BusinessWeek Logo

RealNetworks Aims To Bring Rhapsody To The iPhone

Posted by: Arik Hesseldahl on August 24

rhapsodyiphone.jpg
Another week begins, and already there is what appears to be another potential controversy around iPhone applications. RealNetworks says it has developed an iPhone application that brings the Rhapsody music service to the iPhone and iPod touch.

RealNetworks makes the announcement here, and there’s a video demonstrating the app. What’s not clear is whether or not Apple will approve the application or not. The company says it will submit the application this week.

RealNetworks couldn’t have timed this moment better. It was just on Friday that Apple filed its reply to a probing letter from the Federal Communications Commission on the subject of the Google Voice application for the iPhone and on Apple’s application approval process generally.

Since Rhapsody is, by a reasonable argument, a competitor service to Apple’s own iTunes — it’s both a music subscription service and a pay-for-download store — it will be interesting to see if Apple in this cases, uses a variation of the argument that has so far kept Google Voice off the iPhone: That a Rhapsody app replaces a core function of the iPhone — purchasing and listening to music — and thus shouldn’t be allowed.

In its current form, I would expect the Rhapsody app to be approved. There are already streaming music applications on the iPhone like Pandora and Last.fm and countless streaming radio applications. But Rhapsody lets you get the very song you want right now, rather than just streaming songs you like.

The argument could get more complicated when the next version of the application ships. That’s the one, RealNetworks says, that will support downloading to the phone. Apple is in a tough spot. Approve the app, and it runs the risk of giving iPhone customers a comparable service to iTunes, threatening its carefully-built ecosystem. Reject the app, and it runs the risk of further unwanted scrutiny by the FCC.

At this point its helpful to remember what applications Apple has rejected so far and why. Our Joel Schectman had a story and a slide show on this very topic last month.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

Reader Comments

Rich

August 24, 2009 12:51 PM

I'm not sure I see a reason why Apple should be required to allow a competitor onto their product.

nick

August 24, 2009 02:07 PM

Probably the same reason that Microsoft was required to allow its competitors access to advanced office suite code so that they can compete against explorer on Windows OS PCs.

Zeon

August 24, 2009 02:43 PM

It reminds me of Spotify:
http://www.spotify.com/blog/archives/2009/07/27/spotify-for-iphone/

Mark U.

August 24, 2009 07:59 PM

@Nick: Microsoft has a legally-acknowledged monopoly, which makes the rules different for them. Apple has no such thing in any product line or any market in which it competes.

Goye

August 25, 2009 03:11 AM

@Mark U.

"@Nick: Microsoft has a legally-acknowledged monopoly, which makes the rules different for them. Apple has no such thing in any product line or any market in which it competes."

Except for iPhone. Duh !

Goye

August 25, 2009 03:14 AM

@Mark U.

"@Nick: Microsoft has a legally-acknowledged monopoly, which makes the rules different for them. Apple has no such thing in any product line or any market in which it competes."

Except the iPhone and now the iTunes Store. Duh!

Goye

August 25, 2009 03:16 AM

@Mark U.
"@Nick: Microsoft has a legally-acknowledged monopoly, which makes the rules different for them. Apple has no such thing in any product line or any market in which it competes."

Except for the iPhone and the iTunes store. Duh!

Goye

August 25, 2009 03:17 AM

@Nick: Microsoft has a legally-acknowledged monopoly, which makes the rules different for them. Apple has no such thing in any product line or any market in which it competes.

Cy Cabell

August 25, 2009 09:00 AM

So let me get this straight: If General Motors wanted to allow Ford drivers to install OnStar and give drivers the option of using it or Ford's RESCU and Ford says, "Uh, no!" there would be problems? Maybe I don't understand the rules of the game, but aren't exclusivity and singularity fundamental elements of competition?

oneononetutorials[dot]com

August 26, 2009 08:54 AM

I have no doubt that this app will be rejected. Apple would rather sell their own iTunes app and sell users music.

tigger

August 27, 2009 06:06 PM

There is no money in music. The money is in the phones themselves.

James

August 28, 2009 10:10 AM

I agree with Cy Cabell.

For that matter, why does't RealNetworks attempt to team up with RIM's Blackberry. I think that would be more appropriate and in the spirit of competition rather than trying to horn in on--ride the back of--another man's patch.

T3Logic

September 9, 2009 10:44 PM

Cy Cabell, I see the point that you are making but if you really wanted too you could install OnStar on a Ford car because Ford does not and can not stop you. Ford is not required to support OnStar.

Using your analogy, Apple prohibits you from installing any application without there prior approval. Since Apple owns the approval process this creates a dictatorship/monopoly.

U.S. laws prohibit any company creating an unfair competitive advantage. The laws were amended to include os's or operating systems when Microsoft got sued.

As the iPhone gains popularity and becomes the majority, I see Apple following the same steps as MS and will soon have to open up there os to allow developers access to the core components.

If it does get rejected I forsee a lawsuit coming up.

Post a comment

 

About

A blog on the daily doings of Apple and the many companies in its orbit, with insight and analysis by two longtime Apple-watchers BusinessWeek Senior Writer Peter Burrows and BusinessWeek.com Senior Technology Writer Arik Hesseldahl.

RSS Feed: Byte of the Apple

Leave us a voice message. Learn more.

BW Mall - Sponsored Links