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?"
Crap, no! :-)
I encode Ogg Vorbis files averaging 6 MB/Song, I can easily tell the difference with everything lower than that.
Jokes apart, this whole matter of "owning" is tricky....
Will I be able to do whatever I want with the songs, before they expire? Can I use them on my portable player, laptop, office PC and home PC without paying 4 subscriptions?
Will quality be crippled?
Will it work on Linux (that would be interesting from Microsoft) ? I have a Linux In-car mp3 player in the works, and my home theater is connected to my Linux Ogg server.
Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule.
Isn't the question really, "Wouldn't it be great to own every song ever created for $10?"
/. utility to bust the DRM protection. ;-) I give it about 4 days after the service starts until someone figures this out. ;-)
How is this possible?
1) Sign up for one month.
2) Download every song in the database.
3) Use the new
4) Discontinue the service.
A small point: Apple's service sells albums for $10 so 15 or 20 songs can cost $10. I have spent a total of $11 on the Apple Music Store, and I can say that the user experiance is very good, and with the "1-Click" feature I could easily spend $100 without even noticing.
Yawn.
Subscription services have already been done. They don't work. Period. iTunes works because you 'own the bits'. That, my friend is why they have sold more music to more customers than any other online pay service COMBINED, and it only took them two weeks.
Frankly, there are some songs I love and want to listen to all the time; these are ones I'd want to "own" so I can have them available whenever/whereever, and be able to demonstrate to others and stuff like that.
And then there's others that I have a sort of periodic interest in, and usually stop caring about after a few weeks. These are ones I'd prefer to "rent", because there's no point in paying more so as to keep them later.
Plus, I'd like to be able to control the difference between these two states easily.
Does *anybody* offer something like that? Not that I can see...
--
viqsi - See "vixen"
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed.
Gee, renting DRM crippled songs, or buying DRM crippled songs.
I'll take buying. Still the better deal of the two, and I'm not helping to support a monopoly.
AC comments get piped to
Part of the "advantage" of Microsoft's DRM is that the files will expire if you don't pay your bills. So you don't really own the songs. You're subscribing to a service, like cable.
Finding God in a Dog
At the risk of sounding like someone who feeds trolls and replies to flame-bait, you're a scumbag. I for one am NOT a pirate, and have no problem paying for what I want. I'll admit that I have used services like Kazaa and was REALLY into Napster when it was new, but it still is and always has been theft.
The incentive to buy is exactly the what you mentioned. If you like a band, you buy their music so that you can support them and they'll make more. It's just like potato chips or caffeine vendors, buy their stuff and they'll make more and continue to innovate. Don't buy it and they'll consider the venture a failure and stop doing whatever it was no matter what you thought about it.
It's not about cluelessness about P2P, it's about paying for a product that someone else produces and you're enjoying the benefits of.
To me, it's not a matter of owning. It's a matter of feeling a sense of freedom. Any time I'm forced to make a long term monetary commitment (a loan, gym membership, etc.) I'm reluctant to do so. This is because there's always that shred of doubt regarding the future. What if something happens and I'm unable to pay this monthly fee?
With a gym membership it's easy: stop going to the gym. With a car loan it's different. You're going to get your car repossessed. Obviously this is not ideal, because you've invested time and energy into this automobile and you'd be losing this.
Getting your music repossessed is the same concept. I've put time and money into this collection, and I'll be damned if some company takes it back if I fail to make a payment. Because the future is unpredictable (especially for me, a poor college student), I'm going to stick with owning my music.
Also, I just want to point out, only singles on the iTMS are 99 cents. Albums are usually 10 dollars, and often contain WAY more than 10 songs.
And what happens when MS releases the next version of Windows and stops supporting the old software. Upgrade or else lose your collection?
Renting music is sort of like having cable TV. You can enjoy whatever the operator happens to make available at that time. But when you own the music (or DVD or book or whatever), you don't have to be concerned about whether the things you want to hear will one day be unavailable because of lack of demand or other reasons.
How much music does a normal person acquire in a year (legally or otherwise)? I have every CD that I own on my 10GB iPod -- plus various MP3s from other sources -- and it's still only half full. The issue as it was framed in this question ($7,500 for ownership vs. $120 a year for rental) is absurb, because people don't buy thousands of dollars of music at once. The real question is whether you want to be committed to listening to whatever a subscription service wants you to listen to OR be able to spend a tiny amount of money on a song or album when you happen to feel like it. The subscription model does at least three bad things: 1) It takes away your ability to legally own music for as long as you want it, 2) It takes away your freedom to time your purchases to your own whims or budget, and 3) It takes away your ability to "vote with your money" to give the market feedback about what you want to buy.
I understand the theoretical allure of a subscription model, but I believe it's one of those things that looks best when it's in theory. In practice, people want to buy what they want when they want AND they want to be able to own it. (You can argue about whether Apple's mild restrictions are too strict concerning what you can do with the file, but that's another argument. For me, Apple's approach basically means that I can do virtually anything that a normal music consumer wants to do with his music.)
Pay $300 for your operating system on CD, so you can reinstall at any time if necessary, or pay $120 a year for a subscription to an operating system that will expire in a year, then HAVE to pay $150 the next year to keep it for another year. Because that's the same model. And who would buy 7500 songs in a *volatile* format anyway? That is about double the size of my CD collection, which cost me $3200 or so (over 18 years). iTunes works precisely because buying a song is an impulse thing, and is particularly useful for stuff that you like but not enough to by the CD: buying 1 song for $1 is a lot better than buying 1 song and 14 bits of static for $15.
I think Microsoft business people are missing one key point: owning things is an intrinsic part of being human.
This does not mean that rental or subscription-based services will fail, it just means that owning media SHOULD be part of the deal. This also means that Apple should (besides selling songs) also contemplate renting songs for a specified amount of time (say, 25 or 50 cents for 1 year?).
In other words, we need BOTH options, since people WILL want to own certain songs, but just rent others. Just look at the DVD market. People buy the movies they love (Matrix, Star Wars), but rent the ones they just want to have a good night with (i.e.: Van Damme and Steve Segal movies come to mind).
When I can pay $1 for an Ogg file (or even MP3), I'll be happy to do so (even from Microsoft). It's simple, and it's amazing nobody gets it: cut the DRM crap, and people will pay for the convenience and legitimacy.
It's impossible to stop P2P, but P2P is very inconvenient, and people would rather not infringe copyrights. But DRM is much, much more inconvenient, and it shows the company's greed and mistrust of its customers. DRM does nothing to stop copyright infringement, and everything to curtail fair use. Fair use and convenience are one and the same, and and convenience sells.
iTunes is closest to this, but it still has DRM crap, won't work on Linux, etc. Whatever Microsoft does is bound to be a step backwards, because they are talking about expiration, the format will probably be WMA, you won't be able to switch services, your music will die when you unsubscribe, you won't be able to use it on anything but Windows and Microsoft-blessed hardware, etc.
Hopefully something even more open will come along, and do even better than iTunes, and things will become sane.
Litigious bastards
Didn't I predict this about 5 days ago. Yeah, I thought I did. ;)
;) It would seem that it would have SOME Of the music you wanted, but not all of it.
... it's one of the key features that got Sprint PCS going in the early days. Look at pay-as-you-go cellphones, too. People pay *extra* to use these in order to avoid a contract.
;)
Specifically, regarding your questions, if the sub didn't have the music you wanted, then where did this existing collection come from?
You could supplement it with iTunes of course, which requires no contract committment. No contract commitment is a key thing
I don't know that this will fly... it might... it all depends on marketing. And no one in the industry does marketing quite as well as M$.
My journal has hot
I wish I could mod you up. Because the parent poster is basically saying: "what's the point of being honest?", with the obvious implication that only heavily intrusive technologies will force people to be honest in their purchases.
We've gone over add-nauseaum for years now all the reasons why many people might use P2P. It always boils down to the fact that the RIAA is an old dinausor that is incapable of adapting to consumer wishes.
Apple has an interesting service that makes a very decent step towards giving consumers what they want. Want an analysis? Answer this question then: What's more expensive? Something you'll pay for the privilege of using for the rest of your life, or something you'll buy once for a dollar.
In the end, these people just want gravy trains: products they can charge the consumer for over and over again without adding any new value. Hey, that sounds like taxes.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
"How much is it worth to you to "own" the bits?""
It isn't about owning, it's about control.
Remember, intellectual property was never meant as a means for ownership, but a means for control.
Question everything.
By saying I want to rip, mix, and burn, all I'm asking for is the right to phase shift media which I've paid for. It's the companies problem if that right, which has been mine with every other media thus far, puts them in a pinch as to how to make a profit. I'm not asking to be able to sell copies of the music; I'm asking to be able to exercise my right of fair-use.
To use your car example, buying a car gives me the right to break it down to parts and sell (or reassemble in a different form) the pieces, it also gives me the right to resell the car itself as a whole. Those are all examples of rights that RIAA are trying to technologically and bureaucratically take from us.
-kd
I hope Apple gets its Windows version of iTunes quickly. Microsoft has a habit of making mediocre software available quickly, taking advantage of its large installed base, eliminating competition, then ceasing improvement.
People will pay for music, as they've demonstrated. Provide them a good interface and give them a reasonable deal and they'll pay. I think a lot of people find $1 per song to be a reasonable price, and iTunes is far easier to use than Kazaa/Gnutella. Most people don't want to hack, they don't want to circumvent DRM, they don't want to wait forever to download music, and they sure don't want spyware. They're happy to pay a fair price for the service.
My worry may be misplaced, because unlike other Microsoft placements, this won't be free. Even if it comes on your computer for free (and people are upgrading much more slowly than they used to, so just providing it with the OS doesn't provide the channel that it used to), you still have to sign up and pay. Microsoft is pretty good at tricking people into doing so; the service will assuredly use Passport and they can be very...insistent about signing up for a Passport account.
But a lot of people won't pay, because it's too much trouble for them. Many of those who will pay will go the extra step to get Apple's software. That is, of course, assuming that Apple gets the software out. It's claimed it for the fall, but Microsoft can probably get its software out at least that quickly and into a "service pack" for Windows.
That also assumes Microsoft intends to actually develop the software at all. Microsoft doesn't even need to develop software at this point. Many users will read the announcement and forget about Apple's take on it, because they'll assume it'll come free with their next computer.
It won't make them happy, but my basic assumption in marketing is that users are lazy. Look at the number of people whose home page is still MSN because they never bothered to get a different browser or even to change the home page to something they care about. Users will put up with a lot of crap if it means no effort. It takes a very smart company to work around that laziness.
I hope Apple can be that company, because it's the best shot I've seen at getting music to people and money to musicians I've seen yet. It's not perfect for a host of reasons (mainly due to the record studios and Clear Channel), but I think it's the right compromise today.
This seems typical of Redmond.
Rent rent rent. This is the current plan, when the customer stops paying - *ZIP!* they're screwed.
It's exactly what is on the cards with Palladium (NGSCB), no longer do you own your copy of MS Office, but you rent it, leaving yourself liable to increases in the rental cost that started out oh-so-reasonable (XBox Live anyone?).
Should you fail to keep up with payments then all of your work for the last couple of years (documents, letters, spreadsheets, project plans etc. etc.) is down the drain... gone. It is all part of a very obvious strategy to lock people tighter and tighter into the godawful overrated buggy mess that is MS software...
And the worst thing is that *the average Joe does not see this*!
Now, Microsoft see's another company (Apple) which has worked incredibly hard, battling against the stubborness of the 5 big labels, encoding hundreds of thousands of songs, doing all the groundwork, figuring out the streaming system to get high-quality streams to anyone anywhere in the world instantly for the previews etc. etc. Microsoft see's this company (GASP!) actually reap some monetary reward for this hard hard work and surprise, the fat and greedy "software" company wants it... all of it.
Why, Microsoft, if you wanted to get into the online music business, was it not YOU that took the risk of being first, why was it not YOUR money on the line opening a new market to users, why was it not YOUR reputation in the balance of a high profile gamble???
I know this is Slashdot, and I know this is repeated many times a day, but believe me, never with more spirit and emotion than I feel now - when will the consumer teach Microsoft a lesson?
Has the semi-failure of the XBox been the first high-profile dent to MS made by the consumer at large? Perhaps... it is sure to say that the consumer is resisting these monopolistic practises... but how long will this last... MS has the cash to pay out for an XBox 2 and an Xbox 3 until Sony and Nintendo are gradually put out of the game for the sheer fact that MSoft's bottom line can go deeper than theirs?
It remains to be seen... perhaps this will be one of those half-hearted assault on a competitior like iMovie versus Windows Movie Maker (hehehe). We DO know that Apple's traditional strengths (design, quality, usability, friendliness, media-related software) are the things that Microsoft has the most difficulty in achieving.
-Nex
This sig has been deprecated.
But Microsoft's spiffy new DRM doesn't exist yet. We're all debating the merits of something that they might not even be able to bring to market. This reminds me of all the discussion prior to iTunes. Even though the broad strokes of the Apple Music Store were fairly well known, the devil is in the details. It wasn't until the product launched that anyone could really tell how useful it would be.
Microsoft's number one goal here is to thwart Apple's Windows version of the Music Store before it even launches. The best way for them to do that is to float various alternatives, watch the responses, and adjust accordingly.
While this is in keeping with their corporate character, it's also not the sort of approach that leads to a well-integrated user experience. The Apple Music Store was obviously built around making consumers happy, and it shows in all the little details. Microsoft is racing to catch up to Apple in this arena, and at this point the only way they can gain some momentum is by comparing vaporware to the Apple Music Store.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I can't believe what I am reading.... People are actually saying that it's ok for me to pay $10 month for me to listen to music.
I am sorry, I would rather "own the bits" so that I can listen to the same songs over and over and over again without having to pay a fee just to do so.
I will stick with the iTunes service. I can see it already, you can listen to your music as long as your paying for the service.
Knowing MS, any CD you burn will self destruct if you cease being a member (that is if you are allowed to burn CDs without paying some additional fee).
I share the same opinions as most of the /. crowd, in that if i feel a product is worth it, i will buy it. I've been screaming for years about how if the RIAA wants me to buy more CD's, they need to offer more for what is already an obviously bloated pricing situation, or offer me a cheaper medium that i can access directly from home. Generally, when it comes to music,
1) Download a few tracks from kazaa at home.
2) Spend a few days listening to it.
3) Go purchase the album / Download the remaining tracks, or disregard the music as something not in my taste.
I currently have about 10 albums sitting in the corner of my bedroom that have not even been opened, with the music residing on my PC.
I also have no problems downloading albums that i have purchased (sometimes, 3-4 times) even though i dont currently posses a copy of the CD... due to theft, scratched cd's, whatever. The RIAA would have you believe that i am a thief in doing so. I believe the RIAA can lick my scrotum.
At any rate, I think MS's plan would end up being worthless. As i've stated before, i feel that if i pay for something, i *own* the rights to posses it, no matter what. I once made the mistake of encoding one of my albums in WMA. The CD melted in my car... and since this was a couple of formats ago (yes, i run windows :p) I've found the files to be useless, because windows feels i dont "own" those wma files. The absolute LAST THING I WANT is for MS to be in control of what it feels i "own" and dont own.
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?
Where in the article does it say anything about $120/year?
Are we supposed to be so gullible as to believe that a subscription service would allow unlimited "rentals" for a flat fee of $10/month? What kind of an asinine business model would that be? Does anyone really think that the recording industry would ever make such an offering?
Mark
My take on this is that it's pure vaporware. By some accounts Apple has taken two years to line up deals with the music industry. How on earth could MS do such a thing in such short notice? They can't.
So, one has to wonder about this. Hmm... could it be yet another attempt by Microsoft to scare potential customers away from what they perceive as a successful venture by announcing their own similar service COMING SOON! So whatever you do, don't get all tangled up with that other service because you know you want to stay on the winning MS team! Don't bother with that other stuff until our kick-ass music service is up and running, say in... um... late 2003 *cough cough* 2006 *cough* *cough* 2008 *cough* never.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."