News.com readers: Is Steve Jobs pigheaded?

RealNetworks' CEO Rob Glaser makes critical remarks about Apple Computer Chief Steve Jobs, and readers take notice. Glaser described Jobs' decision to make the iPod compatible only with iTunes music store as "pigheadedness." Glaser, who made the comments Monday at a conference in Foster City, Calif., would like iPod owners to be able to shop for music at RealNetworks' music store. Music fans apparently have strong opinions on who they want to see control music downloads.

Here's a sampling of our readers' comments. What's your opinion? Join in the discussion in our TalkBack forum.

Pigheadedness
Posted by: Allen Harris

Glaser is being emotional and entirely misses the point. The sole purpose of the iTunes Music Store is to sell iPods. That is all it's ever been intended to do and every decision Apple has made regarding it supports that purpose. As a revenue model on its own, it is simply not worth it - Apple makes very little money on the music sold. Opening it to other players and other applications dilutes and defeats that purpose, and that is why it hasn't happened. Introducing other arguments and issues is politics and debate tactics, intended to muddy the waters and stir up response.

Video: RealNetworks' CEO Rob Glaser
"Apple's pigheadedness."

Real gets it right
Posted by: Jesse Scott

Where Real is going with Rhapsody is a huge step in the right direction. The user doesn't need any bloated software -just a browser. Also, for the first time, I can access a legal music subscription service from within Linux. Now, if only they'd also port the ability to download music and burn CDs.

Beat Apple? Build a better product.
Posted by: Michael Greere

Consumers don't want choice. They want a good product.

The iPod and iTunes are fantastic, user-centric products. They're winning fairly: on merits. Word of mouth would still fetch Apple a healthy market-share because the products are so good.

Glaser probably gets this. But if he admits it, he admits Real is basically worthless.

Build a better experience. I'll buy it. But the idea of Real or MS being the ones to that to market is laughable.

Glaser is getting desperate...
Posted by: Earl Benser

(Glaser turns wrath on Apple, Jobs)...And he should be.

Who would really benefit??
Posted by: Bill Fant

Only Apple's competitors would benefit from an open iPod/ iTunes Store. Consumers wouldn't necessarily benefit as it would surely bring confusion, inconsistencies and problems. Apple has been hugely successful because it has control over the 'iPod experience' from usage to purchasing and that control offers value. iTunes pricing is reasonable and the selection is fairly large plus you can buy and (legally) rip most anything else you may want.

I don't think many iPod owners are complaining they cannot use Real or any other competing service. It's mostly people with competing players or stores who wish things were different

Why don't people GET it??
Reader post by: Anonymous User

Without defending or degrading Real, Apple or MS the issue is about one thing: DRM. Apple has a proprietary DRM (same as MS, same as the recording labels, et. al). An iPod can play either unencoded music or it can play music encoded with Apple's DRM. Those, I believe, are the two choices you have. What Real and the other companies want from Apple is what everyone states they want from MS...a fair shake and access to code. The current mindset leans towards DRM protected music sales. Without DRM the labels WILL NOT grant any company the rights to sell music online. Without this right an online music venture is obviously dead in the water.

What Real wants is to be able to either have Apple open up their DRM so that other companies/music stores can encode sold music with it, or they want Apple to open up the iPod to recognize multiple formats of DRM.

It's not about who has the better store, the better player, the better format or even the better music. It IS about other companies not being able to sell their product (recall the DRM issues above) to an iPod owner for use on an iPod. And an iPod owner who cannot play certain files on his/her iPod will not BUY those files.

Glaser is a jerk.
Reader post by: Chris English

This guy is so busy whining instead of focusing on making his own business better. Real Networks as a business had first mover advantage in the online world of digital audio. Remember all the sites in the early 90's that used Real Audio for sound clips exclusively?

Now that they fallen to number 3, Glaser prefers to whine and cry about other companies instead of focusing on his core business.

[Gary Valan]

Re: Is Steve Jobs pigheaded?

Interesting pro and con arguments. I love my iPODs and the experience I get from it. However, people in this industry know that the competition is not going away. One of the most recent examples is how Palm is got marginalized. At some point Microsoft, Real and others will get it right and then we'll see a real threat to the Apple system. One really cannot blame Apple (and Steve) for their current strategy while the $$ pours in but time is against them. At some point Apple will have to get pragmatic and decide whether it wants to lead this industry or become just another participant while some other "company" yanks the chains. The next few years will be very interesting.

Hi Steve,

Hey, I love the Ipod Video. I am already getting my cash ready for
the next generation ipod. The ipod is the best portable media
player out there. No body else can offer the experience like that. I
love my OS X. I don't get how Sony can survive without support OS
X.

[drewhowe--2008]

So many reasons, so little time

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the arguments are well laid out. It makes
no economic sense for Apple to open up to other sources of
DRM-encoded music.

As user interface becomes more important, the best marketing
that any company can buy is a product that always looks good.
Visibility is very important in the music-player world. As-is, iPod
doesn't have a bad side to look at. There aren't nearly as many
stories about how "my iPod crashed and I lost all my music" as
there are iPod owners sitting quietly in public areas enjoying
seamless usage and, let's face it- looking pretty damn cool. If
other music providers were brought into the picture, this could
conceivably be a real problem. With the iTunes music store
being an exclusive source, Apple can make sure the iPod
experience looks sexy at all times. No messy zipped files on the
desktop, no artifacts in the album artwork, no one shaking their
iPod to make it work in public places- just straight, seamless
content- and happy users.

[dpetrosky]

It is not all black and white

People are looking at this way too simplistically. Those who want
Apple to open ether the iPod or Fairplay (apple's DRM) see this
as increasing competition. And increasing competition is always
good for consumers....right???

Well it is if it increases competition for consumers, but seeing as
Apple and Real are both running their stores at ether a loss or
break even, competition between resellers is not really a
concern. What is a concern is resellers not having enough power
to keep wholesalers inline (ie the labels).

Apple some how got the labels to agree to some pretty fair
terms when they started up the iTunes music store. And they are
holding the line very well but the Labels are looking to change
things and only a near monopoly will stop them. Check out
some of the head lines and you will see that the real battle
coming up is not Apple vs Real it is Apple vs the Labels. At risk
are prices and allowable usage.

So, imagine that apple stays it's course and in a year or so when
the current contracts end Apple refuses to increase prices. The
labels don't distribute songs on iTunes and two things happen.
1) Angry feed back from millions of iPod owners
2) Fewer sales of the song because iPod users can play it.

Now even with Apples near total control of online distribution
this will still represent only a small percentage of over all sales
so apple may still need to give in but the stronger Apple is the
better chance they have against the labels.

Now imagine that Apple makes the iPod play WMA songs and
when apple refuses to sign new higher price contracts Real
decides to accept them.

1) Consumers buy the songs from Real for higher prices.
2) Apple looses market share and is forced to give in.

Consumers pay more and in the future they may be even further
restricted in fare use for some or all songs.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know that Apple is holding on to it's
DRM because it is good for Apple. It helps keep more people
coming to the iTunes Music Store and more people buying iPods.
But it also gives apple more weight in an industry that has been
taking advantage of consumers for decades. And some times it
takes a bully to take on a bully.

I say GO GET UM APPLE!!!

[skeptik]

Steve isn't the only one

People aren't looking at this simply enough.

Why do we treat online music any different than CDs? When I buy a CD (without DRM, but then those discs aren't technically CDs by definition) I can take it out of whatever store I bought it from, play it on whatever CD player I have or will buy and it just works. More seamlessly than the "iPod experience" I might add.
So why, as a music listener should I suddenly accept all these limitations and incompatibilities just because I would rather download music rather than buy a physical product. Afterall, if the download scene isn't more convenient than buying the CD why should I download at all? It's an lower quality product for more money... convenience is the only aspect they're selling.
Of course to the Labels, the software and hardware makers it's all about the ability to control the revenue stream and get more of our dollars. So will somebody please tell me why I should tolerate this?

Closed systems are not good for consumers. period. It doesn't matter if this particular closed system works really well. Let's say I'm provided a cell phone by work. I'd like to play MP3s on it, but my MP3 player is an iPod but my wireless carrier is Verizon. I can't use the Apple phone so I have to re-buy the same song in the same format just to have a different DRM wrapper? (Yes there are work-arounds, but then why wouldn't I just buy the CD and have the quality when I want it and the flexibility to rip in whatever format I want when I need it? Again, ignoring for the moment that the RIAA wants to prevent me from ripping my CD into a compressed format.)
It's crazy. It's anti-consumer and it's all about the bottom line for the media/hardware providers. And I for one, won't support any of their pigheadedness.

Interoperability and compatibility?

Why does no one mention the fact that the Apple solution -
iPod, iTunes, iTunes Music Store - is the only solution out there
that runs seamlessly on both Windows and Macintosh platforms?

Yes, it should run on Linux, too, but that's another issue.

I'm a Mac user, always have been, always will be. I cannot use
Real's full service, because Microsoft's DRM scheme does not
support the Mac. I cannot use Yahoo's service, or Virgin's, or
Coke's, or PureTracks, or anybody elses service. Sure, Rhapsody
now will allow me to stream 25 songs for free (as long as I'm in
the USA), but I can't use their full service.

Why aren't these people talking about how compatible Apple's
solution is with the major desktop platforms out there? It is
Microsoft (and everyone that buys into it) that is incompatible,
not Apple.

The reason they are all whining is that consumers have made
their choice, and Mr. Glaser and Mr. Gates don't like it, so they
want somebody to legislate or force Apple to open up and allow
them into the market. Why don't they do it the old fashioned way
- by making a competing service that is as good, or better than
Apple's and taking it to them?

That's what Apple has always done, and now that they are the
800 lb Gorilla, Gates is scared and worried, and whines like the
little girl he really is, and all of his cronies are singing the same
tune.

[jmalone1]

It is about open standards for the consumer

I would like to be able to use my I-Pod to download legal music from whatever service I choose, Real, Napster, Yahoo... but I can't because of the different DRM standards. Rob is on the right side of this one, Apple is in the 1984 mode all over again. If you remember Apple kept the superior and overpriced Mac system close to the vest, no licensing for anyone else. We all know what happened. Apple almost 30 years later still plays the same game, they can sell more I-Pods right now by keeping control but is this wise for the long term? Maybe, maybe not? Depends on how successful Apple is in controlling the market.
I happen to believe the I-Pod is overpriced and Rhapsody is a superior way to go for a music lover. The public has not caught on yet to the great benefits of subcription music services like Rhapsody. It is fantastic to legally have the ability to listen to literally millions of songs and carry them with me on a portable device using Rhapsody to go. P2P sites like Limewire are increasingly filled with viruses and knowing that you break the law and could be fined.
It will be interesting as we go forward to see if Apple can maintain their closed system. Maybe the public will stick with Apple but maybe it is 1984 all over again and the I-Pod is the new Mac?