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?"

10 of 590 comments (clear)

  1. Own? by Remik · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  2. Stupid question by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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?

  3. They wish... by stefanb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  4. do both by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 4, Interesting
    First, note that $120/year is cheaper than $7500, no matter how long you plan to subscribe, because you can generate $120/year by sticking $6000 up front in any safe investment that earns 2% interest. Yeah, I know that would be a silly thing to do! :-)

    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.

  5. Re:7500 songs in 30 GB = 4MB/Song?? by neoform · · Score: 4, Interesting

    apple sells it's music in AAC, not mp3 nor ogg.

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
  6. The price doesnt look right by watzinaneihm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    $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
  7. Re:7500 songs in 30 GB = 4MB/Song?? by Dylan+Zimmerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:7500 songs in 30 GB = 4MB/Song?? by Reziac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?
  9. That is why the Apple approach is better by PotatoHead · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:7500 songs in 30 GB = 4MB/Song?? by gilroy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Blockquoth the poster:

    Don't think like an audiophile, think like the average person. ;)

    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.