Rhapsody brings subscription music to the iPhone, pending Apple's approval
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted Aug 24th 2009 10:53AM
posted Aug 24th 2009 10:53AM
If the maniacs at RealNetworks have their way, you'll soon be rockin' out to Rhapsody on your iPhone or iPod touch, streaming all those pop tunes you crave over WiFi, Edge, or 3G, courtesy of your $15 Rhapsody ToGo account -- pending approval from Apple, of course. Sure, we can't imagine the company allowing Pandora but dissing Rhapsody, but stranger things have happened. If this isn't enough to get subscription music fans spinning in their office chairs, the company is also working diligently on Rhapsody for other mobile platforms and carrier app stores, including Google Android. And there's more! Check out the app in all its glory -- on video, no less -- after the break.
[Via PC World]
[Via PC World]
See more video at our hub!
Yes!
no need for 32 GB iphone to store music...say helo to the 512 MB iphone!!!!
AHAHAHAHHA
first!
denied for no reason
Maybe not. The FCC is already looking into Google voice, don't know if they'll take the risk. But let's see
mimics iPhone features......denied
How long ago was Spotify sent for approval? Both will be denied.
Wrong. Denied for "Buffering...."
you say that but last.fm is in the app store, does exactly the same thing and is both approved and lets you stream over 3g.
Bob..it's not the same thing at all. You can't do what he just did, which is search for a particular track and then play it. You can search for a particular artist and play a random song and similar songs. Have you used it or did you really not notice the huge difference?
It's definitely possible it'll be denied for god knows what reason, but there are already plenty of radio streaming apps over 3G. Pandora, Flycast, Public Radio Streamer, etc. But yes, they could see Rhapsody as competition to iTMS in a way that streaming radio apps are not. Would be weak to pull that, though I'm not sure how many people it would affect...
... if anything, Real should partner with Apple on this. Could be a strong iPhone selling point. Instant access to any music you want.
I think the real story here is Real Networks still exists.
it will probably not be denied ... it will just run on wifi only, making it trivial for a real portable music solution.
can U say Last.fm ?? or YOUTUBE? who need that shit if Last.fm does the same for free?
Doesn't Last.fm limit your ability to choose out specific songs? As for youtube, it's usually in such low quality that it doesn't matter.
I'm calling denied. I can't see Apple allowing a subscription service that would take money from iTunes. Pandora limits your ability to choose which songs you want to hear, but a full-fledged rhapsody service would go toe to toe with iTunes.
By the way, I'm not bashing Apple at all with this. In fact, this is one case where I wouldn't even blame them. It just wouldn't make good business sense to allow this product to enter the limelight by appearing on iPhones and possibly taking away from the iTunes store.
Yes, you should blame Apple if they block this. How is it any different then Microsoft taking Windows and not letting you install whatever you want.
I'm cool with blocking stuff that is available through the app store as long as they give people the option of installing things through other means. And I mean non jailbreaking means, since no developer is going to make any money writing apps for just jailbreakers...
Yeah, it's cool. And you wouldn't Microsoft either if they decide that iTunes competes with Windows Media Player, they are going to block you from installing itunes. I think they should also block Firefox since that seems to be competing with Internet Explorer.
Not quite the same. Apple has made it pretty well known that they block apps for directly competing with their products and that it is a closed down system. When you buy an iPod Touch/iPhone, they never make claims that it's an open system or that anyone can make any app they want. I don't see anything wrong with Apple having some control over the app store since they haven't tried to hide it from consumers. The only problem is when they randomly decide to block apps for absolutely no justifiable reason.
Just because you declare ahead of time that you're going to be anti-competitive doesn't make it legal.
It's not really anti-competitive. They aren't making it impossible to use Rhapsody in any form. In fact, they aren't even really making it impossible to do from the iPhone/iPod touch(HTML 5 supports music streaming). What they would be doing is refusing to actually help their competition, which, again, I see nothing wrong with. Basically, it comes down to the fact that people choose to use their products. When people buy an iPod/iPhone, they know what they're getting into and it's not expected that they'll be able to have other music services integrated. If they want Rhapsody, they can choose to buy a product that supports it.
When did the iPhone/iPod touch get HTML 5 support?
Meh with the FCC case pending for them blocking out competition in their app store I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't get denied. If Apples smart they'd just leave the app on there. There's no way that this app is anywhere near as popular as iTunes and it's highly unlikely that a person would stray away from iTunes to download when Apple integrates it the iPhone so much in the program.
Just think about it you can't even use an iPod touch without hooking it to iTunes first. This is more like having IE as a default browser when you have the option of something better. The mass majority will still stick with the default...
@Tes: I was under the impression it was in OS 3.0? I thought I saw an article on here about it a long time ago...
Yeah, just googled it...it seems to have been there since 2.1! Why has no one really utilised it?
Unless there is something actually wrong with this application (e.g. crashes) then I'd put money on it being approved (certainly not denied). There are no grounds for Apple to reject this based on it duplicating functionality of the iPhone, not least because the SlingPlayer made it through and that enables you to watch TV shows that you can buy off iTunes.
@Mark
"Not quite the same. Apple has made it pretty well known that they block apps for directly competing with their products and that it is a closed down system."
Who have they made this well known to? The geeks who read tech blogs and are aware of multiple instances where apple has rejected apps and tried to brush it under the rug or the millions who watch iPhone commercials which make it seem like the app store is a limitless resource while never mentioning the limitations?
@George: It's well known and documented that all apps have to be downloaded through the iTunes store, and that Apple has full control over what is available in that store. Consumers have to accept some responsibility if they blindly purchase a product without researching it at all. Companies have to make that kind of information openly available, but can't be held liable if people are too lazy to look it up.
And what if MS locks Windows down to only approved programs? Lawsuit.
Apple is gaining a good portion of the phone and music market. It becomes anti competitive when they can dictate a significant portion of a market. The gov't is claiming that mobile phones are no longer considered a luxury item and the networks are going to be considered critical, like the landline networks.
I'm sorry, but the little underdog company Apple, is not much of an underdog anymore. I see an antitrust suit going against iTunes, I see one going against the iPhone app lockdown, and I see a third headed at price gouging over Macs using stock Intel hardware and not allowing customer choice like MS has to. Basically, if MS tried anything that Apple is doing right now with their consumer-unfriendly, anti competitive products, they would be taken to court.
Don't worry though, competition is good. Why do you think Windows 7 is actually a good OS as opposed to the nightmare that is Vista? Well, imagine if iTunes had some competition, it might not be a giant piece of bloatware. Or maybe you'd have some choice as to how you listen to music on a phone you bought, or you could use Google Voice on an iPhone. Fanboys are as bad for competition as greedy Wall St investors.
@Hold: You were kind of rambling a bit there but I think I see the crux of your argument. As I said before, this isn't the same thing as Windows, not even close. Perhaps some day the same rules will apply to mobile phones, but that's not even close to being a reality, yet. In all honesty, it seems far more likely for the government to require that the iPhone/iPod touch be opened to apps from outside the iTunes store than require that they open the store to competing products. It just seems improbable that the government would force a business to actually aid a direct competitor, as allowing Rhapsody in the App Store would do.
@mark
I think with over 40 million (or whatever it is now) iPhones/iPod Touches that have been sold Apple has gained a significant amount of the PMP marketshare to warrant attention. The closed system Apple employs will be seriously challenged soon. It maybe Real Networks doing the challenging if Apple doesn't approve this app.
Mark I fail to see how this isn't like windows...
If Microsoft had a lock down on WinMo, I promise you that they would be having law suits. The iPhone has an "open" for developers OS that they are anti-competitively controlling the available apps, in fact it is the same OS as mac (just modified for the iPhone) it is still using the same kernel (thus the same software).
I like competition, but at the same time I don't really blame a company for trying to be anti-competitive and control their market (why would you WANT to shoot yourself in the foot). But, if the FCC/EU is going to punish Microsoft for regulating (loosely) apps, then why are they letting Apple get away with the exact same thing.
At what point is it wrong? I find it amazing already that they are allowed to lock down OSX to only run on apple branded computers (could you imagine if Microsoft even TRIED to do this?).
Where do you draw the line between protect your products and being anti-competitive, and why should Microsoft and Apple be judged differently?
@tes... isn't it being utilized (HTML 5) location awareness with Google Latitude?
Zune Pass + Zune HD FTW!
Except for the Zune software...Windows Media Player can't even talk to a zune, what an epic fail, MS
"Windows Media Player can't even talk to a zune, what an epic fail, MS"
That's what the Zune software is for, dumbass.
This comment is relevant to this article.
Honestly, I'd be shocked if this app ever makes it to the Zune HD, either. It would just not make any sense for either company to allow this on their platform.
@ digiboi
actually the Zune software and WMP work very well together. WMP supports the Zune DRM so you can even play subscription music and videos from the Zune Marketplace. You can also sync subscription music with a Windows Mobile device using WMP. Metadata you update in WMP reflects in the Zune software immediately when it is changed. That's how I used to collect album information before the Zune software had the feature to "Find Album Info". Also, you can create playlist in WMP and change the file extension and it converts to a Zune playlist. So actually they talk like old friends.
@Mark - There really isnt a point for this service on the Zune. First off, the subscription music is integrated with your library, second its a much better deal @ $15 a month unlimited music + 10 DRM free mp3s.
@John: Right, but regardless, I would be shocked if they tried to release it for the Zune HD and it got accepted. I would say the same for a similar Napster app that would let you use your $5 a month subscription with 5 songs to keep every month. The fact that Rhapsody offers an inferior product is beside the point.
I'd actually be entertained by a Zune Pass coming to the iPhone. I don't have an iPhone, and love my Zune, but from a business perspective...
If Rhapsody gets in, there's no reason NOT to let the Zune Pass in (are you listening, MS?). This puts the ZunePass in front of millions of users, introducing them to a way other than Apple's for buying and listening to music.
And if Apple sees fit to deny ZunePass because the Zune is a competitor - that's some pretty solid grounds for anti-competitive behavior and an abusive monopoly.
Hmm, Pandora has worked well for me so far.
Different app and different functionality all together.
Why do you people keep bringing up "radio" apps that play random songs and comparing it to apps where you can play the exact track you want? How is it even remotely similar?
Mainly because I prefer the random song feature to selecting what song I want. That way I discover new artists and songs. If I wanted to listen to same bunch of songs in a playlist, I'll use my ipod classic TYVM.
So basically you just admitted your comment had nothing to do at all with the subject at hand then? I mean...I prefer toast to waffles but what does that have to do with how people get the music they WANT to listen to in situation where they don't already own it? when you find your "new" band and their songs are you not planning on ever hearing them again or will the songs magically appear for you when you get home?
This if so you can listen to the songs you don't own but would like to hear right then and there. stop being contrary for the sake of it as is the fashion on the nets these days.
>>So basically you just admitted your comment had nothing to do at all with the subject at hand then? I mean...I prefer toast to waffles
I'm talking about music apps. What are you talking about?
>>but what does that have to do with how people get the music they WANT to listen to in situation where they don't already own it? when you find your "new" band and their songs are you not planning on ever hearing them again or will the songs magically appear for you when you get home?
Yeah, they do, actually. I tag the songs on Pandora and can get them on itunes right away. Don't even have to wait to get home for that.
>>This if so you can listen to the songs you don't own but would like to hear right then and there.
Pandora can do that too, with a few exceptions. Hence my comment.
>>stop being contrary for the sake of it as is the fashion on the nets these days.
Pot, kettle, black...
I'm sorry...access to 8 million tracks is EXACTLY like "some songs with a few exceptions"
Again, can you right now go into Pandora and select the US track he just did? I'm not saying you have to like U2, I'm using it as an example...do you have access to a track not already on your iPhone? Because then you're comparing Apples and Oranges and therefore not on the same topic as everyone else.
>>do you have access to a track not already on your iPhone?
I don't know about the track you're referring to, I can't see the embedded video. However, I have found 99% of tracks I was searching for (I listen mostly to metal, rock). If you haven't used pandora before - you search for a song/artist. It plays that song if it can find it and goes on to play similar tracks. If you like a track, hit the "buy" button and it's on your phone in no time.
Admittedly, it has a smaller database than "8 million" tracks, but *for me*, it works just fine because I've found most songs I've been looking for and then new stuff I didn't know existed. No monthly fees, no DRM, nothing. The few times it didn't find the track I found it on youtube, but the benefits of discovering new music far outweigh missing a song now and then *for me*.
Hence my original comment "Pandora has worked well *for me* so far".
Yes, but that creates a station...it may or may not play the exact track but you then have to search for the next track when it's finished...you can't create a playlist of exact songs, or play an entire album. Now it's clear you haven't watched the video I can safely say when you see it you'll know it's not remotely similar.
>> you can't create a playlist of exact songs, or play an entire album.
Features I don't need. I pay nothing, I discover new music. What part of "Pandora works for me" don't you understand?
Let me try again, and put it in terms you might get...
Your comment, "X works for me" makes as much sense as a story where Apple rejects Street Fighter for iPhone and you pipe up with your wisdom to inform us "MonkeyBall works for me!"
It might SEEM like you're on topic...yes one is a game as is the other...but it's not REALLY if you have a brain in your head now is it?
YOU don't need the feature...YOU don't need the service...but WE are not discussing YOU!
Your overblown sense of self importance is NOT the issue. I personally don't use the stock app on my iPod touch...but that doesn't mean I'll jump into a discussion if Apple removes it for the thousands if not millions who DO use it. I don't drive but I'd be taken aback if the government banned cars...I wouldn't swell up with the arrogance to feel that my comment about not using something is important to people discussing the merits of anti competitive behaviour.
Why HAVE you bothered to comment? You've basically said people who want to choose and play a track should stop moaning because they should be happy with random tracks just because YOU are...that doesn't at all smack you as arrogant beyond belief? You can't even use the "I was just giving my opinion" defence as you really didn't, seeing as the topic was if this app would or would not ever see the light of day. YOUR reply implied the topic was "How useful would this app be to you?" Which, if you take a quick glance around and even momentarily fake some awareness of others, you'll see no one else is discussing.
I mean...I don't use SLR digital cameras...I don't use image editing software or tablets...I don't use a Blackberry...I don't use a myriad of devices posted about on this site, so your logic is I should point out my LACK of interest in every post that has nothing to do with me? because it seems that is what you're all about.
Grow up. This isn't about you. Before you post ask yourself "Does this reply move this discussion any further? Is it even relevant to the topic at hand? Am I suggesting a suitable replacement for the features discussed or am I childishly dismissing features I deem unimportant because I'm special?"
Lol, nerd rage. You must be fun at parties.
Pandora works well for me.
This is a great strategy on Rhapsody's part along with several new apps that might get denied in App Store. Announce the app even before it is approved, get in limelight and get users excited. Now if Apple denies it on basis of duplicate functionality, they get all the love and support of users while Apple gets the hate. And even FCC might look into it, threaten to pull Apple's license making them conform to user's request for these kind of apps. Sweet!
Hard for me, I still have a dislike for anything from Real due to their horrible invasive ad-laden installs of the past.
this is sooo true, lol.
Zune Music pass is where it's at. I was so amazed at how light the zune hd is. It seriously feels like it weighs about 1/3 of what my iPhone 3G weighs. MS is failing big time by not including 3G/voice w/ the new Zune platform.
Why is MS failing for not having voice/3G in the ZuneHD? You do know there is a gigantic market for people who have MP3 players that are not also their phone. The vast majority of cellular devices are dumphones, not smartphones. Most people don't want a costly montly data/voice plan to listen to music? I'm pretty sure the Touch is doing pretty good.
Now, if the ZuneHD sells ok, you can bet there will be a phone version.
...Buffering...
Yeah, I like to listen to Music on the go and with AT&T (not so great) 3G network, this should be interesting.
you do relize if it did have the voice and 3g it probably would weigh the same
You do realize that your sentence made no sense?
Well, since I'm planning on buying an iPod Touch 3G and a Zune HD, I guess I'll be holding off on the iPod Touch purchase till I see what Apple's gonna do...
If they deny Rhapsody, then I'll deny them $200 dollars and Apple won't see another f'ing dime of a my money...
Ya gotta vote somehow, guys??? Wallets seem to be the only way to get points across...
If Apple denies it, I'm betting the FCC's gonna have a field day, though...
Without background apps this is nice, but still not great. Interested to see what might happen with this on Android where things are, shall we say, a little more open.
Am I the only one that thinks it's bullshit that Apple can deny an application because it competes with them? I mean just imagine the uproar if Microsoft decided to block Firefox on Windows since it competes with Internet Explorer.
As I responded to my comment, it's not quite the same thing. Apple hasn't tried to hide the fact that they deny apps for competing with their services from consumers. When you buy an iPhone/iPod Touch you know what you're getting into, and they make it obvious that it's a closed system. The same cannot be said for Windows, which allows you to get programs from any source.
The problem is the difference in cultures. Microsoft has long been considered a monopoly, so the slightest move and people scream monopoly and they get sued, lose millions in trials, etc etc. Apple has never had that mark on it due to its low market share (which works to its advantage in these cases). People have and will continue to scream at Apple since you if you buy Apple you buy into Apple and cannot move off of it (ie: Mac OSX only installable legally on an Apple hardware). The fact that Apple bundles the software/hardware/etc is likely what gives them leverage in the courtroom. Unfortunately, the only way anything will change is to get Apple sued as a monopoly, but that's a hard case to prove with so little market share. As the iPhone grows in popularity and pushes its market share higher and higher, it is very likely Apple's app store will fall under legal pressure.
Oh, so if Microsoft announced today that only Microsoft programs would be able to be installed Windows that would be fine. I mean then they would be able to deny iTunes from installing, and Apple would be cool with it. Since, after all, Microsoft did tell everyone that it would happen.
@nicholas
I guess it's all a matter of what market you look at. I mean if you look at the cell phone market, iphone is less than 10%, maybe less than 5%. However, if you look at the PMP market, the ipod line is easily 90% or more. So, in some of their markets, Apple has more of a monopoly than Microsoft does in the PC market.
@krische: Close. If they announced tomorrow that they were releasing a new OS that would only allow certain programs, to be chosen at their discretion then it wouldn't surprise me at all to see a product competing with something else in the OS blocked. On the Zune HD, for example, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see a Rhapsody app rejected as well. In fact, from a business standpoint I would fully expect it. To do otherwise would be shooting themselves in the foot.
I'm in complete agreement with Mark. Apple explicitly and purposefully markets a product that they admit and in fact promote as being their closed-system, easy-to-use alternative to the other mix-and-match systems that are out there. Exercising control is what allows them to control this experience, which is what they are selling above all else. Anyone who buys an Apple product is aware of this when they make their purchase and are thus agreeing to the terms.
Unfortunately, many tech fans loved the phone for its hardware and OS and bought it despite the well-publicized restrictions. They now want to turn the phone into what they want it to be instead of what they signed up for when they bought it.
Same story with the recent spat over subsidies. Folks bought their iPhone 3G last year with full knowledge that it was now being subsidized like every other phone but then expected that this subsidy would somehow be forgotten especially for them after just one year when they wanted to buy a 3GS ... simply because they wanted it that way.
The thing that worries me is that it seems that Apple is starting down that slippery slope. The application approval process seems to be the exact opposite of transparent, and not only that, but it's not even consistent either. It seems some approvals are just based on what direction the wind was blowing that day. I guess I just have a hard time believing that somehow limiting applications on a platform makes a better user experience. You mean to tell me that having a better email app or even Google Voice wouldn't create a better user experience on the iphone? I mean a better user experience is what Apple is all about correct?
@krische: I agree with you 100%. They've done a pretty shitty job with handling the apps and, honestly, put themselves in a no-win situation(see my comment history and you can see pretty clearly where I stand on that issue). I just don't see this example(if it does happen, which seems likely) as one of those cases. Denying a magic trick app for confusing consumers is ridiculous, denying an app that directly competes with the primary function of the device is somewhat less so.
@ krische
the "better experience" also includes customer support. Where do people go/call when their device starts acting funny and not working right? The company who made it. If there is a huge bug in an application not made by the manufacture, they can't fix it. This is one of the main reasons closed ecosystems are created. When someone calls for support, the problem can be found and diagnosed much easier and customers are much more happy when it's fixed fast.
According to Spotify, they have a green light for the service itself on the iPhone. Application is pending approval, so might be denied for other reasons, who knows.
Weird to see all these people saying Last.fm and Pandora is good enough. They most certainly don't know what they're talking about. Account specific playlists so you have the same playlists on your computer at home, at work, on your phone and similar, and offline playlists on the phone, so you can play your music when you're out and about without spending money on streaming over 3G. Also, the ability to play any song you want, listen to all albums by an artist etc. is most definitely a lot better than last.fm and pandora.
Subscriptions need DRM to be able to turn your "borrowed" music on and off...I'm no expert but does the iPod Touch/iPhone have the timed DRM functionality needed for this?
Would Apple let you download tunes for offline listening? I highly doubt they would.
Would you then have to listen to your tracks IN the app? I'm guessing so...meaning it's that app and nothing else...no surfing, no texting. And I assume if it's streaming to the app it's going to be Wifi only too. Not really useful for a PORTABLE media player unless you just don't like outside.
Apple has already set precedents with previous app rejections...the fact some people above ACTUALLY got excited about this AND commented on putting off Zune purchases is just testament to the bottomless well of forgiveness people have for the arbitrary things Apple does.
After really watching the video properly it seems it WILL just stream. Well then the only change I see is that Apple may ask them to make it Wifi only (as they did with Slingplayer)
You do realize that Rhapsody&Napster != Pandora?
Different services. With Rhapsody I can listen to the whole Iron Maiden catalog from A-Z whenever I want. With Pandora I'll get randomly chosen Iron Maiden songs and similar bands..which i have no interest in.
At least with Pandora you have a chance of not having to listen to Iron Maiden.
Spotify which is similar to Rhapsody submitted their iPhone app to Apple just over 4 weeks ago, still no word. Fingers crossed Apple stop being Nazis. *says from his iMac*.
Gonna. Be. Denied.
Both this and the Spotify look great, it would be real shame if Apple rejected them from the App Store.
iTunes needs to offer a 'iTunes Pass' service that competes with Spotify/Rhapsody. You could even have it at 3 different plans, music, music/tv and music/tv/movies. A unlimited TV/movie plan would be great for AppleTV sales too.
Swedish music service Spotify generates larger revenues for the record companies than Apple’s music store iTunes - and the iPhone app will just boost it all.
http://www.swedishwire.com/business/687-spotify-overtakes-apples-itunes
Rhapsody has two subscription services.
1. To Go: Listen to music anytime, anywhere -- including on your portable player.
2. Unlimited: Listen to music anytime, from your PC or web browser.
"To Go" is a download to supported devices that you can play off line. "Unlimited" is streaming.
I have an unlimited account. I believe the app would be for the "unlimited" subscription service, not "To Go".
Reasons the app may be permitted:
-Nothing in AT&T's service agreement prohibits streaming audio.
-There are already streaming audio and video apps in the App Store (such as Simplify, Last.FM, CBC Radio, YouTube, VoIP clients, etc)
-This does not change the usability of the iPod function as Rhapsofy Unlimited is streaming only
Reasons the app may be rejected:
-Steve Jobs wants to be a douche bag
-The rhapsody app doesn't support adult ratings for explicit content
-The rhapsody app doesn't follow the Apple style guides or tries to use undocumented features
-The rhapsody app crashes
1 more reason why it could be(and probably will be) rejected: This would give you full control over what song you want to hear at that moment(as far as I know, none of those other apps do that, they make you listen to other, unrelated songs), thus providing a more significant threat to iTunes.
@ Mark
Oh it's a threat to iTunes and because of that Apple won't mess around. They will deliberate long and hard to find any reason to reject it. However, I think there is enough precence for a Rhapsody Unlimited service to be approved.
For example, Simplify lets me stream my music library (residing on my Mac or PC) over the Internet to my iPhone. From a UI perspective, it's actually quite similar to that found in the iPod app with the exception that Simplify plays streaming content where the iPod app doesn't. I can browse my content by artist, genre, album, etc.
Right, but even in that case, it's music you already own. A Rhapsody service would allow you to stream any music the Rhapsody database has, on demand, streaming the exact song you want to hear(even full albums), without commercials. I just don't see them allowing something like that on the App Store. But we'll have to wait and see what happens.
@Mark
Some (like the RIAA) argue I don't own the music on my computer, but rather am only licensed to listen to it. Simplify allows me to listen to music residing on my computer that I'm licensed to listen to.
This is the same with Rhapsody. So long as I keep paying my subscription fees, I'm entitled to listen to anything in their music library on-demand.
I still do not fully understand why the location where the music resides should be a differentiator with Simplify vs Rhapsody.
It should not matter where the music resides. The bottom line is that I'm licensed to listen to the music and other on-demand streaming applications exist in the app store. Apple is going to have to come up with a better excuse.
I have wanted something like this for years but figured that since Rhapsody is a competitor to Rhapsody it would never happen.
I will have died and gone to heaven if the Rhapsody "To Go" service ever came the the iPhone/iPod. If you were to take the features of a device like the Haier made Ibiza player and put them into the iPhone/iPod you'd have the closest thing to the perfect device ever. On the other hand, all Apple has to do is add a music service like Rhapsody to thier iTunes offering and put it on the iPhone/iPod. I think if Apple ever did that Rhapsody would panic. The only reason I don't use iTunes at all is because I'd rather pay a few dollars a month for a service, so I use Rhapsody. Rhapsody DNA is in so many devices now, TiVo, Sonos and many different manufacturers mp3 players because it's a great idea.
People get vocal about this, if you want it bad enough...
http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipodtouch.html
http://www.apple.com/feedback/iphone.html
Heck, even tell the FCC...
fccinfo@fcc.gov
If nothing else, I've gotta give it up to Rhapsody. What incredible timing to try to get this thing approved. I think it will be denied also, but if EVER it was gonna be approved, it has to be now. With the Feds watching. I'm sure they were sitting on it waiting for a moment like this. It's almost like punching your brother in the arm right after your mom says "One more problem with you and you're grounded for a month". :-)
Choice is nice but this isn't something for me. I don't like the idea of having to constantly pay to have access to music and I don't live in a country with an unlimited data plan. While I don't suppose that the streaming music takes up that much bandwidth, I expect that it will be enough to make visits abroad a bit more expensive until the cellular providers drop their roaming rates for data.
While this is an improvement for fans of subscription music, I don't see this being a replacement for a service like the Zune Pass where you download the music that you want onto your device and therefore don't need to stream it over the Internet. Mind you, it does look like a very well thought out application in the video so congratulations to Real on that front.
@Kelmon "While this is an improvement for fans of subscription music, I don't see this being a replacement for a service like the Zune Pass where you download the music that you want onto your device and therefore don't need to stream it over the Internet."
That's what the Rhapsody To Go service is. Not only can you stream you can park the tunes on a Rhapsody enabled device allowing you to play them when no internet connection exists. Check the specs on this player and you'll see what I mean. Except for its old fashioned build the player rocks.
http://www.haieramerica.com/en/product/H1A030BK/specs
I think I'll pass - music subscription services are not interesting to me and there is very little chance that we will see one for the iPod/iPhone unless Apple implements its own, which still seems unlikely. Streaming appears to the only way that such a service will make it onto Apple's devices and therefore come with the limitations of streaming. That said, it is not without benefits either - the music doesn't take up any space on your device and you don't need to muck about with syncing in order to listen it.
The only reason I am booting up my old Nokia N800 is to fire up Rhapsody. Rhapsody is great. By the way, the video posted by Engadget seemed to cover the regular Rhapsody subscription -- $8, and not Rhapsody To Go, as someone mentioned above. The difference is that Rhapsody To Go is a subscription that allows to check out/sync tracks to a mobile MP3 device.
This app would have me MELTING!!! Rhapsody's ToGo service is absolutely fantastic, and the kind of thing I dreamed about all of my life until 3 years ago.
Currently Rhapsody's website can stream all of their songs, but it is in Flash, so it's another site that doesn't work on the iPhone. This Rhapsody app would be exactly like the local TV affiliate, WRAL's app which makes up for the iPhone's browser inadequacies.
If Apple denies this, Real will either sue or just adjust their website so the iPhone can actually use the site, so Apple is going to have to face this giant competitor one way or another.
(for all of you who don't know, Rhapsody is an unlimited subscription streaming service that LETS YOU CHOOSE what you want to hear, unlike Last.FM and Pandora. This Rhapsody move is probably their last stand against the Zune Pass service, btw)
As a Rhapsody To Go subscriber who has been avoiding the iPhone mostly for the fact that it doesn’t support Rhapsody, this isn’t the fix I want. I want the iPhone to have protected WMA support so I can load my songs onto the internal memory; I don’t need to stream them.
The app will be ineffective when driving, for instance, especially over AT&T's network. Streaming is a perk to be added on top of being able to side-load tracks onto your phone; the base is protected WMA support, and the iPhone still doesn't have it.
I agree. This app is good for a Rhapsody Unlimited subscriber, but Rhapsody To Go subscribers need something more. We need to be able to load our downloaded tracks onto the iPhone. I have an interior office and streaming is not feasible. Same thing for basement offices and on the subway. There has to be a way to make the iPhone compatible with Rhapsody To Go tracks.
Until then, iTunes is not rendered completely useless...
Oooh! as long as they're making an iPhone version... how about an Android version!?
" the company is also working diligently on Rhapsody for other mobile platforms and carrier app stores, including Google Android"
Read the article.
Thanks! Did go read it ... not sure I like that I'd have to upgrade my membership (I already pay the $10/mo due to having Rhapsody on my Nokia tablet), but if that's what it takes to have this on my Android phone, I can embrace it.
So, now I just have to anxiously await the Android version :-)