This article was nominated for deletion on August 11, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles This redirect is supported by WikiProject Software.

I think Real Alternative isn't very legal. It is possible to talk about it, but linking directly to its website is litigious. See hydrogenaudio thread. I also removed the copyrighted text copied from KL Software. (sorry for not explainng myself immediately, i left the window open without saving this discussion) --Marc Lacoste 22:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using Real Alternative and I am not able to find those files listed on my machine. Keep in mind that I am using an older version of Real Alternative. Real Alternative uses Media Player Classic; however, I do have one doubt; they do use some "OLDER" real codecs. I believe that may be using those codecs before Real Networks changed their license agreement. So, it may not be illegal. -Anonymous, April 12, 2006 12:21 am (CDT)

The assumption written at the forum is ridiculous. As pointed by other people on the same forum, RealPlayer's license binds only those who use RealPlayer. Those who don't use or install RealPlayer may ignore the license agreement (unless they signed it). --Urod 01:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a federal court ruling that specifically prohibits the usage of Real Alternative in its current form, what one thinks about its legality is disputable. If you have removed any relevant information whatsoever from this or other relevant articles based only on your assertions of legality, please put it back. -Amit 07:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's sufficient to point out that Real Alternative uses the codecs from RealPlayer. Whether or not this is legal is a complex issue and I don't think Wikipedia should be giving legal advice. Some of the codecs are copyrighted, but not by RealNetworks (eg ATRAC from Sony, AAC from Coding Technologies). RealNetworks currently allows downloading RealPlayer without requiring any kind of contractual agreement. (They ask for an email address, but there are no terms and conditions presented prior to the download other than the privacy policy, and if you have javascript off you can't even see that.) One could make the argument that the codecs were legally obtained from RealNetworks and nothing implies that people are not allowed to extract the DLLs and use them in whatever application they desire. Redistributing the codecs is another matter. --Mcoder 12:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything similar for Mac OS X? --John_Abbe 21:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mplayer codec packs can be used on PowerPC and Intel. Alternatively ffmpeg can be used for the codecs it supports. However there's nothing analogous to the RealMedia directshow filter for Quicktime. --Mcoder 09:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user placed a direct link to the RealPlayer Enterprise Edition, should it be removed considering it's commercial in nature and this article is about RealAlternative and not RealPlayer? --Edward Sandstig 16:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. - 81.179.69.230 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users, and some new registered users are deforming the page and changing the NPOV of the article. I request you all to kindly see through the matter if the page requires reversions or not.--Anupamsr 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop correcting the article with lies like "RealPlayer's bloated interface" or something like that. If you don't like the original player, don't use it! Just stop spreading lies! [[Flash_kz]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flash kz (talk • contribs)

It's a fact that some users feel that RealPlayer is bloated. If some users didn't feel that that was the case, then this application wouldn't exist. I've brought the sentence about "bloat" back, but have re-worded it since the original sounded rather POV. The new version's a lot more neutral. --Edward Sandstig 12:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A personal blog isn't a reliable source, I could blog myself how great is real player, and cite it here. --Marc Lacoste 19:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then would this be an acceptable source? The fact is that many of those who first started using Real Alternative did so because they were dissatisfied with the performance of Real Player and all the other stuff it used to install. I can understand if you'd prefer a survey from a more reputable source however, but I think a google search for the terms bloatware "Real Player" "Real Alternative" should at least be allowed as a link to something in the form of "Some users of Real Alternative have indicated that they use the application because they feel that Real Player is bloated.[1]" --Edward Sandstig 22:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yap, better: it doesn't mean one is more interesting than the other, just that Jupitermedia is an established publisher, and as an entity is responsible for their articles, which are reviewed by other editors (perhaps not Nature, but a little bit :). But the web search is irrelevant. see Wikipedia:Cite_sources#When_you_add_content --Marc Lacoste 08:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that no one here is trying to put his/her POV (or spam as you call it) into thearticle. Some people find it bloated and I have cited this sentence. How Real Alternative got popular can be debated or we need another citation for it. If you think being a bloated software is not the reason for rising popularity of its alternative, we can break the sentence into 1. RealOne is bloated 2. Alternative is popular. Again I say, please do not remove a cited statement. This article as such needs a lot of citations. Also, if we do break the sentence, there will be a third sentence 3. Softpedia etc. suggest it above RealOne. It will not be then the reason for this popularity.

The reason I didn't break this sentence was because it was not so earlier-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue removing that lie "bloated interface". No media player is bloated. Just the interfaces are really different. I think that Win Amp has a bloated interface, cause I've almostly never used it and its interface is a big mess for me. The same for RealPlayer - I think its interface is lite and simple, but that's because I use it all the time. So please stop spreading such things as "Bloated or Non-Bloated". Have you seen me to write such posts in some other media player pages? [[Flash_kz] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flash kz (talk • contribs)

1. Please use 3 ~ to sign. You can also use the signature button on the toolbar when you edit.
2. We all appreciate your concern to improve this article and welcome you to do so. We all are also for the same purpose.
3. I once again request you to NOT remove any content. We can discuss things on talk page and I again state that no one here is to put his/her POV. We all are reasonable people and you can argue with us. Removing content more than once without discussion is considered Wikipedia:Vandalism.
4. I agree to your point and and editing the article right-away.-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other thing, just to mention, I exclusively work in Linux, so there is no bias in my part. Secondly, I remember having some obscure file with rm extension which would only play in Media Player Classic using Real Alternative from K-Lite Mega Codec Pack, 1 or so years back when I owned a Windows box. :) Was it some anime?-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we're not saying it's bloated, we're just saying that many of the users who've switched over have done so because they perceive Real Player to be bloated. --Edward Sandstig 22:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "copyrighted" is sufficient in this article to indicate that the codecs are copyrighted by RealNetworks. --Edward Sandstig 12:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources used to explain the reason why some users prefer Real Alternative over Real Player include a link to a personal blog and a Google search. In a situation like this where you're trying to explain why a particular software application is popular, what other sources can be used? --Edward Sandstig 20:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that the link to the blog (which I cited myself) is not good because it is of a blog. One good point, though, with the cited blog is that it discusses some 'letters' from old Read employees. But I agree to Flash kz that the link is not good enough, and that it is actually a POV.

I suggest to remove the title of why Real Alternative is popular thus removing this bloated sentence itself. Instead, we can use some sort of data to clarify this, like number of users. For the sentence '... is popular because XYZ site recommends it', THAT is POV. I have never looked at such rating or comparison, and have been to such sites may be once or twice because they provide good mirrors for some softwares.

I had added the information that it is bundled with many codec packs which was removed by Flash kz. I am now re-writing the article and also putting a frequent vandalism tag after that so people know how many times this article has gone through reverts.-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say a Content Dispure template.-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  00:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once again call upon all the people and particularly User:Flash kz to stop adding their POV. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to spread propaganda. Adding incredible websites such as http://hexemedia.hit.bg/realalt.html and adding and re-adding statements which say Real Alternative is illegal without any citation from RealNetworks itseld and without any history of cases thereof should be stopped. I request people to see into this matter if the above site is credible or not. Note that it is not a review! The site even doesn't state once that it has even used Real Alternative. Clicking on random links give 404 error. I will not be surprised if this cite itself is created by some of the editors of this article-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  13:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Flash kz in his will to balance the assertion "reaplayer is impopular" by its opposite, but citing a personal website is not the best way. For the legality claim, it's backed by the opinion of Karl Lilevold, a Real Network developer, given in the link in the first paragraph of the discussion, the hydrogenaudio thread - but its authenticity isn't verified, and I haven't bothered to ask him a proof directly (come on, it's just a minor claim in a minor wikipedia article on a minor software). --Marc Lacoste 15:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cited page (http://cws.internet.com/article/2684-3933.htm) does not explain the popularity of Real Alternative due to dissatisfaction of RealPlayer users. It merely illustrates some user dissatisfaction which is bound to crop up in public comments in which the article draws this information (It doesn't mention which public-review site). Also, it mentions that Real Alternative has entered the competition, not that it is popular. I suggest that the words in this article be changed to reflect what is actually written in the cited article, find a different citation to support this statement, or remove the statement altogether.--67.168.0.155 04:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find any inconsistencies. The way it is currently written in the article is the most NPOV I could think of. Users say it crashes and stalls and tosses around spyware like confetti." See, I don't want to do original research or actually 'prove' that Real Player 'is bloated'. The cited link is an accountable website and not a blog. I don't think anything else is needed and so I accept it as credible citation.-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  11:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe there is one inconsistency: the populartiy of Real Alternative. I never argued the NPOV of that statement. I never suggested that we do original research or prove RealPlayer is bloated. I never questioned the accountability of the source.--67.168.0.155 16:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What we can do it to remove this polularity sentence or cite some data as to how many downloads it has got, or popularity awards it has got on some site, and edit current 'popularity' segment to be 'preference'. Like, some people prefer Real Alternative because of...-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  11:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board with editing the article to say: some people prefer Real Alternative. I don't think anyone will find reliable statistics to prove the popularity of Real Alternative, because there is no official source of distribution, so I don't recommend putting in statistics to justify its popularity.--67.168.0.155 16:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

given the length of its article, isn't it? --Marc Lacoste 15:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If only we could give more time in writing than convincing people... *sigh*-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  10:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we definitely need to some citations on that, especially since PC Magazine and CNet give positive reviews of RealPlayer.--67.168.0.155 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cited Softpedia link does not recommend installing Real Alternative over using RealPlayer. (http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Video/Video-Players/Real-Alternative.shtml) They are recommending that all traces of RealPlayer/RealOne be removed so that the installation of RealAlternative will not conflict with the existing RealPlayer code, if the user chooses to install Real Alternative. It is like the warning for some software that previous versions need to be uninstalled completely before installing the latest version. I have removed the citation and kept the citation needed tag. But I have a feeling that eventually, that statement must be removed because whoever posted that statement didn't understand the scope of the recommendation.--67.168.0.155 22:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, I suffered from tunnel vision and missed the "before installing" portion. Thanks for the correction. :) --Edward Sandstig 22:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Alternative Lite does not include Media Player Classic, that's the only difference between Real Alternative and Real Alternative Lite. Some people think Real Alternative is too bloated, so there is a Real Alternative Lite now. It's available here: http://codecguide.com/about_real.htm I think we should put that in the article too, that dissatisfaction with the bloated Real Alternative has led to the popularity of Real Alternative Lite and stick a citation needed tag on it.--67.168.0.155 05:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I posted the OP because I thought that bloat comment was ridiculous. I'm satisfied now with what's currently in the article (except that part about the codec pack being illegal).--67.168.0.155 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, 67.168, come in and get an account :) --Marc Lacoste 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Marc Lacoste, the link you have given to back up the copyright violation statement is a forum post and on the surface there seems to be no connection between RealNetworks and the forum (doom9). Is the link a verifiable source?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamsr (talk • contribs)

We should ask directly Karl Lilevold (Google him) for verifiability, but It sems a little too much for me, to bother that for such a minor article. I assume doom9 is reputable enough to not let someone usurpate Lilevold's identity. --Marc Lacoste 08:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... oh yeah...! :) Here is my apology:

I didn't know who he was

Now I do, as I googled

I think link is good (yeah, its lame :P, but its first of mine)-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs  09:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you see my nickname(RealPlayer) you may think I want to destroy this article. Nope :)! The pirated software also deserves an article :PP. I just removed it from the "windows media players" category. This is no player, just a codec pack. Joanna

I have semi-protected this article for a nominal period of 1 month because people are revert warring about which site (codecnews.com or codecguide.com) is the official site for this codec. Initially I wasn't sure which was the right site, but upon examining Alexa data, I see that codecnews.com has no traffic data, compared to codecguide.com which is around the 6000th most-visited site on the internet. This clear disparity suggests that codecnews.com is a domain registered to cannibalise on the traffic to codecguide.com, and is not the official site. A check of the WHOIS data on the domain confirms that it was registered in October 2008, compared to August 2004 for codecguide.com. In light of this, and without any references in favour of codecnews.com being the "official site", I am treating any link changes to codecnews.com as spam, and reverting accordingly. If the semi-protection is ineffective to prevent this spam, I will fully protect the article from editing. - Mark 13:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

codecguide.com is official site. I have contacts with author of Real Alternative and I can verify that it is real author. Dzi13 20:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to include link to download location (official download mirror where Real Time author uploads new version of program) Dzi13 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't. Downloads seem to be hosted on different locations each time I visit codecguide.com. Your attempt would just look like lying and people will undo them. (And unfortunately they are right to do so.) Just let people click three more times. It won't hurt. Fleet Command (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very misleading not to inform that the software still exists for download and actually is maintained too. I posted this info including a link to free-codecs.com before. Never mind the discussion which site is "official". In which way is that proved by a friend of the "original author" making a post here? Now I post it without link, so that users at least have a chance to get the idea to google for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.36.180 (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]