Real Networks Set To Compete With iTMS

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
As quoted :

Quote:

RealNetworks Inc. (RNWK) confirmed its launch of a service that lets subscribers buy and download songs for 79 cents a track.



The new music service, RealOne Rhapsody, is a cobranded version of Listen.com Inc.'s Rhapsody digital music subscription service, RealNetworks said in a press release Wednesday.



Offered with a 14-day free trial, consumers can sign up for RealOne Rhapsody at $9.95 a month.



The service has more than 330,000 tracks available for on-demand listening and more than 200,000 songs available for downloading at 79 cents a track.



theFly

www.flyonthemac.com

Rumors You Can Bet On

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Yeah, I guess it was just a matter of time.
  • Reply 2 of 19
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    The only new thing here is a new owner and a new price per download.
  • Reply 3 of 19
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    But it's the price that is key.
  • Reply 4 of 19
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CubeDude

    But it's the price that is key.



    Remember that you still need to pay $9.95 a month.



    But competition is good, and perhaps Apple will lower the price to $.79 in the future.
  • Reply 5 of 19
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CubeDude

    But it's the price that is key.



    Not exactly. Price, quality, easy of use, non-obtrusiveness is key. And there's never going to be a price war between content deliveres of music. Labels will never allow that to happen. They are going to set a minimum price that companies like Apple and Real has to follow, and they probably have already.
  • Reply 6 of 19
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    collusion anyone?
  • Reply 7 of 19
    gorebuggorebug Posts: 52member
    So as long as you buy 51 songs each and every month, Real Networks will be cheaper.



    I'll stick with iTMS.
  • Reply 8 of 19
    spotcatbugspotcatbug Posts: 195member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gorebug

    So as long as you buy 51 songs each and every month, Real Networks will be cheaper.



    Yeah, and even then, you only save half a cent per song.
  • Reply 9 of 19
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NETROMac

    Not exactly. Price, quality, easy of use, non-obtrusiveness is key. And there's never going to be a price war between content deliveres of music. Labels will never allow that to happen. They are going to set a minimum price that companies like Apple and Real has to follow, and they probably have already.



    It certainly wouldn't be the first time the labels engaged in collusion or price-fixing.
  • Reply 10 of 19
    theflythefly Posts: 72member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    It certainly wouldn't be the first time the labels engaged in collusion or price-fixing.



    Well, Apple has much stricter controls on price then the music labels do. Whereas the price for CDs does vary between retail establishments, what's the most you can get off a brand new Mac? $5 from Amazon? Of course, retailers need to throw in additional RAM, etc to make their store more a value proposition.



    However, I don't think it's so much that the record labels are fixing retail prices. They have a set price which Apple and Real pay them. Now between that and what Apple charges is up to Apple.



    The current Business 2.0 magazine has a break down of where the revenue from online sales goes.



    40% The Sites Cut

    30% The Labels Cut

    12% The Artists Cut

    10% The Middlemen's Cut

    8% The Publisher's Cut



    So, if Apple is willing to cut their share down to 20c per son, they can. But why bother?



    theFly
  • Reply 11 of 19
    xmogerxmoger Posts: 242member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gorebug

    So as long as you buy 51 songs each and every month, Real Networks will be cheaper.



    I'll stick with iTMS.




    Cheaper to own the songs. You can still listen to all the songs on any computer you can log in from for the base fee. Once MS adds license expiration for portable players, you won't have to be near a computer.
  • Reply 12 of 19
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TheFly

    Well, Apple has much stricter controls on price then the music labels do. Whereas the price for CDs does vary between retail establishments, what's the most you can get off a brand new Mac? $5 from Amazon? Of course, retailers need to throw in additional RAM, etc to make their store more a value proposition.



    Apple can't be accused of collusion or price-fixing, though, because it's just one company.



    Quote:

    However, I don't think it's so much that the record labels are fixing retail prices. They have a set price which Apple and Real pay them. Now between that and what Apple charges is up to Apple.



    Or, they don't have a set price collectively, but they're all close enough that Apple and/or Real calls it a wash and charges the same for all songs.



    Quote:



    40% The Sites Cut

    30% The Labels Cut

    12% The Artists Cut

    10% The Middlemen's Cut

    8% The Publisher's Cut



    So, if Apple is willing to cut their share down to 20c per son, they can. But why bother?




    They probably won't, unless Real's model suddenly takes off.



    Personally, I'm shocked that the artist gets 12%! That's a really, really good rate. Knowing the industry, they've found a way to make sure that the artist nets a lot less than 12%, but still...
  • Reply 13 of 19
    theflythefly Posts: 72member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Personally, I'm shocked that the artist gets 12%! That's a really, really good rate. Knowing the industry, they've found a way to make sure that the artist nets a lot less than 12%, but still...



    Actually, the artists may make less then 12%. Here's the text describing that slice:



    Quote:

    Twelve percent is average, but successful bands often hammer out better contracts. In many major-label contracts, charges for "packaging" and promotional copies are subtracted from the artist's cut, leaving the talent with a measly 8 percent. BMG, Universal, and Warner have announced plans to do away with such deductions for digital downloads



    I won't call 8% measly until I stop seeing shows on the Travel Channel which show off the "poor" musicians luxurious mansions and their porshe play toys.



    But that's just me, no blood split for the starving artist.



    theFly
  • Reply 14 of 19
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TheFly



    I won't call 8% measly until I stop seeing shows on the Travel Channel which show off the "poor" musicians luxurious mansions and their porshe play toys.




    8% is also a really good rate, and I still suspect various subtractions at work before the artist gets to take home anything. The more common net income is something like 0.5%, and that's only if the band is able to earn back the cost of the album. Comparing across industries, a royalty rate of 2% for a published novel is quite good.



    The number of rich musicians is very, very small relative to the general population of musicians, and the contracts that, say, Sting is able to negotiate do not in any way resemble the contracts that most major-label artists work under. Almost all the musicians I know have day jobs, and the ones that don't work hard and live modestly.
  • Reply 15 of 19
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    Before Apple lowers it's price to say 75cents, they should just get it out for PC users.

    That should provide a better gage of where they stand in terms of price vs. ease, selection etc...

    If they do well, keep the price at 99 cents for another 6 months.
  • Reply 16 of 19
    theflythefly Posts: 72member
    I don't think they should lower the price at all. Best I can figure from the Real service the only thing you can do is burn the song to Disc. Doesn't include the ability to move the song to a portable player either.



    Then for all that matters, the service is from Real, of all things. Last time I installed their jukebox software, it was kind enough to tag all my MP3 creator fields with it's own name...which I know wasn't used to create them.



    theFly
  • Reply 17 of 19
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TheFly

    Then for all that matters, the service is from Real, of all things. Last time I installed their jukebox software, it was kind enough to tag all my MP3 creator fields with it's own name...which I know wasn't used to create them.







    Yup, that sounds like Real. That's one of many reasons why I keep their crapware off my machine.
  • Reply 18 of 19
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Hilarious blurb going around CNBC's news ticker (or was it CNN?) right now. First they call Real's music store a "music-swapping" service. Second, they of course noticed that the songs are $.79 per song. They took the bait, not exaclty the most astute folk there. If the journalists let the $10 per month subscription fall under the radar, I suppose most others are this gullible too?
  • Reply 19 of 19
    jante99jante99 Posts: 539member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    Hilarious blurb going around CNBC's news ticker (or was it CNN?) right now. First they call Real's music store a "music-swapping" service. Second, they of course noticed that the songs are $.79 per song. They took the bait, not exaclty the most astute folk there. If the journalists let the $10 per month subscription fall under the radar, I suppose most others are this gullible too?



    Not when they recieve the billl 30 days later.
Sign In or Register to comment.