Advertisement

(1 reply) #1 Posted by Cierro on 19 Aug 2004 - 00:30

hmm...

well they're trying to improve there self image. And open the ipod for people who want better quality music at equal (or for now) cheaper prices. I applaud that they're at least trying self improvement.

#1.1 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:05

You're kidding, right? Their image looks worse. They aren't trying to do anything but get on the iPod, and iPod owners have not been clamoring for Real support that's for damn sure... It's about 300,000 feature requests down the list from continuous playback.

(1 reply) #2 Posted by GT on 19 Aug 2004 - 00:33

Owned by steve!

#2.1 Posted by rogerroger on 19 Aug 2004 - 04:12

Good one Steve! LOL. Tell those boys to take a flying leap and get the hell out of dodge!

(1 reply) #3 Posted by oik on 19 Aug 2004 - 00:36

it's not just the petition. real made a website that's mostly propaganda and bs against apple... "freedomofmusicchoice.org" i believe. it's all about apple and their drm and opening the ipod... not about letting drm'ed wma's play on os x or anything else... so why'd they call it "freedomofmusicchoice"? real's not about freedom. they're about hijacking someone else's hard work and trying to get a free ride.

i hope apple comes down hard on them in a courtroom, and wins.

#3.1 Posted by Mister Lamar on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:26

damn an apple, I hope real wins

#4 Posted by theLANDofSMEG on 19 Aug 2004 - 00:36

if it wasn't a two-bit company like Real making the campaign they would probably be sucessful

(4 replies) #5 Posted by Hurmoth on 19 Aug 2004 - 00:36

Go Apple! Die RealNetworks

#5.1 Posted by Acid on 19 Aug 2004 - 00:48

Yay fanboys! Shoot down a potential second source of music! Not only would you get a wider variety, competition would begin with prices!

Damn Real! [/sarcasm]

#5.2 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:04

This is a weak argument. iPod owners weren't clamoring for Real support. They don't want it. Real was clamoring for iPod support.

And what's new about the competition? Are iPod owners the only people buying music? If other services could actually develop compelling services that customers want to use, then you'll have competition. If everyone is choosing to use the iTMS, then they've created the most compelling product.

#5.3 Posted by incubusdaemon on 19 Aug 2004 - 05:07

there is a such a thing as a benvolent monopoly. Monopolies are only bad when they harm the consumer (in fact, that is how anti trust laws are written). Apple has used it's ownership of the technology to build a very streamlined system that Real cannot possibly hope to achieve (even with full disclosure by Apple- Apple created it, they can do it best).

I think most people see iTMS and the iPod as one sync'ed system. If you don't like iTMS, you don't buy an iPod, or you buy the music and rip it yourself (or you download it via p2p/irc/your source of choice).

Personally, I see it like an alternate TV guide format complaining because TiVo won't open up their boxes.

Real guessed wrong in thinking that people wanted a new music store or competing formats. People are (gasp!) happy with iTMS.

#5.4 Posted by thexfile on 19 Aug 2004 - 13:28

Sounds like the E.U. will be fining Apple over it's iPoop monopoly

(3 replies) #6 Posted by ubelphenix on 19 Aug 2004 - 00:47

[QUOTE]I thought I would[BUFFERING...10%] voice my opinion using[BUFFERING...12%]the messag[BUFFERING...40%]ing client built into REAL's[BUFFERING...50%] [BUFFERING...60%]media center[BUFFERING...75%]I think REAL has some[BUFFERING...80%] of the[BUFFERING...82%][BUFFERING...85%] [BUFFERING...90%]products ever[CONNECTION LOST...REAL_ERROR32XKernel][/QUOTE]

great comment on the petition, haha

#6.1 Posted by Hurmoth on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:08

Good one!

#6.2 Posted by T-Metal on 19 Aug 2004 - 02:04

Aaaaahahaha!!! That's the funniest thing I read in a long, long time!

You are very funny ubelphenix, keep it up!

#6.3 Posted by MegaManXcalibur on 19 Aug 2004 - 03:10

LOL funniest thing I've seen all day.

(10 replies) #7 Posted by Starcom826 on 19 Aug 2004 - 00:53

Yep. Its for all these crazy people that DRM is acceptable nowadays. iTunes has succeeded so well that now people except that fact that other companies can limit the usage of music they bought.

#7.1 Posted by feverish- on 19 Aug 2004 - 00:58

Not all people. I'm still quite happy actually going -outside- (gasp), hopping in my car, and going to buy a cd I want. Call me old fashioned I guess, but if I can physically hold it in my hand, it's -mine-.

#7.2 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:00

You bought the lie hook, line, and sinker that easy? Real has nothing against DRM. They aren't removing their DRM. They aren't open sourcing their DRM. They aren't giving away their DRM. They aren't even licensing it yet. You cannot play THEIR songs in any player besides THEIR OWN. Real isn't attacking DRM in general nor are they supporting the opening up of any other devices, formats, or applications. They simply want to jump on the most successful player. That's it.

#7.3 Posted by kagaku on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:02

QUOTE

Not all people. I'm still quite happy actually going -outside- (gasp), hopping in my car, and going to buy a cd I want. Call me old fashioned I guess, but if I can physically hold it in my hand, it's -mine-.

You no longer need to go outside! There are many places online that supply physical CDs. Stay indoors! Outside is dangerious!

#7.4 Posted by Starcom826 on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:12

I didn't even mention real. I'm just saying DRM makes iTunes suck, coaxing people into accepting DRM.

#7.5 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:21

I guess you didn't, but I don't get your point. This IS about Apple and Real. Are you criticizing people who like and appreciate iTunes and have hence got the snow ball rolling in the digitizing of the music industry? Are you just complaining about DRM in an unrelated, irrelevant way? Do you think iPod/iTunes users don't have illegal music or CDs?

Because personally I am all for my own ability to circumvent DRM in my own goods, and I almost exclusively purchase CDs AND I like and use iTunes/iPod AND I don't like how Real's behaving. So what does the success of iTunes have to do with it?

Last edited by 9953 on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:27

#7.6 Posted by Starcom826 on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:27

If its digitizing music, that was done thanks to P2P. iTunes puts more restrictions on music than buying a cd does, and when people come to accept the DRM in iTunes, then the entertainment industry can just press more.

#7.7 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:29

No, Starcom, P2P networks did nothing for the industry but piss them off. That wasn't an industry, sorry.

#7.8 Posted by Starcom826 on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:31

Er, now where did I say that was an industry? What I meant by digitizing music was ripping a cd and storing it as a digital file. Simple as that.

#7.9 Posted by daub815 on 19 Aug 2004 - 02:53

I have an iPod and iTunes, but I don't have any DRM songs. I use allofmp3.com and that is DRM Free, so not all iPod owners think DRM is acceptable.

#7.10 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 16:32

Starcom, if you haven't figured it out yet, I am asking what is your beef with Apple's iTunes and what revelence do you think your comments have to this story if any.

#8 Posted by Huezo on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:02

Of course Real was going to get flamed. Stealing techology is not a nice thing to do. That they asked Apple about it and they refused does not give them the right to hack the technology and use it. Like someone else in another forum put it, "that you ask someone for their car and they refuse does not grant you the right to take it anyway".

Setting up a .org site is rather lame. Especially since they advertise "freedom of choice". They want Apple to open up their format when they won't open up theirs. Doesn't look too fair to me.

#9 Posted by Huezo on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:02

Double Post ^

Last edited by 26512 on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:09

(13 replies) #10 Posted by fahad on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:03

Is this good or bad for the consumer? I know the pros about this but what are the cons?

#10.1 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:11

There are many:

1. Your files could cease to work at some future date.

2. You need to use Real's software to interact with their songs.

3. It's only available on Windows.

4. It could hurt Apple's relationship with studios and further delay the transition of the music industry.

5. It'll be annoying to deal with the arms race of cracking and patching firmware updates.

6. Real could be driving their business into the ground quicker wiping them, and your music, off the face of the earth.

7. General ignorance continues to rise. (Bad analogies between Apple and MS, bad claims that Apple is repeating itself even though everyone knows the market is in its infancy and will take several more years to really get going, people actually think Real is looking out for them and aren't just as closed and proprietary, etc....)

#10.2 Posted by STV on 19 Aug 2004 - 05:33

QUOTE

There are many: 1. Your files could cease to work at some future date. 2. You need to use Real's software to interact with their songs. 3. It's only available on Windows. 4. It could hurt Apple's relationship with studios and further delay the transition of the music industry. 5. It'll be annoying to deal with the arms race of cracking and patching firmware updates. 6. Real could be driving their business into the ground quicker wiping them, and your music, off the face of the earth. 7. General ignorance continues to rise. (Bad analogies between Apple and MS, bad claims that Apple is repeating itself even though everyone knows the market is in its infancy and will take several more years to really get going, people actually think Real is looking out for them and aren't just as closed and proprietary, etc....)

1) that would be apple's fault, but then again, they are within their right to do that.
2) well, you currently need to use iTunes to buy the songs, but then again, apple does have the right to make this system.
3) well, the iPod didnt really start selling until apple made it windows compatible. plus most people have a windows machine.
4) if this hurts apple's relationship, then the FairPlay cracks should hurt even more (which it didnt).
5) very true.
6) that may happen too
7) the analogies are not bad nor are they ignorant, it is the same thing, questionable anti-competitive practices (but then again, apple and microsoft are well with their right to do that with something that they made). yes, the market is still new, and who is to say that in a few years, the iPod will still be on top? i dont think that being first is always the best thing in kind of situation. that is where the fall of the Mac market share analogy comes from.

STV

#10.3 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 16:36

1. "they are within their right to do that." -- so it would be the customer's fault for believing Real
2. "apple does have the right to make this system." Yes, they do, and customers are perfectly aware of that.
3. No, it didn't. Since Windows compatibility has been added, it has ranked consistently at about 50% of iPod sales.
4. An OSS software that has been pushed to the edges of Bangladesh on a single page web site is worse than a media storm? I beg to differ.
...
7. Yes, they are. They weren't first, and you just agreed that the market is nascent and that Apple could fall quite naturally... Doesn't sound like a monopoly...

#10.4 Posted by STV on 19 Aug 2004 - 16:53

1) actually, it all depends on your view of the situation. if you support apple, then it would be real's fault. if you support real, then it is apple's fault. in the end, it is not the customer's fault either way. this is a battle between two small companies where some customers may end up losing as a result.
2) yes, i know that many customers prefer this sort of tight intigration. i just wish that people would allow microsoft to do the same thing without getting all bent out of shape.
3) the iPod got off to a slow start, and that is why they added support for windows. if they were doing just fine of their side, then why did they feel the need to add windows support?
4) i dont understand, please elaborate.
7) i guess we will have to agree to disagree. you see it from one side and i see it from another. i think that apple has every right to do what they are doing. the market may be new, and apple may not have what it has now, but it still holds a good portion of the market.

im glad that this hasnt exploded into a flame fest. thanks for the conversation.

STV

#10.5 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 17:07

1. No, it doesn't. Apple has said: "We may break compatibility." Real has said: "We are committed to compatibility." If the consumer is suckered into believing Real, how can it possibly be Apple's fault.

2. STV, you keep whining about MS, and you don't seem willing to have a nuanced, legalistic argument about antitrust law, so drop it.... I'm getting bored repeating myself.

3. The iPod didn't get off to a slow start. Yes, sales in the first year were less than what they are now nearly 4 years later, but they weren't slow. As I said, Windows iPods are about 50-55% of their total sales. Why they do it? Because everyone listens to music and Apple could integrate the iPod into iTunes and the iTMS no matter what platform it was on. Duh.

4. Hymn was removed from all the major sites and now remains a minor project on a crappy little page out of a small operation in India... it is not a serious threat. As I pointed out in the past, Jobs has always told the studios that DRM could be cracked, the key was to make the experience desirable enough that the vast majority of consumers would prefer the legitimate alternative.

7. A brand new market cannot be monopolized. Simple. Deal with it. Every time you ponder if Apple is still going to be in the same position next year, you invalidate your theory that they are a monopoly.

#10.6 Posted by STV on 19 Aug 2004 - 18:12

1) ill take that. i agree.
2) you keep whining about real wrong about this, so what? i dont like repeating myself either. i wont just drop it, but for the sake of argument, i wont mention it while conversing with you. is that okay?
3) ill take that too.
4) thanks for elaborating. i agree.
7) that makes sense.

STV

#10.7 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 18:30

STV, my point being that with every elaboration I provide you generally agree with me. But then you revert to: "Microsoft is allowed to be a monopoly, Apple is allowed to be a monopoly, but Apple supporters are hypocrites." My points, even with you agreeing with them, have been: "Microsoft's monopoly and how it abused it is a different situation entirely, Apple doesn't have a monopoly, Some of Real's actions are perfectly fine but I do have problems with them, I am not being hypocritical." And you've agreed with me over and over! But then you'll revert back to this simplistic argument without getting more detailed and sophisticated about it. I don't get it.

#10.8 Posted by STV on 19 Aug 2004 - 18:44

from a simplistic point of view:
1) apple is right
2) real is right
3) microsoft is right

when we go deeper and deeper into the situation, some things change. for example:
1) apple is right because they developed the system. but apple may also be wrong because of some "questionable" actions
2) real is right because there are no legal or moral things getting in their way, but real may also be misleading customers in their venture.
3) microsoft is right because they developed the system. but microsoft may also be wrong because of some "questionable" actions

overall, i think that apple, microsoft, and real are right in their own way. but once the situation gets more detailed, there are certain things that i agree with and certain things that i dont. that is my reasoning. im only 18 and still have a lot to learn, and i am doing the best I can. i agree with you on those things because i can see where your position and points are coming from. dont shoot me for having conficting views on certain subjects. i have these views because they all make sense to me and i havent really made up my mind as to which side is "better".

i believe that apple, to a certain extent, does have a monopoly (depending on what aspect you look at), real's actions are ok, but others might not agree, and microsoft with out a doubt does have monopoly in 3 or 4 major areas.

anyways, there it is, i look forward to your comment,

STV

#10.9 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 18:56

Meh, your last comment was the most simplistic one yet. I have nothing to say to everyone is right, but everyone is wrong.

#10.10 Posted by STV on 19 Aug 2004 - 18:59

QUOTE

I have nothing to say to everyone is right, but everyone is wrong.

its not "everyone is right, but everyone is wrong." it is more like "everyone is right sometimes to some people, and everyone is wrong sometimes to some people." that may be "simplistic" but it is true.

STV

#10.11 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 19:02

I'm not criticizing that... I'm just saying you sucked all the details out of your statements with that last post... A dialogue needs some detail to progress. Your last statement is so whitewashed of detail and an argument that there is nothing to reply to...

#10.12 Posted by STV on 20 Aug 2004 - 02:37

...im not sure how to take that. im not sure if i should be upset, or just laugh it off.

STV

#10.13 Posted by dp123 on 20 Aug 2004 - 16:27

God, man, grow up. It's the internet. Nothing should upset you. You're lucky I even talk to you.

#11 Posted by Spykes424 on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:32

w00t stevie! kick real's sorry ass!

(2 replies) #12 Posted by code_monkey™ on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:35

QUOTE

After all its Apple's product, and they shouldn't have to open it up if they don't want to.

Actually, since its the consumers product, shouldn't they decide what goes on _their_ music player?

#12.1 Posted by malebolgia on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:41

Yes, but no one's forcing consumers to buy Apple's iPod. There are plenty of other media players out there that support several audio formats. iPod owners should have already been aware of the supported audio formats before purchasing it.

#12.2 Posted by code_monkey™ on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:51

If I want to use Real's service to download music to my own device, where's the breaking and entering?... So leaving aside the legal claim for a moment, where is the ethical foul? Apple was saying (and apparently believed) that Real had broken into something different from my iPod or your iPod. They had broken into the idea of an iPod. (I imagine a small, Platonic white rectangle, presumably imbued with the spirit of Steve Jobs.)

#13 Posted by cowma.com on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:41

lmao, i signed it just because I hate real soooo much.

(3 replies) #14 Posted by bangbang023 on 19 Aug 2004 - 01:59

Has anyone checked out Real's music prices? They wipe the floor with iTunes. Not to mention you also get a higher bitrate all while paying half the price.

#14.1 Posted by feverish- on 19 Aug 2004 - 04:01

But it's not by Apple, and actually went against the wishes of Apple, so fanboys no likey.

#14.2 Posted by code_monkey™ on 19 Aug 2004 - 04:58

went against apple's wishes? What are they gonna do, smite Real?

#14.3 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 16:38

They have higher bitrates and have had sales before... And yet they are still getting crushed by the iTMS in the marketplace. Hmmm, I guess the consumers actually "prefer" a well controlled, clean vertical integration of app, store, and product, maybe?

Because iTMS is wiping the floor with Real. Isn't that the point?

#15 Posted by ubugmetoo on 19 Aug 2004 - 02:21

Isn't there a law to flame Real anyways?

(1 reply) #16 Posted by ThunderRiver on 19 Aug 2004 - 03:03

The problem is that I can't even get Real Player 10 to run on my system... it just doesn't run or show up after installation.. can't even uninstall it.. and you guys are telling me the new Real is a good piece of software? I don't buy it

Now I guess I can't even get to the 49 cents per song deal.. I want to get the "ice cream man" song from that Kohl's old commercial.

#16.1 Posted by feverish- on 19 Aug 2004 - 04:04

I've found that happens typically when you've installed the Real Alternative codecs.

#17 Posted by Zirus1701 on 19 Aug 2004 - 03:17

After watching video in real player on the system I am currently using, it crashes.... BAM! instant reboot.

#18 Posted by demorgoron on 19 Aug 2004 - 03:30

just what real needed
they are going down

#19 Posted by imtoomuch on 19 Aug 2004 - 03:39

For the first time people are actually voting for Real. What's this world coming to? If this was a Microsoft player Real and other companies would have taken out lawsuits.

#20 Posted by atleeit on 19 Aug 2004 - 03:57

RealNetwork's software is great, everything runs fine, i'm just about to get a 4th generation 40gb ipod in a few days, and noone is going to stop me from putting any format and playing it on there, I want to be free and able to play any audio format i want

I support Real, Real has not in any way broken and laws by doing this, It's my iPOD and i choose to do whatever i want with it

(1 reply) #21 Posted by Cyranthus on 19 Aug 2004 - 04:31

who the hell uses Real nowadays anyways? Real is just 'another media company' that doesnt make much of an impact... Ide have to agree with Jobs... their software sucks. I bet the only reason why people have Real software on their comp is for some random internet video clip that they couldnt view without it. Its not an essential piece of software or video format (.rm) that is used alot..

#21.1 Posted by bfoot045 on 19 Aug 2004 - 05:12

Gotta agree there. Real player is junk. Apple was not in violation of their ipod trademark, nor in violation of real, and apple doesnt have to listen to another companies petition. Go apple!

#22 Posted by levithian on 19 Aug 2004 - 04:55

lmao.

Real always makes me laugh.

#23 Posted by STV on 19 Aug 2004 - 05:21

they should just stick this topic on the top and update it as needed. it seems that we are just having the same conversations, flames, and fights over and over again.

anybody here have a feeling of deva ju?

however, i do feel that apple is well within their right to protect their technology at all costs because they made it. however, since legal action is not an option, real should be allowed to do what they are doing as well. either way the iPod sells, but at the cost of apple's overall image. although the same could be said for real "trying" to invade apple's space. but then again, that is what competition is about, right?

STV

Last edited by 40230 on 19 Aug 2004 - 05:33

(1 reply) #24 Posted by Galley on 19 Aug 2004 - 05:23

I ordered a 4G 40GB iPod from the Apple Store today, and Real's Harmony technology was the deciding factor. I have always preferred the RealPlayer Music Store over the iTMS. I'm looking forward to being able to transfer my purchased tracks directly to my iPod without having to burn them to a CD first.
You can bet I will be loading it up with half-price albums and 49 cent tracks!

#24.1 Posted by bogd on 19 Aug 2004 - 20:49

enjoy using Real while you can.

#25 Posted by atleeit on 19 Aug 2004 - 05:36

I use Realplayer for playing music and also playing DVD's and SVCD clips, runs really sweet.
Don't know what you people are whinging about?

lol, stop whinging

#26 Posted by nhut on 19 Aug 2004 - 06:05

QUOTE

After all its Apple's product, and they shouldn't have to open it up if they don't want to.

Who writes this crap? What happened to semi-balanced journalism?

While I think Real products are just awful, I fully support the idea of Apple opening up the iPod.

(6 replies) #27 Posted by Fonze on 19 Aug 2004 - 06:13

there is no blunt way to put this but,
WTF is wrong with you iPod people?! Real offers you cheaper, higher quality music and you spit in their face? I'm really glad they are opening it up to us non-AAC fanatics, I'm certainly not turning my nose up at them like some higher society.

Their prices are the best so far and the sound quality is even nice. I got an album from them, the sound quality is really clear so far. I'm really picky about sound quality so it's a good sign when I think the quality is actually good, I can notice the difference between CDs and some music I bought off napster and buymusic.com.

#27.1 Posted by plasticparadox on 19 Aug 2004 - 07:00

You shouldn't be commenting on something you obviously don't know jack about. Real uses AAC to encode their music as well.

Real's music is not cheaper. It costs the same amount. .49 cents is a limited-time promotion which will surely dry up as Real runs out of cash and stockholder patience.

Nobody is begrudging Real the right to sell music - that's not what's at issue here. If Real wants to build it's own iPod clone and sell it, it surely has the right to do that as well. Innovate. Take risks. Apple did it, Sony did it. No reason why Real can't do it.

#27.2 Posted by STV on 19 Aug 2004 - 07:04

but isnt real taking a risk on this as well?

STV

#27.3 Posted by Fonze on 19 Aug 2004 - 08:14

QUOTE

You shouldn't be commenting on something you obviously don't know jack about. Real uses AAC to encode their music as well.

The files I bought came with the .rax extension. Whether it's an AAC file or not isn't what I was refering to, what I was refering to was the harmony software and how they are allowing users a choice between transfering music they buy to an iPod and to devices that support WMA

#27.4 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 16:41

Yeah, so you are getting an AAC with Helix DRM and converting it into a lossy WMA file with DRM. What was that about sound quality? Lossy to lossy transcoding is pretty undesirable, wouldn't you say? Aren't you "picky" about sound quality?

#27.5 Posted by Fonze on 20 Aug 2004 - 07:01

QUOTE

Yeah, so you are getting an AAC with Helix DRM and converting it into a lossy WMA file with DRM.

Real's music store was originally selling AAC files. I'm not sure if that is still true since they were never able to transfer those AAC files to iPods till harmony, which would lead me to believe the .rax files they are selling now are not aac but are their own format which keeps a higher quality when converted to AAC or WMA. now, I don't know if that is true or not, but it would be the best move for them.

and yes, i'm "picky" about sound quality and did not hear any difference between the original files on my computer and the ones on my mp3 player.

#27.6 Posted by dp123 on 20 Aug 2004 - 16:29

YOu expect me to really believe you know what you are talking about?

Yes, Real still ships AACs. They are protected with Helix... If transferring to an iPod, they are converted to AACs with Helix masking itself as an approved FairPlay track. If transfering to a device that doesn't support AAC or Real, they are transcoded to WMA. And, I doubt they sound good.

#28 Posted by nX07 on 19 Aug 2004 - 07:02

This is stupid. Real should be aloud to do this, everybody saying "it isnt right" and things, yet blame MS for being "controlling"...

(3 replies) #29 Posted by atleeit on 19 Aug 2004 - 07:17

plasticparadox - your whinging about nothing

Real is a Software company only, Sony is a Hardware and Software > Same as Apple

Real originally only encoded music in Mp3, AAC has only just got popular but the thing is AAC is sh*t, Mp3 is bigger and better in terms of sound quality, mp3 can be converted, AAC cannot be converted back to mp3 or you'll lose quality...Converting to AAC in the first place loses quality

I've been using real's software for along time, I havent ran into any problems

#29.1 Posted by karmakillernz on 19 Aug 2004 - 07:48

I suggest you do some research before coming on here and pretending to be an expert on the subject.

AAC has a lot of potential, and even today is pretty much neck and neck with mp3 in terms of quality when you use good encoders. And what do you mean "mp3 can be converted, AAC can't"?? That makes absolutely no sense. You can convert both mp3 and AAC back to wav, as long as it's not DRM (which is, I assume, what you were getting at). DRM can be applied to any codec. Also, converting from/to/between ANY lossy codec (mp3 and AAC included) will ALWAYS lose quality. Full stop. No exceptions. And that includes converting a 128kbps mp3 to, say, a 320kbps mp3, so I don't know what you're getting at.

#29.2 Posted by CubanPete on 19 Aug 2004 - 07:59

I think he was saying that mp3 could be converted to ACC because ACC is lower qaulity, but you can't convert ACC to mp3, well you could but it would be like taking a mp3 of say 128 and converting it to 192 (Note: Im not agreeing or disargreeing im just explaining thats what i interpreted it as)

#29.3 Posted by dp123 on 19 Aug 2004 - 17:12

That makes even less sense. AAC is generally higher quality than mp3, but it would always depend on bitrate settings. You can always go from a lower bitrate to higher or higher to lower, but the quality is never going to improve... but that doesn't stop anyone from doing it.

#30 Posted by CubanPete on 19 Aug 2004 - 07:54

Well i have agreed with real so far and all their harmony thing but i think they just took a step too far. They were fine with harmony but for some reason there now on an apple hammering venture which i dont see the point in.
Why do they have to do this, or feel the need to do this, they should have just shut their mouth and carried on with harmony, now they are just making themselves look like arses!

#31 Posted by chilliadus on 19 Aug 2004 - 08:03

There's no greater pleasure than seeing the fight of two companies that I dislike, although I must say that Real has it's point if I have to.

#32 Posted by dhitb on 19 Aug 2004 - 08:38

iPod owners sure strike me as rabid... it sort of makes me weary of purchasing one as I wouldn't want to become a monger of irrationality

#33 Posted by YaZoR on 19 Aug 2004 - 10:40

F**king hilarious!!!

QUOTE

8. MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM MUSHROOM 57. Steve Balmer Open up the iPod market? But your new player isn't even Mac compatible???? 56. Badgers (TM)! BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS BADGERS

#34 Posted by mAcOdIn on 19 Aug 2004 - 11:12

Well I like Reals approach.

Thier newer software has been very good to me and I like where they're headed, they have good quality music at a great price(albiet it'll be a temporary price), and they're trying to make it work on everything which I support.

(2 replies) #35 Posted by Spectre on 19 Aug 2004 - 11:14

good god, the stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me

wait, what's it called when a company has no competition in a particular market? correct, a *monopoly*. the very same thing you apple crybabies have been flaming microsoft for (which isn't even technically true, since there are alternatives to windows). oh the irony. apple finally gets competition in ipod music stores. now *you*, the *customers* get a freaking CHOICE and you bitch about it! unbelievable, simply unbelievable. did you bitch when the first IBM PC was reverse-engineered and the age of PCs began? oh, right, most of you apple fanboys weren't even born back then . would you rather have a choice instead of being bound to a single company? of course you wouldn't, because it could put a dent in your little pet company's revenues.

#35.1 Posted by STV on 19 Aug 2004 - 11:38

From Encarta Dictionary: English (North America)

QUOTE

Monopoly (noun) 1) control of market supply - ECONOMICS a situation in which one company controls an industry or is the only provider of a product or service 2) business corporation with exclusive control - COMMERCE a company with a commercial monopoly 3) exclusive commodity or area of control - ECONOMICS a product or service whose supply is controlled by only one company

@Spectre: I agree.

STV

</