1 Apple and Linux don't have the user base to make them worth our while.
2 Online music won't drop below $.79/song until we can beat the RIAA into lower fees.
3 We use a proprietary format because if we didn't, we'd get crushed by MS and Apple. If Apple, however, figured out how to play.rm, we'd sue their asses off. They won't license to us, so we won't license to them. Nyah.
4 We write annoying and intrusive software because Microsoft does it too (and our annoyances aren't as bad as their's are).
6 Helix gives us street cred in the OS community, that's why we do it.
7 We had our lawyers look very closely to make sure Apple couldn't sue us over the iPod. We don't expect any trouble. And don't worry, you'll always be able to play Harmony on your iPod, as long as you never use iTunes again.
8 See the first summary item for Linux support.
9. Based on "independent" consultants on our payroll, people want alternatives to iTunes. That must mean they want us. We lost a million dollars in 3 weeks selling music at below-cost, so it must be true.
10. I have not stopped beating my wife, but more to the popint, our company is raking in lots of dough. We're not making any profit, or I would have given you profit numbers instead of revenue numbers.
Thanks, I was too lazy to actually look it up. I just figured I'd save most of slashdot the time reading the whole interveiw.
Of course, it takes a good set of 'nads to stand up in front of/. and tell them that your product, which they already hate, is really part of a good business model, and isn't about sucking the living soul from them. Props for actually answering (most) of the questions, even if we don't like the answers any better than the product they're about.
> If Apple, however, figured out how to play.rm, we'd sue their asses > off. They won't license to us, so we won't license to them. Nyah.
This one is wrong. It should be:
We would be happy to accept Apple's check to license our useless (to Apple) tech. But we all know that won't happen because Apple is all about keeping people as locked into Quicktime's own codecs as possible.
> Based on "independent" consultants on our payroll, people want > alternatives to iTunes.
This one is also wrong. The quote was:
"96% of portable device owner said they thought they should be able to move music they bought to any device,"
Suprised it was only 96%. That question is about as controversial as "Do you think puppies are cute." Of course you should be able to play purchased music on ANY player. Which is why you should not part with good money for crappy low-bitrate DRM encumbered music.
We would be happy to accept Apple's check to license our useless (to Apple) tech. But we all know that won't happen because Apple is all about keeping people as locked into Quicktime's own codecs as possible.
Uh... yeaaaaah. That's why it works so well with MPEG, MPEG2, and MPEG4. They're just trying to trick you into using it so that then you'll start using their proprietary codecs. It actually inserts subliminal messages: uuuuuse soooooorenson... uuuuuse sooooorenson...
We would be happy to accept Apple's check to license our useless (to Apple) tech. But we all know that won't happen because Apple is all about keeping people as locked into Quicktime's own codecs as possible.
Locked into QuickTime's codecs? Which would those be? One of the codecs on this page? [apple.com]
QuickTime is a container, and even does vorbis with the appropriate component. [sourceforge.net]
You can complain about DRM'ed AAC if you want, but don't get that mixed up with QuickTime.
We would be happy to accept Apple's check to license our useless (to Apple) tech. But we all know that won't happen because Apple is all about keeping people as locked into Quicktime's own codecs as possible.
Nice incorrection. Actually, Apple's codec for the iTMS is MPEG-4, which is an open published standard. The QuickTime container format is also an open published standard.
Real's rm format is neither open nor published; they specifically prohibit turning rm files into anything else, and sue anyone who
I'm sure your cynicism is mostly deserved here (in part, I share it), but at least don't blatantly lie:
3 We use a proprietary format because if we didn't, we'd get crushed by MS and Apple. If Apple, however, figured out how to play.rm, we'd sue their asses off. They won't license to us, so we won't license to them. Nyah.
In fact, Glaser said that Real would be happy to cross-license their formats with Apple. Of course, a cross-licensing scheme at this point would be a waste, because Real would be
Summary: (Score:5, Informative)
2 Online music won't drop below $.79/song until we can beat the RIAA into lower fees.
3 We use a proprietary format because if we didn't, we'd get crushed by MS and Apple. If Apple, however, figured out how to play
4 We write annoying and intrusive software because Microsoft does it too (and our annoyances aren't as bad as their's are).
6 Helix gives us street cred in the OS community, that's why we do it.
7 We had our lawyers look very closely to make sure Apple couldn't sue us over the iPod. We don't expect any trouble. And don't worry, you'll always be able to play Harmony on your iPod, as long as you never use iTunes again.
8 See the first summary item for Linux support.
9. Based on "independent" consultants on our payroll, people want alternatives to iTunes. That must mean they want us. We lost a million dollars in 3 weeks selling music at below-cost, so it must be true.
10. I have not stopped beating my wife, but more to the popint, our company is raking in lots of dough. We're not making any profit, or I would have given you profit numbers instead of revenue numbers.
Re:Summary: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Summary: (Score:2)
Of course, it takes a good set of 'nads to stand up in front of
Corrections (Score:5, Insightful)
> off. They won't license to us, so we won't license to them. Nyah.
This one is wrong. It should be:
We would be happy to accept Apple's check to license our useless (to Apple) tech. But we all know that won't happen because Apple is all about keeping people as locked into Quicktime's own codecs as possible.
> Based on "independent" consultants on our payroll, people want
> alternatives to iTunes.
This one is also wrong. The quote was:
"96% of portable device owner said they thought they should be able to move music they bought to any device,"
Suprised it was only 96%. That question is about as controversial as "Do you think puppies are cute." Of course you should be able to play purchased music on ANY player. Which is why you should not part with good money for crappy low-bitrate DRM encumbered music.
Re:Corrections (Score:2)
Uh... yeaaaaah. That's why it works so well with MPEG, MPEG2, and MPEG4. They're just trying to trick you into using it so that then you'll start using their proprietary codecs. It actually inserts subliminal messages: uuuuuse soooooorenson... uuuuuse sooooorenson...
Sheesh.
-fred
Re:Corrections (Score:2)
Locked into QuickTime's codecs? Which would those be? One of the codecs on this page? [apple.com]
QuickTime is a container, and even does vorbis with the appropriate component. [sourceforge.net]
You can complain about DRM'ed AAC if you want, but don't get that mixed up with QuickTime.
Re:Corrections (Score:2)
Nice incorrection. Actually, Apple's codec for the iTMS is MPEG-4, which is an open published standard. The QuickTime container format is also an open published standard.
Real's rm format is neither open nor published; they specifically prohibit turning rm files into anything else, and sue anyone who
Re:Summary: (Score:1)
Re:Summary: (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, Glaser said that Real would be happy to cross-license their formats with Apple. Of course, a cross-licensing scheme at this point would be a waste, because Real would be
Your sig is quite correct. (Score:2)
Except if you read the article (hell, its on this page, you didn't have to click) where he explicitly says he'd be happy to license Real's technology.
Sheesh...