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?"
Watch the verbage. As far as the RIAA is concerned, you never 'own' a song. Unless the consumer has the right to rip, mix, and burn, you can't say they 'own' anything but the right to listen to it, and even then only if they pay a recurring charge. From the looks of this system the best you could call it is renting, and that's a stretch.
-R
"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"
And if this subscripton doesn't have the music you want? What are you supposed to do - SWITCH and lose your existing collection.
And when the price doubles what do you do then? Lose your collection or continue paying!
and how about 5 times? How much can Gates raise the price before you give up your collection?
What happens when the choice is crap and your paying just to play your existing music?
Ironically, the appeal of the Apple music store is that you "own" the titles that you buy for. I believe that many people rather choose to pay for specific offers, instead of subscribing to some service.
By way of example: I pay for cable TV, and I have certain expectations. Especially, I don't expect stuff to be worthwile to keep after (possibly) timeshifting it; if there's a movie, series, mini-series I feel I might watch more than once or twice, I'm quite willing to pay some premium to get (practically) unlimited rights to it. Apple's offer is not unlimited, but it's close enough for me to accept it.
On the other hand, a music subscription service, for me, is full of hassles. I need an Internet connection to have my right to listen confirmed; I might need to stream stuff, at potentially low quality, I can't use the devices I want to, etc. pp. In essence, I don't "own" the music.
A newspaper or magazine subscription is similiar in that I don't care that much about last month's issue (with most publications, anyway), but with my personal interest in music, I want to be able to "own" a recording, and rest calmly knowing that I can listen to it when I want, not when some commerical service deems appropriate.
Anyway, I'd prefer a rental system with an option to buy. I could then fill the device with rental music, and when I decide I like something enough to want it permanently, I'd buy it.
apple sells it's music in AAC, not mp3 nor ogg.
MABASPLOOM!
$120 for a year
120 bucks a year works to 6 CDs a year . I doubt any music company is going to allow such a scheme to go forward.The catch is that the music industry expects a certain amount of money from a person (or family) per year.Apple is paying that money. And I am sure that if MS is too meet that, it would work out to something around 4 or fve times that. To top it you have to factor in the cost of the player (you probably need a portable, a car sterio and a computer ) which need to be DRM enabled.
And I wonder if I have only 6 songs in my playlist and I have license to have 10, can I share my password with my friend so that he can download those 4?
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
The bitrate has recently been increased on most songs to 192 VBR encoding. Sounds much, much better now.
As for errors, I haven't downloaded a glitchy song yet.
The point is that the songs you get from Apple should work on Linux once you have them. As long as there is a Linux AAC player, there is no reason that they wouldn't. My guess is that Microsoft is going to rent the files in their own closed format and sue anyone who tries to make their own player for it.
And if you let your subscription lapse, but later renew it, do you get use back of all the previous downloads, or are those files now no good so you have to start over from scratch?
Another issue: say they HAD stuff you wanted at first, but later they have only pop crap. You'd still have to maintain your sub to keep use of your existing files, even tho nothing currently offered is of interest and may not be for years to come.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
They require you to use their own proprietary DL manager now, which is designed to run on RH 6 and similar. Their suggestion to Linux users who couldn't get the thing to run on modern distributions was to downgrade! And no, you cannot use third party DL managers (until someone cracks the encryption they've gone to for linking to the downloadable songs).
Here's their most recent email:
Dear EMusic Customer,
In response to your email regarding issues you have had with the new EMusic Linux Download Manager 2.0, we are pleased to inform you that within the next few days, we will be releasing a new version which addresses many of the bugs that have been reported. While we have fixed many of the bugs that were reported, the versions have not changed their system requirements and may not work on all flavors of Linux. In the future, we plan to create new builds of the Download Manager to be functional on other flavors of Linux.
We apologize for any inconvenience the current Download Manager may have caused you and appreciate your patience as we address the issues in future versions of the EMusic Linux DLM.
More information will be available early next week.
Regards,
EMusic Support
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
They get some money per tune. They make the music easier to get than with downloading. You can even download a couple times and not get charged so your money is not wasted.
The DRM approach is foolish. No matter what, people will be able to move the music outside the DRM. Why not get enough cash up front for the whole thing to be worth it?
That is exactly how the current CD model works now and they have made plenty of money doing it.
Streaming via monthly subscription sort of works, if you don't mind sitting at your computer to listen. The Satellite and Cable people have been doing this for a while now and people like it. Think about those systems a bit. The music can still move, but it takes a bit of work to do that. Plus there is some value in their rotating playlists. It would take quite a while to reproduce a couple days of their service in a way that makes sense. So, people pay.
Subscription DRM where you basically give up all your rights to your own damn hardware are not going to fly when perfectly workable business models exist that work with what we have now.
Seems to me Apple has understood something most companies don't. Though, they could save some time and read Slash. Most of us have this down cold for a few years now... Heh.
BTW: I purchase DVD media instead of rent and or pay per view because I do want to have some ownership of the bits. Costs more that way, but I find it very worth it.
Blogging because I can...
That's still not going to help the millions and millions of hardware mp3 players people have sunk billions of dollars into. mp3 is a defacto standard, sure it's not the best quality (sorry 'audiophiles'), there's no drm (sorry record labels) and the format isn't really free (sorry slashdot), but it's the standard. People just need to get over that and live with it.
The MS service has a lower entry cost, and better provides immediate gratification (for the first few months).
It is equivalent in price to owning 12 CDs, or 120 songs per year at the Apple service. Presumably one would use the Apple preview abilities to only buys what they like, and to roughly prioritise buying what they like most before buying other options that they like less. The average consumer buys more than 12 CDs per year, but usually receives less than 120 of their favourite songs per year, due to how CDs bundle good with poor songs. So, a person who buys more than average quantities of music, or would prefer to, given the economic means, would receive superior value, initially, from the MS service. A person who buys less than average quantities of music would receive better value with the Apple service, always.
So, for the above average consumer, who sees better value in the MS service, they have to ask themselves:
- Will the service price increas, at least proportionally over the Apple service? Since the Apple service provides more revenue for the labels, one could assume so.
- Will the collection disappear for any reasons other than discontinuing paying the service fee, such as MS service being discontinued, MS Windows 2005, 2008, 2011... being required to run the service, in effect having additional hidden monetary, hardware and labour costs.
- Will the collection disappear from not paying the service fee anymore. For those who follow the law that has a simple answer, no, but for those willing to bend/break the law, that might be resricted by technological concerns, outside of the user's control.
- Psychologically, most consumers prefer the feeling of "owning" objects, rather than "leasing" them. The feeling of ownership is one of having increased tangible wealth, which makes one feel successful in a consumer society. Leasing an object is alright for short time periods, as little attachment has occured, and so the loss is not as noticeable, at least for small ticket items like individual songs. The feeling of losing wealth when a big ticket item, like a ferrari, or a 30 GB music collection is suddenly taken away, is not a pleasurable feeling. This affect is worsenned in the case of the MS service, because it proves its economic superiority only in the long-term for mot users. This one single psychological reasonning will undoubtedly be sufficient cause for many users to pay a price premium to own any product.
So, depending on how the user can answer the myriad of questions, the MS service might be worth-while. That complexity of reasonning might tip the balance to the Apple service. Look for very simplistic marketing from MS, targeted at base, short-term neurosis, and immediate gratification to push their service.
Microsoft seems sure that consumers will find renting music more desirable than owning it. Personally, I think they're crazy
;) Seriously, how often do most people listen to albums they bought as little as 5 years ago? Most music is bought by young people and it's flavor of the month. How many people who bought "Baby One More Time" still listen to it?
Don't think like an audiophile, think like the average person.
That's one of the reasons (poor college students being the other big one) that used cd stores spring up. We buy an album for one song, listen to that one song for 6 months then go on to the next flavor.
Audiophiles are different. We really want to own the music, but for most people this will be much better.
A lot of the technical issues that we care about simply don't matter to the average case.
Ok, back about 20 years ago, we were under the dillusion that we actually owned the music that we bought in a typical store. You paid money, you got music. It's was what we thought a simple concept, even the little disclaimer that it was for private expoition only in the rare cases an album actually had one. Still, there was a level of simplisity of it all.
However based on what I read about many contries, it's been established that you don't own a copy of the song to do with as you please, but rather you own the media but not the contents, making it illegal to make a copy (aka a backup) for use in other media players.
The apple i-tunes system gives you music in a file that can be placed on a CD if desired. This sounds very simple like it was in the 20th century. From what I can see, you buy a file, not the media. I assume you own the file and have the right to private use. Too me this is fair and reasonable.
I would not support a microsoft system where files have an experation date. While I've never been an audiophile, I do own some tapes, CDs, vinyl, and the odd 8track. I own them, they are mine. While there is some argument about end user rights, I can if I so desire it place media on a player and play it when ever I wish without additional license fees, cause I bought a copy.
While I am a fan of the idea of something subscription based... what I desire is the ability to actually support the folks who made the music. I would pay money for stuff I downloaded in order to get a jewel case, and an offical sleave for a particular release. Only diffrence being, I don't have to go to the store.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I think you're underestimating the nostalgia factor. Haven't you ever come across an old album, listened to it for "old times's sake", and then find yourself listening over and over as you rediscover why you bought it in the first place? I don't have hard numbers but most of the people I know admit to having that experience, multiple times. People like their record collections. All of these download services undermine that tactile feel.
Plus, I don't think the average consumer is as dumb as everyone else thinks. Wait for the first Windows bug to crash the MS music server, causing subscriptions to terminate abruptly. Then watch everyone move to a different model.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach