Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Prepares Alternative To Apple iTunes
bmarklein writes "According to CNET, Microsoft is working on a version of its DRM software that supports expiration of files on portable devices. Combined with a subscription service like Pressplay (soon to become Napster) that allows unlimited "tethered" downloads, you'll be able to fill up your high-capacity player with new music for a flat monthly fee. Of course it will expire once you stop paying the sub fee, but which do you think is the better deal: $7500 to fill a 30GB player (7500 songs at $1 each) with iTunes Music Store, or $120 a year with the ability to swap in new music whenever you want? How much is it worth to you to "own" the bits?"
Some of those 7500 songs will come in the form of full albums, which are only $9.99, and frequently come with more than 10 songs. Put me in the Own My Bits camp.
I'd rather go somewhere else where the music is better, the downloads are virtually unlimited and the sound quality is the best of any subscription service on the net (Lame VBR encoded MP3s).
What am I talking about? EMusic of course.
No, they don't have stuff like Britney Spears and Led Zeppelin, but they have more excellent indie, experimental, electronic, metal, jazz, punk, classical and uncategorizable music than you could ever listen to in a lifetime. If you're sick of Clear Channel bullshit and hungry for something exciting and interesting, it is a feast.
And you get to keep every single file you have downloaded. Permanently.
(I know they had some trouble recently with their new servers wbut that seems to be resolved now)
Usenet is the only way to go. I spend $10 a month for 750mb of downloads per day. That works up to 5.25gb per week, and 21gb a month. OK, so it's not as simple as Kazaa, but you don't have to put up with spyware and you won't wind up with partial files. You can place requests and (usually) have them filled pretty quickly. And you'll be exposed to a larger variety of stuff on Usenet, stuff you probably won't see in the P2P communities.
At the moment Usenet doesn't seem to be the focus of any RIAA crackdowns. Just go out and get a good newsfeed (there are plenty which protect user anonymity) and start downloading! You'll never pay for music again unless you want to!
chill out...they need time to expand...they have alreadytalked about adding indi lables.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
I'm guessing you're ignoring Windows Media Lossless, because it doesn't lose anyting. I use WM Lossless for recording before converting to another format. By the way, MP3 (not pro) is far worse in quality at the same bitrate as WM8 or WM9 Lossy compression. WM8 and WM9 Lossy use the same frequency separation technique with two types of compression as MP3pro. I agree with your politics, but politics do not determine the quality of a format. The parent poster is just another troll.
But at least with Apple you can burn it to CD, and then either listen to it from there, or recode it at 320 Bits (so you theoritically don't lose any quality).
So even if Apple should totally bite the dust, there's still an option.
Or, you could actually buy the CD/music DVD itself if you ever get that freaky. The main thing I use the Apple store for is that 1 song on an entire CD I want - if I want the entire CD, I'll probably just go out and buy it so I have a "hard copy".
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
You mean like this program? It takes the audio output from pretty much any source, including a running program like iTunes, and encodes it into mp3 or AIFF. It can even pipe the sound data into a command-line program so you can encode using FLAC, Lame, Ogg, or whatever.
Pretty sweet program. You can even use it like to do timed recordings of internet radio shows, kind of like a Tivo for streaming audio.
Sapere aude!
I've spent about $200 at the Apple iTunes store so far, and I fail to see how the format is particularly volatile. I download the songs, copy them to a fileserver, and burn an unencrypted CD to put it into my CD colection. This whole process takes perhaps a whopping 5 minutes.
You don't own them, Apple dictate what you can and cannot do with each track.
I would note that you need this for Apples service as well, you need to log in to listen to music on another computer...
No, they give you a DRM wrapped music file that will be played by compliant players for a timed period....
Many more players support WMA than Apples DRM wrapped AAC, in fact, with Apple you can use the iPod and that's it.
Nobody owns music today, if you did it would be legal to copy it and give it to your friends.
That's fine, not everybody is like you. I listen to the radio a lot. I don't mind if a track is here one minute and gone the next. Maybe I hear a track and like it, and want to listen again. This service would let me do so in a reasonably cheap way.
This almost certainly wouldn't work with Linux, but I'd have no real problems with subscribing to something like this if it did. The main problem is finding one that stocks plenty of music in a timely fashion in my interests, mostly trance, chill and jazz. eMusic doesn't seem to have that.... besides I can't really justify a subscription to any non-essential service right now, I'm supposed to be saving money :) But in principle I'd like such a thing.
You don't own them, Apple dictate what you can and cannot do with each track.
Hence the "" around own. The point is that you have the file, period. It won't expire, won't stop working when microsoft decides to do x, y, or z. You don't own the music, but you don't own the music if it's on a CD either. You own a copy of it. Moreover, the limits apple puts on your capabilities are stomachable to most people.
I can't use the devices I want to
Many more players support WMA than Apples DRM wrapped AAC, in fact, with Apple you can use the iPod and that's it.
First of all, how many of those players do you think will be compatible with this new windows DRM? Sure firmware upgrade, but that argument works both ways. Second, which mp3 player is the most popular now? Third if you are so inclined, burn, re-rip, and you can put it on *any* player you want.
Basically there are arguments for both a tethered system and for a more apple-like system. Which will succeed depends on what people feel more comfortable with. It seems from the experiences of all available digital music distributors so far, tethering and limited time use seem to be the less preferred (remember DivX?).
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
Of course it will expire once you stop paying the sub fee, but which do you think is the better deal: $7500 to fill a 30GB player (7500 songs at $1 each) with iTunes Music Store, or $120 a year with the ability to swap in new music whenever you want? How much is it worth to you to "own" the bits?"
:
Which of these is a better deal?
1) Pay $1 now, get the one song you want to hear, keep it forever.
2) Pay $10 now, get the one song you want to hear, keep paying $10 a month for the right to listen to it.
Apple pretty clearly has a better deal if you buy ten or fewer songs a month (or 120 songs a year). I suspect that this suits a very wide variety of people.
Beyond that is a grey area, where the better deal basically depends on how much you value the convenience of not having to pay a monthly fee whether you use it or not.
At the other end are those who could conceivably want to download (say) 30GB of music in a month, which is certainly more than I can listen to in that time. Ignoring bandwidth costs on both ends, these users are probably just as likely to use P2P services and not pay anyone at all!
The emphasised ability to 'swap in' new music implies that every month you'll want to download all-new material. Not bloody likely, in my experience. But then, if you don't download new material, what exactly are you paying for? The right to listen to music you already paid for!?
The worst part about this kind of scheme is some people can actually be suckered into it.
[This post also makes the rediculous claim that filling up a 30GB iPod is going to cost you $7500,
which ignores the fact that nobody is going to actually do that. At some point, even your average idiot realizes that it'll probably be cheaper rip CDs he already owns, (and those newly purchased -- yes, even people with iPods still buy CDs from time to time!) -- it makes me wish I could mod the whole story as a Troll.]
I am interested in hearing realistic scenarios in which the subscription service actually is a good deal, but I've yet to hear one thus far.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
You don't own them, Apple dictate what you can and cannot do with each track.
You DO own them. Apple gives them to you encrypted and gives YOU the key to decrypt them. The mechanism they give you for transfering the key is by logging in via your Apple ID, but you can continue to listen to YOUR music when you're not on the Internet.
Furthermore, you can burn the songs you purchased to a CD, and from there you can do anything you want with them.
I would note that you need this for Apples service as well, you need to log in to listen to music on another computer...
Yes, but only ONCE. After that, the second computer doesn't need to be connected to the Internet to listen to that music.
I wish that Apple's service had fewer restrictions, too, but please get your facts straight. And Apple's service has nearly the fewest restrictions of any other service out there today. The only other services that offer unrestricted downloads are subscription-only services, so they're not worth it unless you purchase a large volume of music.
"High-fidelity nuts buy CDs, hardly the same as paying thousands for special amplifiers. I do believe CDs should be cheaper, however."
Real high-fidelity nuts buy vinyl.
As a moderator who's giving up his points.. I just bought Primus: Sailing the Seas of Cheese from iTMS AND it sounds as good as I remember it from CDs!
Best experience, best quality, best value for money spent, just the best.... no equal. 'nuff said.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.