat them at their own game but with a better product rather than a mediocre one. It is my sincere hope that Apple dominating in this area will help them break the M$ monopoly and re-introduce fair competition to the market place. The winners if this happens will be the consumers.

Sour grapes from the little fox. I think Glaser's "concern" for Apple is nothing more than a transparent attempt to save his own job. Hey, Glaser, why don't you join the winning team and quit the whining team.

I actually agree with the RealNetworks guy. Technical issues aside for the moment, Apple says they maintain iTMS to sell iPods. If that's the case, then why not allow other music stores to further drive iPod sales? Wouldn't Apple be in a perfect position in terms of hardware sales if, ultimately, they didn't maintain a music store at all, but just sold boatloads of iPods?

Any company should be able to license and create an iTunes music store. Apple does not make money on their song sales. MS is getting every two bit music store wanna be out there. Apple really does need to get the song sales open to more companies. Being a closed system did not work for them the first time around and will not work for them the second. Yes, I have purchased 2 iPods and a ton of music from iTunes music store. No, I probably would not use the other services much, but Apple really does need them in the long run.

I would love to see someone start an online music store specializing in indie music that utilizes AAC/Fairplay. Apple is a little to slow in getting the indie stuff online and can only help Apple bottom line in the long run.

treadlightly, last I checked you don't have to be a "Mac User" to own and use an Ipod.

Remember back in the good ole days when Apple had a chance to take their product to a new level but some other company came in and created a similar product and made it so it would work on a lot of different products that now hold about 95% of todays market share. Well Apple has a history of wanting to be a niche player and they are exhibiting the same thing here with the Ipod and other file formats. How can Apple think a new Ipod is better off sitting on a shelf in shrinkwrap because it is not compatible with Walmart, Napster, Musicmatch, etc? In the end, it's all about personal choice. If someone wants to buy an Ipod but use Walmart for their music downloads, why shouldn't they be able to do this.

I remember Steve Jobs promoting "open source". How about you start with the Ipod and stick to your word.

Persnickity - If you spell iPod, Ipod then you are just a Microsoft troll.

Apple's iTunes Music Store controls 80% of the legit online music download market.

An iPod is not going to sit on a shelf because some soon-to-go-belly-up WMA music outfits can't serve up AAC/Fairplay format files.

Users need simply to download iTunes for Mac or Windows to use their iPods if they want to do the legit online music thing.

Real, Napster, MusicMatch, etc. are walking dead.

Steve Jobs is laughing.

Persnickity....

I think what treadlightly and Alec were referring to is that when you connect to one of these services FROM A Mac....you are generally given a nastygram from the company saying Mac's are in no way supported.

Afree with Facts....learn how to spell iPod before making such a ridiculous statemend

>> Unfortunately AAC itself is more expensive to license than WMA <<

Mmmm ... not to sure about Microsoft's figures there. They seem to have lumped MPEG4 and AAC together. AAC is open source, so I don't think it would cost anything. In fact, quite a few players already support AAC, but not FairPlay.

I'm not sure I understand where the competition is going to be. There are a whole whack of companies trying to get in first on the download business. It's an accepted fact that you can't make money at downloads at low quantities - you need to achieve critical mass in the order of tens of millions per month. So how will these guys make any money? Advertizing? Web portal?

Add to this that there is no margin in song downloads. You can't compete on price. I don't know what Walmart thinks it's doing at 88 cents when 99 doesn't pay the bills. So you compete on content? Everyone has the same songs. If I want to buy something by "U2" I can go to any store. On-line stores don't follow the brick and mortar model. Location does not matter and inventory level is barely an issue (you might have to get a bigger hard drive on your server). So it then becomes about packaging - promoting artists, offering cover art, free preview tracks etc.

So that leaves us with the player. If the content is irrelevant, then the competition takes place on the player side. If you like the looks, price, features of one player over the other, you buy it. In the case of the iPod, you get the music store as part of it. If you buy another one, you have to choose your (irrelevant) content provider.

Of course, the assumption that is inherent in the WMA debate, is that you are using your computer as the center of the music listening process. Apple one ups that by not even requiring a computer to manage the music (albeit a very limited option). Should be interesting to watch the competition.

AAC is open source, but FairPlay is not...

It's a tie. Glaser is stupid for his obviously self-serving comment, and some of you are stupid for equating the spelling of "IPOD" with credibility.

Especially when mispelling other words in the same sentence

I really think it is time for MDN to make access to this forum more exacting, so that secret handshakes and fanciful spelling of the competition's name (microshaft, microshit, M$ etc) can go on unfettered. Or just start an alternative site, MacDailyNews for Children.

What dweebs competing with music stores. Read Jobs lips "the store is to sell iPods" not to compete with the other music stores.

Gee, if they wanted to compete they would do something like have a lawsuit with Apple Corps. and not only have to pay them HUGE bucks but as part of the settlement have to carry all the Beatles stuff EXCLUSIVELY at iTMS. And that is not likely to happen.

No, the real competition is not the music stores, Real and WalMart, the real competition if from Microsoft with it's brand new slicer and dicer iPod killer, the MaxiPad.

My name is Joe. I am a troll.

"AAC is open source, but FairPlay is not..."

AAC is NOT open source, AAC is a joint development of the Fraunhofer Institute IIS, AT&T;, Sony, and Dolby Laboratories.

http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/licenseFAQ.html#AACUseFees

Here is a quote from the official site:

Do you charge use fees for AAC?
No. Royalties are due on the sale of AAC encoders and/or decoders only.

Do you charge fees for the distribution of content in AAC format?
No. There are no royalties due on the distribution of audio encoded in the AAC format.

Who needs to license MPEG-4 AAC patents?

An MPEG-4 AAC patent license is required for manufacturers or developers of complete (or substantially complete) end-user encoder and/or decoder products, or for manufacturers/developers of component encoder and/or decoder products that are provided directly to end-users.

AAC is not open source, but it is an open standard. You have to license AAC to use it. I think you confuse it with Ogg which is open sourced.

Another thing that Glasser completely missed is that he confined the discussion to legal download. But legal download is a very tiny fraction of music download market. How many people do you think buy iPod and feed it only with legally downloaded music? I am willing to bet that scores of people fill their iPod using tunes downloaded from P2P (not that I condone it, just being realistic). Now, what is the marketshare of WMA and protected AAC compared to AAC and MP3 here? In fact, iPod was popular before the emergence of legal download stores. iPod's future is safe.

My name is Joe. I am MDN's pet troll.

Apple is not and never will be, OPEN.
Look up Proprietary in the dictionary and you'll see Apple Computer, Inc.

GMAFB

I think Apple should offer Real iPod access/compatibility on Mac and Windows with one condition:
That Real make all their offerings available to Mac users, completely, and agree to keep their Mac offerings updated simultaneously (or updated within, say, 7 to 10 days) of any PC updates. I think Mac users would enjoy being able to have the option to buy 192k AAC songs from RealOne Music Store, or subscribe to Rhapsody for $9.95 for "tethered" downloading/listening. (Even if Rhapsody is not possible due to the debilitated version of WMA provided by MS for Mac, I think the 192k AAC tracks would sell to Mac users if they were burnable and worked on the iPod.)

Also, not only should the new RealOne for Mac allow listening & burning of RoMS songs, but Real should give Apple the code to let users use iTunes to listen, manage, and burn RoMS songs right along with iTMS songs, Audible files, and etc.

I realize Apple may not have a whole lot to gain from this, but just like some people feel that MS keeps Apple alive with Office:mac to avoid the appearance of a total monopoly, Apple might want to partner with Real to prevent a total monopoly (and, as some have said, before they are sued and forced to open the iPod up to anyone who wants to put licensed content on it). Going with Real would (to some extent) be a quality partnership, whereas eventually being forced to let every two-bit WMA shop onto the iPod (with their inconsistent rights and inconsistent quality) would ruin some of the experience.
This would also allow Apple to further cement AAC against WMA. Perhaps Real & Apple could also have discussions about MPEG-4 video (in terms of ensuring that MP4 video produced in Real or QT will also play back in either)? Not that standards shouldn't ensure that already, but it would be a nice way for each company to benefit from the other's installed base.

Why doesn't Glaser dump Helix? It's open source/free/worthless. Real earns a cut of revenue from subscriptions and downloads - why do they care about format?

He = stupid

I own an iPod, a G4, and a PC. I've used iTunes for both PC and Mac. I recently started subscribing to Rhapsody. Downloading music to ANY device isn't nearly as enjoyable as the Rhapsody experience of search and play. My only regret is that there is currently no client for the Mac. Anyone with a brandband connection who spends 10 minutes playing with the interface will see what I mean. I thought streaming was a riduclous idea until I actually started playing with the Rhapsody client for PCs. I'll gladly wait for portability. I use my iPod for plane trips now and, sadly, that's about it.

I'm doing a project in engineering class and would like to know how much the apple computer bring in in sales annually as compared to the ipod. I would greatly appreaciate if someone can answer this question for me.