Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Take on iTunes for Windows
Skruffy writes "The Register has an amusing article about Microsoft's reaction to the launch of Apple's iTunes software on Windows. It seems that Microsoft is very keen to warn its users of the dangers of using a service that would restrict them from accessing music from other sources... Oh the irony."
... is that M$ starts a new monopoly on iTunes-like apps, especially that Napster 2 has been launched a while back, isn't this what M$ does all the time?
The IT section color scheme sucks.
But how does iTunes restrict you from obtaining music from other sources? I can go to a concert. I can listen to the radio. I can play my own music. I can go to the record store. I can even use Kazaa. How is iTunes restricting me?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Hrmm... I guess, according to Microsoft's logic, I should switch to WindowsXP so that I won't be restricted to viewing music, movies, etc. in non-Microsoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hstandard formats.
Yeah, right. If Microsoft understood open formats, they would have launched their own music download service months ago.
Now I remember why my cluebat has a permanant imprint of Mr. Gates' forehead on one side.
-- Stu
/. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
It *is* extremely hypocritical, but also typical, of Microsoft to make thiese kinds of statements. They're really upset that
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Actually the "cluebat" would be useful for many corporate CEO's... Apple included.
If companies could be forced compete on the merits of their products alone (instead of trying to trap customers and lock them in), this world would be taking a step in the right direction.
Apple needs to fight this with some powerful prime-time adverisements. (Like they did for the "Switch" campaign, except without the annoying chick). They need to remind users that iTunes can play any MP3s (and WAV files), and their iPods can be used to take their entire CD collection on the road with them - not just purchased music from the iTunes Music store. (Heck, that was one of the major reasons why I bought one - you can easily press "Next track" on the iPod while driving, but it's hard to change CDs, and CD changers are expensive and only hold 6-10 CDs).
Apple also needs to do more plugging on the fact that users can burn any number of plain vanilla audio CDs containing their purchased tracks. (You can only burn the same _playlist_ 10 times if it contains purchased tracks, but you can burn the tracks themselves any number of times. The playlist restriction is to prevent you from downloading an album, making a playlist of that album, and burning 50 copies and selling/giving them to your friends. And really, that's not unreasonable - would you do that with CDs you purchased?)
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
When the evil empire immediately reacts to something like iTunes you know that they are scared of it. M$ starting a FUD campaign the day after the service is released totally legitimizes it in the market place. I'd be willing to bet that this helped spur the sale of 1 million tunes in the first 3 days. I know it inspired me to buy some.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Isn't this article incredibly redundant? The last article linked to Microsoft's comments on iTunes. People already discussed it.
What more is there to say? Should everyone just repost their comments from yesterday? Or was this just another Microsoft-flamebait-for-page-hits article?
"Sufferin' succotash."
Blockquoth the poster:
Burn everything to a CD and then rip it.
Seriously, it's time to reconsider your expectations. It's an online music store -- the RIAA would not allow it to exist without some form of DRM. So be thankful for the loophole.
I don't think I've ever seen someone actually call Apple a monopoly, and seriously mean it, before reading this article. Is he serious? Apple a monopoly?
I think that's the first time I've seen a monopoly with something relatively insignificant like 10% of their given market. Didn't I recently read that even linux has a higher market share than Apple?
The fact that apple has good products, and has a very exclusive set of products that interact with each other well, has nothing to do with being a monopoly, directly.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
They seem to equate iTunes for Windows with the iTunes Music Service. One is a "digital jukebox," while the other is a download/rights management service. Use of the former does not require use of the latter. Only the latter entails any sort of "lack of choice," although it's the only REAL choice we've been offered. Here's what I sent to the author:
"Why is it that you and just about every "rumor" site insists on confusing iTunes for Windows and the iTunes Music Service? Everyone claims that by installing "iTunes," you are effectively supporting an "Apple monopoly," simply because the DRM-enabled files purchased from the iTunes Music Store can only be played on iPods (or other copies of iTunes). This completely ignores the fact that iTunes is a "plain 'ol MP3 player" (and a rather nice one, at that). The ONLY time DRM comes into play is when you purchase DRM-enabled AAC files from the iTunes Music Service. That makes sense, given how music publishers are paranoid about "rights-free" music downloads. Installing iTunes for Windows (as I have done on my Dell laptop at work, and a Compaq Evo tablet) in no way locks one into Apple's DRM-enabled AAC "world." I can still encode CDs as MP3s, burn these tracks to CDs (although this Evo is so slow, that would be rather painful!), and transfer them to a cheesy MP3 flash player (so far, I've avoided them as mostly useless- I'm waiting to buy an iPod, once the new baby's expenses are met).
So, please get it right. iTunes for Windowsb is benign. Buying tracks on iTunes Music Service may "lock you in," but what's the alternative? Choice? What choice? Buy DRM-enabled tracks from WMA-supporting sites? No thanks. Can't even play them on one of those junky WMA-enabled flash players. Talk about no choice. Apple negotiated good DRM policy on my behalf, and that's why I've spent good money on a few dozen tracks already. Getting to play them on the best "digital jukebox" out there is just a plus..."
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
I can see your point, and I agree to some degree.
The difference is that you don't have to use AAC if you don't plan on buying from the iTMS.
You can use iTunes with mp3/aiff/wav with no problems and it works with just about any portable music player out there. My friend uses his Rio with iTunes on the Mac for example.
If you want to buy music from the store then you're limited to iTunes (or Quicktime) and the iPod but how is this different from buying DRM-ed music in WMA format? You're limited to Windows Media Player and a portable machine that supports it (ok, so there are more of those available).
I couldn't play WMA music with DRM on my Mac becase I don't have a version of Windows Media Player that supports it (Microsoft delightfully decided not to update the Mac version of WMP so we can't play any videos or music encoded in version 9 format - how's that for choice?!).
Any competing service is going to contian some limitations as to what you can and can't use and can and can't do. It's the nature of things. Remember, both Apple and Microsoft are out to make money. The iTunes Music Store and iTunes exists primarily to sell iPods - Apple are a hardware company first and foremost.
You only use Apple software if you want to use their hardware, that's the way it's always been. iTunes for Windows is there as a resource for owners of iPods who use Windows and not Mac OS. If you don't have an iPod you have three choices:
1. Use iTunes but don't buy any music from the iTMS, ensure you rip in mp3 format and use any portable player on the market.
2. Use iTunes with an iPod - buy music from the iTMS and rip in either mp3 or AAC format.
3. Don't use iTunes. No one is forcing you, and it's not the law to do so (although the way things are going it might soon be illegal to use anything but WMP... just kidding)
WMA is supported on more devices and players than Apple's AAC (w/DRM) and the iPod.
BUT
WMA support is IRRELEVANT if the Digital Restrictions Management that infests Microsoft products doesn't allow me to play it anywhere else anyway. I once had a free offer to download WMA files from some music service and found that once the files were copied to any other computer, they were useless anyway. Copying to a player which did play WMAs was fruitless as well.
So the DRM (remember it's Digital RESTRICTIONS Management) is the overriding limiting factor, and not whether WMA is supported or not.
All the other online music services are music RENTAL right? If so, I won't participate regardless of the format.
Microsoft's argument is irrelevant until the WMA-supporting music services offer more lenient restrictions. I don't want my music to stop after I stop paying $19/month, I don't wanna have to worry if I bought the correct license to burn to CD for every single track I buy!
It's as stupid as calling BMW a monopoly because only BMW makes BMWs.
Or perhaps Orlowski is thinking that Apple is in a monopoly position as regards the suppliers of software. Actually, because their market share is small, the opposite is the case. They have to provide reasons for suppliers to support them. The fact that some applications may be subsumed by Apple is a fact of life: every manufacturer has to make make or buy decisions all the time. Currently conventional wisdom is that everything is better subcontracted out, but eventually if you go far enough the subcontractors own you.
Personally, I suspect that the ITMS may be too small to survive: if revenue is around $30 million and none of that is profit, there is no real budget to promote it. But at least it's a try, and Apple should be given full credit for trying.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
You're partially correct. They are shooting for 100 million in one year from the original launch of iTMS, so the date should be April of 2004.
If my math's correct, that averages to a smidge greater than three purchases per second for the entire 366 day period.
The biggest problem Apple has at the moment is still one of a limited audience. They have yet to open the iTMS to an international audience. Canadians, especially, are really feeling as if they're left out in the cold, and may go to other services (if they haven't already).
Michael C. Hollinger
...DOS which you can pick up on ebay.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Apple uses open standards which can be implemented by all, including Free software projects. Their entire desktop, aside from having BSD Unix underneath, is heavily reliant on PDF. They make it easy to interoperate with others.
Microsoft makes up their own "standards", and the market uses them because Microsoft has a monopoly. When they do release specs, the specs are wrong (ask the Samba team). When they do implement real standards, they change them in incompatible ways and make life hard for those who need interoperability with pretty much every other system.
You might argue that Apple only does this because they have to, having such a small market share. That may be true, but we don't have access to an alternate reality to find out, so we have to look at the current real-life situation.
Additionally, the Apple integration of hardware and software is the reason their computers work so well. You don't have to like it, but it seems to be catching on. And Microsoft does sell keyboards, mice, and Xboxes.
FWIW, I run Linux and can't use iTMS, but that is OK. Most CDs I buy are for $5-$10 at a show immediatly after seeing the band play for the first time (and the shows often cost less than $10 too). None of the bands I see would be arrogant enough to cripple their CDs, because they actually want people to hear their music. And if my friend, who uses iTMS, wants to put some songs from it on a CD for me, he can hand me a standard CD with no problems.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
This bit of demogoguery is over the top. To say that a company who goes to the trouble to create the first practical, usable on-line music store for digital content, and does so completely in the context of the current laws and business climate we find ourselves stuck with, is "in league with RIAA" is like saying devlopers of WINE are in league with Microsoft or developers of a x86 Linux kernel are in league with Intel. Apple took all the tools they had to work with and made a solution that seems to work for all parties involved. Unless you can propose a more appropriate, successful, and LEGAL alternative, you should go peddle your conspiracies and new world orders elsewhere.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
Anyone is free to sell AAC files. In fact, MusicMatch has publicly stated it will if the format proves popular. How is that lock-in by iTunes?
iTunes Music Store sells AAC, but does not lock you in to buying ONLY AAC. It doesn't even lock you into using iTunes (to play your music), as the DRM lives in QuickTime, so pretty much any software which supports QuickTime 6 can play iTMS AAC files.
iTunes plays practically everything BUT WMA... so iTunes will happily work with any source of MP3, AAC, WAV, AIFF, etc. files. Drawing on QuickTime and publicly available plug-ins, iTunes can play from these files:
(yes, I'm lazy and just pasting stuff from Apple's website)
AIFF, AU, Audio CD, AVI, DV, MIDI, MPEG-1, MP3, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, MOV, WAV, Ogg Vorbis (with plug-in), etc.
in these encodings:
24-bit integer
32-bit floating point
32-bit integer
64-bit floating point
AAC (MPEG-4 Audio)
ALaw 2:1
AMR Narrowband
IMA 4:1
MACE 3:1
MACE 6:1
MS ADPCM (decode only)
QDesign Music 2
Qualcomm PureVoice (QCELP)
ULaw 2:1