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.
"from the doesn't-play-well-with-others dept."
or
"from the I'm-taking-my-toys-and-going-home dept."
What a bunch of babies.
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
I mean they are the biggest controlling monopoly there is ;)
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.
Cool! Taco must be shaking in his boots, running scared due to today's release of Office 2003.
OK. I'm just sort of kidding. But really. This ramped up bashing does not look good when MS does a big release like they are today. It looks like sour grapes. Which, of course, it is...
Why not get more positive on what you believe in, rather than bash?
And just look at the story just before the consecutive MS bashing stories... It's about linux zealots gone wild. Hmmmm.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
I don't know if this was supposed to be a joke or not. But either way, you can import your mp3's. I know I did. You can also convert them to AAC. While I haven't bothered burning anything, I assume all AAC files would burn properly.
Oh wait...wrong site.
Zodiac Survey
If Apple hits the 10 million mark by Christmas I will be impressed, MS will be scared, and the RIAA might start to be quiet.. maybe.
I am going to hell and I am going to take all of you with me.
Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000 and Windows XP. What's your problem?
IT was supposed to be a joke... The article quoted microsoft as claiming that Itunes could only use music files from the apple music store... I guess that's what I get for reading the FA.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
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.
Oh the irony.
Irony:
1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
Dishonest, but not ironic.
I was going to write a comment on this but after thinking about how absurd this is, I am completely stumped. Thank you MS, you have completely sucked the witty comebacks out of me with this one.
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
Federal and state regulators have voiced concern that a feature in Windows XP that involves online music purchasing may violate terms of Microsoft's antitrust settlement.
The issue surfaced in a court-mandated briefing filed jointly by Microsoft and federal and state regulators. The compliance update says there are ongoing discussions over the "Shop for Music Online" feature in the operating system.
"Plaintiffs are concerned that the feature invokes Microsoft's Internet Explorer, rather than the user's chosen default browser, in a manner that may be inconsistent" with the settlement, according to the filing.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Could you please stop hitting him on the head with your bat? Maybe that's one of the reason's he's braindead.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
Amazing that Taco posted both stories.
The smell of desperation is embarassing. How pathetic.
"MS released a new version of Office! Oh no!! Prepare to bash at full speed!"
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Let me get this straight....they were sued for having a monopoly, yet now are accusing Apple, with a market share from 4% to 5% of being a monopoly in the music service?
Mr.Gates, the people have spoken, with 1 million songs downloaded from iTMS in 3.5 days, and they don't want your crap for "standards".
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
Are they serious? LOL
I'm sorry, "LOL" has been copyrighted/trademarked/patented/ by AOL. Please edit your post to reflect this. I suggest "Are they srious? AOL"
Thankyou for your time.
moo.
-1 Offtopic (sorry, i'm bored)
they managed to turn that quote into an entire article. So microsoft doesn't like itunes.. who would have thought
did you forget to take your meds?
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.
I'm barely arrived on the scene and even I recognise this as a repost...
ObGEEK: So, what do we reckon the DRM restrictions put in place will be when Microsoft launch their own store?
I'm thinking there's a (slim as anything) chance they might recognise the need for CD burning of purchases content.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Huh? iTunes is not limited to Apple Music downloads, it also plays mp3s, audio CDs, and pretty much anything other un-DRMed audio you have. The iPod has always played mp3s. What's Apple supposed to do, preemptively invent DRM solutions that profit other companies and put those into iTunes? And iTunes does allow you to burn to an audio CD. MS WMP would do no different than Apple here.
Granted, Apple Music downloads are useless to anyone without iTunes (on Windows or Mac) or an iPod. Until I can play them in linux, they're useless to me. And don't tell me to burn everything to a CD and then rip it. Apple Music is also useless if you want to listen on a non-apple portable. Once again, Apple has chosen to support "everyone" by offering a choice of proprietary systems, rather than a single open system. "Windows or Mac" is just as bad as "Mac only" or "Windows only".
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
I can't believe no one looked this up yet. Anyway, this link goes to the Microsoft "Q&A about iTunes" that the Register article refers to.
Why do I h8 apple?
Easy Cd creator 4.x
that have directcd installed
as far as I can tell.
All you have to do as far as I can
tell is uninstall directcd before installing
itunes which most people dont use anyway
would be to have Clippy play air-guitar while listening to music. and include even more purple color in their default skin.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
I tried to buy, er, tunes on buytunes.com once, but all I got was:
Thank you for visiting BuyMusic.com.
In order to take full advantage of BuyMusic.com's offerings you must be on a Windows Operating System using Internet Explorer version 5.0 or higher.
All for using Firebird. News flash: Microsoft browser monopoly too restrictive. Asses.
Analysts noted that Slashdot, despite obtaining over 1 million page views in its first week, will have a hard time with the Windows market. "We believe that an open system like Microsoft's is the way to go," claimed the Garter Belt Group.
Is that Microsoft is already being checked up on for their upcoming music service:
f t/index.html.
http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2003/10/20/microso
Microsoft's idea of "choice" is a button on the side that reads "Buy Music Online". Even if you tell the system "I prefer another browser to yours", or "I prefer another media player to yours", you get sent to the "Microsoft Music Store".
No way to override that unless you manually start up a separate program to begin with. Looks like you can't just delete that little button from the OS.
Imagine the phone call when some irate customer calls Apple and says "I clicked this Buy Music Button on my computer and I can't play it with this iTunes thing! What kind of scam are you pulling!"
Ah, yes - Microsoft, that bastion of choice and freedom! (Well, as long as you choose a Microsoft solution, of course.)
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
To the iTunes Music Store? There is no subscription fee. The only risk you run is that you need to keep iTunes installed on your computer in order to play pruchased music. Or, you could buy an iPod. Or, you could burn and then re-rip the music, which of course carries a quality penalty unless you rip to a lossless format.
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.
"Back to your Double Plus Good Edumacation School with you." Watch out, I have a degree from there. Go Bobcats.
Ok. So apple has the AAC and you can only purchase (for use in iTunes) from apple, but can't you take the purchased files and either burn to CD as as standard CDaudio file or convert to a (lower quality than the AAC perhaps) MP3? Or did apple keep the only playback option the AAC format?
Subject line really says all... in the early nineties, IBM had a bit of a campaign on to caution managers about this danger.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Microsoft's #1 complaint, although unspoken, is that while iTunes can play downloaded MP3s, it can't play the DRM'ed WMA files that Microsoft promotes. In that sense, it's at odds with Microsoft's designs. Songs downloaded from iTMS only play on iTunes and iPod players, while WMA songs downloaded from other legal services can't and probably never will.
In that sense, it's iTMS vs. every other MS-sponsored service, and iPods vs. every other MS-sponsored player. However, Apple hasn't closed the format. It's just as possible for other download services and MP3 player manufacturers to support AAC just like iTMS and the iPod do. They simply don't at this time.
irony (def 3b), Merriam-Webster:
incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play
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.
Anybody had any luck getting iTunes for Windows running in Wine?
I get an InstallShield error:
1155: File F:\installs\itunes\INSTMSIA.EXE not found.
I'm using the 20031016 RPM release.
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."
Sure you have choice, you can still install the MusicMatch client, and the Napster 2.0 client (when it becomes available), and use those stores along with iTunes
"Lastly, if you use Apple's music store along with iTunes, you don't have the ability of using the over 40 different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices. When I'm paying for music, I want to know that I have choices today and in the future,"This is a valid point. I can't put the songs from iTunes onto my Nomad Jukebox, unless I burn them to CD and Rip them back first. I can put the songs I buy from MusicMatch on my Nomad with no problems.
Still this is mostly typical FUD from M$. They see online digital music sales as the next big thing, and they HATE it when the next big thing is dominated by someone else.
But for some reason, nobody in the industry except for Apple could see the obvious business model for online digital music sales. While everyone else was fiddling with subscription models where you lose your music if you stop paying your subscription, Apple knew that users wanted to buy and keep their music, so they deserve their lead.
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
Accuse me of trolling and mod me down if you must, but you've always got to look into the future.
Well, lez see, I'd bet Microsoft will use their OS monopoly to get a monopoly on selling music online...then I can also see since media formats have always been proprietary cept' for ogg of course, I can see the windows DRM being used with media player to restirct which formats windows can utilize. So in the distant future, we'll see that microsoft's WMA format becoming the de-facto standard amongst windows users. Stupid people will have to buy their media and probably can't rip their CD's, while smart people will use something else like linux or mac.
Combine microsoft deciding they don't like competition from p2p apps or other formats with their autoupdating patch system and you've got them eliminating windows machines from the p2p scene altogether. Heck, they might even be brazen enough to do something like brilliant did awhile ago and use users machines as nodes in the network so they don't have to pay for bandwidth to host their website, patches, or anything else for that matter. Mmmm..viral microsoft patches....
I don't trust apple either, they've done their share of stupid monopolistic stuff too, so it'll be interesting to see MS and apple fight.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
iTunes (for Windows) will rip to MP3 just as well as AAC. iTunes will play MP3s just as well as AACs. The iPod can play MP3s and AACs. Windows Media Player can play Windows Media and MP3s.
Admittedly, if you buy AACs from the iTMS, and want to get them onto your non-iPod device, you need to burn them to CD, and rip them back to MP3.. but it's not impossible by any means.
Web Hosting Reviews
I would like to see the selection before downloading the app, but when I have briefly gone to the site, I could see no way to browse without installing i-tunes.
-mojo
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
I agree, Mr. Gates has made Microsoft one of the most successful companies of all time. That doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't need an occasional clue injection.
Imagine how much more successful Microsoft would be if they were able to work efficiently with other companies and software developers. Unlike our good friend Mr. Stallman, I feel that proprietary software has its place in the world. Nonetheless, I don't think that vendors of proprietary software need to act like spoiled brats and refuse to get along with the rest of the world.
If Microsoft was able to play nicely with all of the other children, we wouldn't make them sit at the front of the class next to the teacher's desk.
-- Stu
/. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
Now this is something I was never sure of. I've got a 18-24 month old Rio cd/mp3/wma player that has no way of updating it's software...how does/will it know about WMA9?
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
You have a good point... but lets not forget that this is a new addition to the musical arena. Nothing has 'gone away'. iTunes is just another option. For a lot of people the service isn't good enough quality (lossy AAC compression at a medium bitrate)... but as Apple seems to have proven, for the vast majority, its a very attractive service.
At the end of the day, if you don't want to use iTMS, or buy an iPod, Apple has still offered something compelling: a free jukebox player that is very powerful... even if you buy no songs or hardware. Rip your own CDs to MP3 or AAC, and burn them all you like, for free. Even WMP won't let you do that for free.
I was a little surprised that they didn't charge a nominal fee for PC iTunes, but now I think that move was very astute.
iTunes may not be everyone's bag but it certainly raises the bar in terms of interface design, and provides a kick in the ass to other developers. To me, that's choice. I have more musical choices under Windows than I did a week ago.
The thing I find interesting is the loss-leader aspect of iTMS. Apple has said they make very little money from the service, What hope can dedicated services like Napster have, if Apple can offer high quality (well, Big 5) content in a premium service, and subsidize that service with iPod sales? Technically the iTMS doesn't even need to be a runaway success for Apple...
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Has MS bothered to make the WMA spec available to Apple, let alone anyone else?
I doubt it, as that would defeat their own DRM/Lock in designs.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
As far as I know, the iPod is pretty much the only player to use AAC. I wonder if the iTunes Music Store gets popular if other players will start to support AAC and then eventually get a license from Apple to play the restricted files. I know some will argue that iTunes is a way to get people to buy iPods so it'd be silly for them to license the DRM'ed AAC files but... who knows... maybe Apple is nicer than we think? Not that it matters to me... my Mac and my iPod work just fine... I've been pulled in full steam ahead already anyhow... doh!
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
M$: Hey pot, kettle! You're both black.
Pot & Kettle: No shit, Sherlock.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
...and still Kazaa Lite K++ still works perfectly for free - http://www.kazaalite.tk/
I have no doubt they are doing some good work keeping terrorists off of US soil.
Oh, by the way I have this rock that prevents tiger attacks. Better get one now! There's rumors on the chatter line of possible sightings of what might be tigers with towels on their heads.
Seriously the rock works, just buy it already. Cost of only some freedoms. What you don't want the rock? You tiger supporting anti-american communist nazi!
Off to the Bay with ya!
-- taking over the world, we are.
Because I am not going to PAY for the ability to do the editors jobs for them.
See Google news quoting Slashdot in their Sci/Tech Headlines... I wonder if the google effect is as big as the slashdot effect??
FUD!!!! scream with us! aaaaahhh! iTunes is evil!!!
yes you can burn mp3's! but sadly not ogg, nor (but not sadly) wma. it just works.
i particularly like the way apple uses rendevous/zeroconf to network iTunes. can you say back door? excuse me m$ can you turn around so that i can kick you in the ass? thanks.
amen to that! :->
I'd say that Apple has done an excellent job of mixing ease of use and purchase with reasonable restrictions to satisfy the music companies. So, if you can't SHOW us a truly open choice that is better, keep your FUD to yourselves!
Thank you Apple, I think iTMS is great!
The Matrix is real... but I'm only visiting!
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)
This is exactly what Microsoft has proven itself to be good at - taking someone else's idea and trying to muscle their way onto the winner's podium. Whatever Microsoft releases as competition to the iTunes Music Store, it won't be product innovation at all. Instead, it will be a direct chicken-shit reaction to a great piece of work that has proven itself to be extremely popular.
I know there are lots of smart people working for the big Redmond giant, but it's kinda stunning how they seem to be the last ones to arrive again and again and again. I guess they should stop teaching classes on how to introduce buffer overruns into their code, and focus on coming up with some good ideas (ya ya, I know they've got a huge research division that's doing all kinds of cool stuff...)
The first World Trade Center attack occurred when?
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
When the iTMS first came out, before you could really do anything else, you had to get the latest version of Quicktime, because it is quicktime that handles AAC, and iTunes uses Quicktime, a point that seems lost here. Perhaps in the Windows World, the situation is a bit different, but QT for Windows exists, and I would imagine if it doesn't already, it will support AAC promptly. So all any application, mac or PC, has to do to handle AAC formatted files is support Quicktime, which is a good idea anyway, because Quicktime plays nearly everything. In fact, the blurb in Software Update for QT stated that the point of this upgrade was so that other programs than iTunes could handle AAC. So basically, this means that any program which does not support Quicktime and AAC does so because it doesn't want to, for whatever reason. As Microsoft Office (at least on the mac side) supports quicktime, this all sounds like a piss-poor argument from a piss-poor company. The tools are all out there, and Apple would be happy to help anyone make their devices/software compatible. Microsoft just wants to score marketing points sans facts, but I suppose I'm preaching to the choir on that point.
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to do it by not dying." -Woody Allen
Oh, man. Kiss the Karma good-bye. This is slashdot. People don't think, here. How dare you assault them with facts.
Oh, well. What's the point of having the karma if you can't use it periodically, eh?
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
I know that some program such as Alcohol 120% allows you to make images and then use them as virtual CD ROM drives. Can you make an image of consisting of the tunes and then ripping them without actually doing it???
EvilCON - Made Famous by
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
If you read the article more closely (and some of the comments), you'd notice there is mention of the fact that there are certain restrictions to Apple's service. I don't see any blind support for Apple. So calm down, Anonymous Coward.
The point is MS is criticizing Apple for doing what MS would love to do but has failed miserably at. MS has no interest in "choice" and you know it.
Even though MS doesn't make hardware they've adversely affected hardware by forcing their OS onto OEMs and preventing competing OSes from having any chance. This has the effect of slowing down the progress of hardware because only MS-supported hardware will quickly succeed.
I don't use Apple products because of their closed nature, but I'd hardly call them monopolistic - especially not at the level MS has shown.
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
"Unless Microsoft decides to make radical changes to their service modem, any Windows-based operating systems will still remain a closed system, where Windows owners cannot access the source code from their own machines. Additionally, the users of Windows are limited to browsers and instant messaging software. As I mentioned earlier, this is a drawback for non-borg users, who expect choice in browsers, choice in software, and choice in distros."
I think MS does understand open formats.. and thus you have answered your own question. :)
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Yep. That crappy product thrown out to entice unsuspecting users into my trap works every time. Glad I don't have to write a quality product to lure people in.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
FWIW, you can rip to formats other than AAC and you can certainly download and play pretty much any other format. I assume that they meant you can only "legally purchase music" from Apple's store as opposed to the much broader "you can only use itunes with music from AMS." Clearly this was a minor oversight on their part... /rr
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!
How can Microsoft demand choice!??! They're the leaders of restriction and of closed source software! I'm awaiting for the Microsoft Version of iTunes... wTunes perhaps? Then we'll see how much choice Microsoft will allow! Keep this article handy for that day!
you mis-understand the concept of a monopoly.
Apple's service is analogous to, say, buying a car from Nissan. You wouldn't expect that Nissan would have to engineer their car so that it could accept parts from Ford or GM or Kia. This is ok, though, because you can buy a Ford or GM car if you prefer that system.
The problem with Microsoft is the way they tie everything into their OS. Unfortunately, following the same analogy, MS OSes are like the road system. Sure you can offroad in certain areas, especially if you are an enthusiast, but to conduct your normal day-to-day business most people need to at least interface with the roads. This is a monopoly, not one system amongst others.
MS's monopoly on the OS should not be allowed to leverage their position in other areas. For example, their OS should not include a "Buy Music Now" button that forces people into a specific solution.
PS: Apple does not incorporate peripherals into their system... at least, my buslink Ext HD, Canon printer, Canon scanner, Nikon Digital Camera, logitech mouse, SmartDisk External CD drive, Buslink flash memory device, and PNY flash card reader don't seem to think so.
And the folks at MicroCenter or online at MacWarehouse would like to think that they are part of the retail sector as well.
And while we are at it, you can run linux on Mac hardware. Soooo... it seems that Apple Computer Inc is a hardware company, which supports its hardware with software, but allows you to choose other solutions if you wish!
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong," said Rep. Billy Tauzin. Gore - 50,999,897 Bush - 50,456,002
"...Napster, it will launch as the world's largest online service with over half a million tracks from all the major labels and hundreds of independents on October 29. Napster goes way beyond individual downloads, offering advanced services such as unlimited downloads, customized radio, shared playlists, music videos and more. "
Uh, Apple has 400K songs by that date,
iTunes has customized radio,
iTunes has shared playlists (sharers see them, right?)
ITMS has music videos.
Apple has "more". Hell, son - everyone has "more".
What good is "unlimted downloads" - you download it once, you own it, you do what you want. Why would I want unlimted downloads - it certainly doesn't mean that ITMS has a "full" meter... what the hell does this mean?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
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.
I assume there will be people out there in any case who will claim that Apple integrates iTunes in Mac OSX just as Microsoft integrates WMP in WinXP and should there fore be under the same penalties as Microsoft.
.exe it will get restored automatically. Nothing like that at all.
To this I say, on your Mac OSX system you just navigate to your Applications folder, drag the iTunes application to the trash and emmpty the trash. Boom, it's gone. No, mindbogglingly complex setup panel just to hide WMP, and even if you delete the
Go to www.proxomitron.info, grab The Proxomitron, install, add JD5000's filter set (www.jd5000.net), and browse any site regardless of their IE only status. As a bonus, say goodbye to ads, popups, and a host of other internet annoyances forever (including Slashdot ads etc).
All free, and it works with any browser (in Windows, anyway).
Don't know of an equivalent in Linux but it would be great to be able to use the same filters if someone were to create a Linux version of Proxomitron...
In short, best internet helper program EVER.
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
So I have this great portable device -- it easily bests the competition -- but my problem is that I can't get the music I buy from the 'other' services to work on it. I really think it is a big oversight that these 'WMA' files don't work with my player of choice. Sure I can make a playlist using yet another piece of software that I don't own (and don't want to pay for) and then burn that to a cd or convert it to an old boring MP3(as if), but I really think that is too much trouble to have to go to. I mean who would make music files available for sale, willfully omiting support for me. I just don't see how these 'services' are going to be successful. I guess it's back to LP's and 8-tracks for me. I mean sure the quality and lack of DRM are upsetting and all, but this newfangled practice of converting my music into different formats for my usage is too much -- it'd be like plugging a turntable into a cassette deck and hitting record so that you could have a copy for a smaller device so that you didn't have to lug around a turntable...oh...well, still, I just want to know why I can't play that cassette on the turntable? I mean, it's my cassette. It's my turntable. It seems like a conspiracy to keep me from using my music on my terms. I'm going back to my cave...
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
...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.
Apparently you can play AAC/mp4 files in other players, namely Quicktime player. If you change the extension of the Itunes file from .m4a to .mp4 it will play fine in Quicktime player. Although I have not tried it, I would be surprised if you could not then transcode the .mp4 file to mp3 or WMA with DBpoweramp or similar and upload to minidisc, mp3 player, etc.
Can anyone concur?
Thanks to another Slashdot poster for this discovery.
Apple has just put out a help document for musicians looking to sell songs through the iTMS: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=931 91
Does that make me Timothy's boy toy?
1. iTunes DOES NOT RESTRICT YOU FROM PLAYING YOUR MUSIC ON OTHER MP3 Players. iTunes allows you rip a CD in MP3, AAC (MP4), WAV, and AIFF. The iPod can play ALL OF THESE FORMATS. Most other MP3 players can play MP3 and WAV files (I don't know about AIFF). When YOU make your own digital music files from YOUR CDs, THEY DO NOT CONTAIN DRM. The only songs that contain DRM are the ones YOU PURCHASE from the iTunes Music Store. On my Blue & White Apple Power Macintosh G3, I've been ripping my CDs at 320Kbits/sec, making play lists, and burning to CD ever since iTunes came out. I've never had any difficulty playing those CDs in my car. And more importantly, I've never made any coasters with iTunes.
2. Once you burn your AAC files to CD in AUDIO CD format, they lose all DRM. You can then rip them back into iTunes as MP3 AT THE SAME RATE (128Kbits/sec AAC) that they were when you purchased them from iTMS. The newly acquired MP3s are DRM-FREE and will play in any MP3 player. Obviously, there are NO LIMITATIONS when using iTunes and purchasing content from the iTMS.
3. Microsoft is threatened and therefore scared. They are not going to be able to cash-in on this new market anytime soon. M$ is blowing a lot of hot air to try to suppress the sale of iPods and thereby hinder Apple's profits. It wasn't long ago that a professional audiophile magazine (story listed here on Slashdot, sorry no link) said that the iPod had the best electronics for reproducing digital sound OF ALL the MP3 players on the market. Yup, uh-huh, The Borg are threatened because a truly innovative company offers a decent product at a pretty good price point, not to mention excellent FREE software that could potentially open up the users minds to the possibility of what it would be like if their entire computer ran as smoothly as iTunes software. Just imagine, no more BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH.
4. Apple is kicking M$ in the teeth with steel-toed boots.
5. If any of us geeks have financial-oriented brains, start buying Apple stock now, because this iTunes Music Store with Audible Books is really going to take off.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Nice spin on the submission, though. +1 MS Hater. The article is really about 2 competing monopolies and how they differently implement their monopolistic ways. The real point of the article comes about 1/3 the way down: "Under which monopoly are users happier?"
Humor in the article aside, it's really a reasonably balanced look at the issue.
Damn -- I thought Slashdot got a bad rap for posting old news -- this news is approximately 1.5 months OLD. Thanks again for the late-breaking information!
Go configure an Exchange Server you dolt.
Even if you take a karma hit, you spoke the truth man!
Heheh, are you stupid or just so young you honestly don't remember? :) As mentioned above, Oklahoma City and the first WTC bombing. And if you want to include attacks on U.S. outside of our soil, consider the two embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the Cole, and the Khobar Towers attack.
The U.S. actually suffered more terrorist attacks under Clinton than Bush. And it's obvious that 9/11 was planned primarily during the Clinton presidency and apparently wasn't detected or stopped under his administration--so blaming Bush because they didn't stop in 8 months when Clinton's administration didn't even detect in 8 years is just silly.
Anyway, welcome to the real world. Get your facts right next time.
please note..that is wrote "merits of their products *alone*".. I did *not* write that that companies were putting out crappy products and people had no choice but to use them, though they sometimes do.
I thought I told you, no more leaving the asylum. I don't like coming here to visit, only to find your room empty and to hear that you've not been taking your meds and are running around the grounds, naked, spouting off with your 'crazy talk' about GWB being a responsible president. I thought your therapist and I made this clear -- The president and Aschroft are bad men. It's only when your medication wears off that you start getting 'mud brain' and forget the truth. Now be a good boy and get your mother a glass of water...I love you too...Don't worry, we'll get you out of here once you're all better...
Mother Coward. Making the world a safer place for Mac Zealots since 2003...
Here's a good site and here's a lousy site about Bush lies. I am sure there are more.
... the frogs and krauts ... agreed that saddam ... had WMD's...
that you choose to ignore the fact that we are WW3, against the exact same sort of fascist minds that we were in 60 years ago is not Pres. Bush's fault.
Do you mean fascist minds like that of Franco in Spain who kept ruling well past WW2? US still hasn't recognized the volunteers who valiantly tried to stop his takeover of power in the Spanish Civil War by granting them veterans' rights.
that
Well, it looks as though the "frogs" and the "krauts" were wrong about that.;)
it is the same religious fanaticism that drives the islamicists to blow up buildings with airplanes.
Yes, all people who have opinions different from yours are driven by them to blow up buildings with airplanes.;)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Yes. iTunes started it's life as an mp3 player. You can inport, manage and play all your mp3 files from the app. You can also download .m4p files (aac) from the iTunes Music store which are the only files that are specific to iTunes.
the damn thing eats memory like nobody's buisiness. other than occassionally buying music through the service, i'll be damned if i use it as my every-day player when winamp takes roughly 15 megs with the same number of songs in the playlist.
I've never owned a Mac and prob never will. I've always been a Windows user. My roommate and I tried buymusic.com last week I found it was the biggest headache of our lives. I abhor WMP9. We couldn't use our beloved winamp. iTunes is clean, easy and didn't force me to switch browsers or download a new codecs (what the *?!) just to play a song. And for a bonus I found a plug-in for Winamp2 that lets me play AAC/MP4 files on it. I'll never buy a iPod or portable MP3 player so that's no big deal, I'll mainly burn CDs to use in the car or at work.
I'm fairly happy with iTunes... Although the selection will need to expand, several of my favorite musicians are only represented by one or fewer albums...
The man attended an Ivy League school. Based on working with Ivy Leaguers, I'd say that his braindeadedness was in the kitty a loooong time ago.
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
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.
Hmm, methinks it'd be rather hard for ALL of those manufacturer's of WMA compatible MP3 players to reverse engineer the format. Of course MS provides the specs of the format. And yes, you can license the DRM tech as well. How do you think PressPlay/Napster operates?
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
It's really hard to tell if this is a troll or not. The opinion's within the realm of possibility, but the "OMG my precious karma pity me plz!" thing and the accusing random people of being terrorists seems to indicate troll. Fantastic if it's a troll, kinda humorless if it's real.
Anyway, just to keep up appearences:
"I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." -Bush
"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency." -IAEA spokesman
Maybe, but I honestly don't care. I buy Apple because I love their products. I type this response in Safari, on OS X 10.2, on my 17" G4 Powerbook, while iTunes plays music I bought off iTMS, and I'm perfectly satisfied.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I just had to comment on your signature -- Donnie Darko is a great film. :D
"Viewing music" is no easier on any other platform. :P
If the record companies sign a deal with Microsoft, all sorts of things will start to happen once Microsoft gain monopoly status. They would be able to call the shots over the RIAA and smaller record companies.
They probably figure that Apple are big enough and smart enough, but can't overpower them.
we the geeks are in full support of Microsoft's demand to open up media players for all competitors and hope you will give in.
A possible loss of revenue could be compensated by a new program with the tentative title "Apple Office for Windows" and we're all looking forward to Microsoft's complaint that office suites should be open and support all competing document formats.
etc...
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Speaking of fascist minds, huh?
Bush is the single most fascist person in charge of a government in the world at this moment, you should know. He was second in running before Sadam was ousted. Not to point out a pebble in one's eye, when you have a log in your own:
Fascism:
1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Fascist: an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views
This is the president who is a member of a group of secular fundamentalist hypocrite idiots who wish for nothing more than to take our freedoms, and to suppresses those who do not share their views. Exhibit A: Anti-Terrorism Acts that are overly broad and apply to non-terrorists.
Bush, and his cabinet ignored CIA intelligence that indicated Iraq was not in possession of nuclear or other material, was not seeking any, and was not in the process of disseminating what they didn't have to terrorists. Exhibit B: Here, Here, Here, and everywhere else, damnit. If only you would pull your head out of your ass, you could see it; however, I wouldn't expect that from a Bush apologist.
Nobody agreed that he was in material breech. NOBODY. We still haven't found one indicator of anything related to WMDs of any kind, and I sincerely doubt we ever will. The funny thing is the even the Great United States violates tons and tons of UN resolutions, and is in the top ten violators--right behind Morocco (#3), Turkey (#2), and Israel (#1)--yet we haven't attacked any of these other countries, or stopped violating UN resolutions, ourselves.
I'm not Saddams biggest fan (no fan of him at all, in fact), but you'll have to admit this all looks like the US is a real asshole of a big-brother giving the rest of the world noogies, dutch rubs, titty-twisters, purple-nurples, etc. and only getting rewarded for their actions--if you stick your head up and pay attention to what's going on. I'm glad that Saddam is gone, and that his sons are dead. They were a menace to the people of Iraq, however, all indicators say they were not a direct threat to the people of the United States.
Now, the republicans want to pass laws that make the 10 commandments, and pledge saying mandatory in schools. They hold that the US was created with christian morals, and religion in mind, when in fact, it was not, and when anyone tries to show them the truth, they do the equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and yell "I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA!!!" If this sort of behavior is not belligerent nationalism, I don't know what is. And, as Bushie says, if you're not against it, you're for it. If he allows these sorts of laws pass, chalk another one up. He's almost completed every criteria to be a fascist by definition. All he needs to do is convince Congress to eliminate the term limits, and give him all the power, and he will qualify across the board.
Furthermore, I state that you, yourself are a fascist, and therefore your ideas are full of shit. "frogs and krauts", indeed. belligerent nationalism and racism. Check.
It's no wonder the rest of the world won't take Americans seriously, with people like you running about--flapping their gums.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
" if MS removes IE from Windows, it would break Apples software"
and what "powerful browser of their own" runs on windows? Safari is great, but i don't believe it runs on windows.
i hate people that get all snotty and are wrong at the same time.
Because Apple tells you how to burn and how to rip. Your are just forced to be explicitely aware of what you are doing rather than mindlessly sharing ~/Music on Limewire as you could if iTMS gave you regular MP3s.
Also, you may not be bothered by the loss of quality in double encoding, but you will know it's there. If you like the song, you will want to get the real thing rather than a "secondhand" copy from your friend.
What MS needs (because Longhorn is so far away), is the "killer app" that forces people to leave their Windows 9x systems for XP. iTunes/iTMS could be it.
Anyhoo. From the article:
There are a few places in that article where the author says that M$ doesn't make hardware. What's this X Box thing then? And what about this SPOT technology that they're promising is going to be the biggest thing since WAP?Drill baby drill - on Mars
Eh, but the thing is, MS DOES allow choice when it comes to music through their player. You can choose from several different premium content providers. They don't (yet) even run their own service. MS seems to be more interested in promoting their DRM than trying to monopolize as a music retailer/hardware solution. And honestly, whats wrong with that? Obviously DRM sucks and the world would be a better place without it, but get used to it. It's happening. It will continue to happen. We're stuck with it. So as a commercial enterprise why is it so wrong for MS to promote their technology? It's not wrong for Apple to promote theirs?
.02
Again, I totally disagree that MS is against choice in this situation. Yes, they hold huge market shares, but technically they aren't a monopoly. And MS hasn't made any move towards nor have they breathed a word about such a notion as having a vertical market in online music distribution.
Hmm, while I'm ranting I think I'll mention this in response to others accusations of 'monopoly' against MS for forcing use of IE in conjunction with premium services in WMP. Give me a break. The fact that IE is integrated makes it that much easier to use when navigating the stores. Of COURSE they're going to use their own browser technology when integrating web content into their media player. In what way would it make sense to not use their IE rendering libraries and instead adapt some way to use the rendering engine of whatever the preferred browser is? For one, this currently isn't possible. There isn't a standardized way of exposing a browser rendering engine for use by 3rd parties. How come no one is whining that iTMS for Windows uses the IE libraries to render its store? (Yes, its all web based, another poster above went into greater detail). It sounds to me like there are way too many people just looking for some reason to point fingers at the Big Bad Bill.
Also, the 'blind support' mr. AC was mentioning above wasn't in the article, but rather in the FUD that all of the anti-MS zealots like to crawl out of the woodwork and spread.
I personally have tried both iTMS and WMP9/Napster2 and stuck with Napster2. I download way more than 10 songs a month so the subscription is totally worth it for me. Not to mention that the main 2 places that I listen to music are at work on my laptop and at home on my desktop. I have one subscription and just download in one place then copy the files to the other. The licenses update themselves nicely and I'm happy. I really like having the ability to pay a flat fee for downloads then if I do decide I want to use a song somewhere other than my pc I buy it for a buck or buy the album for $10. Granted iTunes is overall a better jukebox, but for me iTMS just doesn't make sense to use when I'm perfectly satisfied with the features/services behind WMP9. Suum cuique.
I realize there's a good chance that I'll be flamed for my opinion but its just that, my opinion. Take it for what you will. However me 'sticking' up for MS somewhat is by no means a troll or flamebait, just my
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
what, do you want a cookie? go back to sleep
My first reaction to the Microsoft quote: Why is Microsoft bashing an application written for Windows? iTunes is a novel application, Microsoft should applaud the port to Windows.
This is a perfect example (previously Netscape) of what's wrong with Microsoft's OS-encompasses-all-applications crap-ovation.
Obvious question: Why would any business ever write a commercial application for Windows, knowing that if it's successful Microsoft will muscle in and take the business? Microsoft has a proven track record of this, and fervently demands the right to leverage Windows into any market it desires (innovation). Microsoft's biggest PR efforts try to cloak how utterly hostile this company is to the competitive business environment.
This hostility more than anything else lights the path to Microsoft's inevitable decline.
Also, the failure of the Dept of Justice to prosecute Microsoft in this regard is still galling; history will not be kind.
"There's plenty of irony in seeing one monopoly accuse another monopoly of restricting users' choices. But monopolies they both are."
This is a hideously bad understanding of what a monopoly is. A lot of people around /. are saying that any company that's A) Big, and B) Retains exclusive rights to its products, is a monopoly, and that's dead wrong.
Here's a nice short definition, courtesy of Dictionary.com:
Monopoly \Mo*nop"o*ly\, n.; pl. Monopolies. 1. The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity; the exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in some article, or of trading in some market; sole command of the traffic in anything, however obtained;"
Note that it says "commodity", not "product." The iPod is a product, MP3 players are a commodity, for example. For Microsoft, Windows is a product but operating systems are the commodity, etc.
And even if Apple controlled 95% of the MP3 player market instead of ~35% they have now, they would STILL have to resort to anti-competitive practices to be legally considered a monopoly.
Microsoft all but has a monopoly on the operating system market (Windows), the office software market (Office), the web browser market (Internet Explorer), and lord knows what else...
But again, just because you control a large portion of the market does NOT mean you're automatically a monopoly. And retaining the exclusivity of your products (i.e., the iPod, iTunes, or the G5) also does not mean you're a monopoly, unless it's anti-competitive to do so, and you exert undue control over that market.
Just for the record...
-----
"Cogito Eggo Sum: I think, therefore, waffle."
The margin on ITMS is supposed to be pretty good for Apple (forget the numbers). But beyond that, have you not read about the ads they are doing/going to do? They already have some very goods commercials playing on TV now, and the major one is a Pepsi tie-in coming up in January - during the superbowl they are going to announce Pepsi is giving away 100 million songs. That's a lot of new iTunes users (fpor you download iTunes to collect) and a huge brand-raising event.
Not to mention that every single AOL customer is now a click away from being on iTunes without ever entering a credit card number.
And if ITMS is a too small to survive - then how will the other services, when Apple (pre-WinITMS) already had 70% of the legal online music marketshare?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If Microsoft truly understood open standards, there wouln't have ever been a '.doc' format, or at the very least, they would have published the format so that their customers could exchange documents easily between people that may not use the same software.
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
you cannot name one lie the president told
Wrong. I can, and I will.
I imagine it's only a matter of time.
Make a different playlist...or burn it once and then duplicate that CD as many times as you want. All it takes is a second drive -- doesn't even have to be a writer -- or, hell, you don't even need a second drive: Burn your playlist, read the CD back in as an image, and burn the image 'til the cows come home.
Dup stories are certainly not uncommon on /., but I'm thinking Taco had way too much to drink or something. When was the last time both stories were posted by the same person?
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
And unless Microsoft decides to make radical changes to Office, it will remain a closed system. The same goes for every other product they sell.
Same shit, different day. Sad to say, but I'm almost weepy I'm having such a deja vu moment... ...Or for the halcyon days when Apple and M$ were at each other's throats, and Linux slipped quietly through the fracas...
But, the best part of the whole article was at the bottom...
M$ Word for OS X apparently doesn't have the word competetive in the default dictionary! I wonder if "unfair trade practices" and Microsoft in the same sentence set off the grammar checker?!
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Microsoft's comments are especially ironic considering this.
Total Recorder for Windows and Wire Tapfor OS X.
Both intercept and record an audio stream from inside the computer (to put it simply enough for all to 'get' the idea) and save it to the HD or RAM disk AS AN MP3 file.
Import that MP3 file into your "music" folder/library/portible digital player of choice and away you go, unencumbered by DRM.
I beleive that either of these applications mayl also work with WMA files, regadless of how DMR bound they may be.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
hahaha.. thanks. if I had mod points, you'd get 'em. Funniest thing I've read all day.
find / -name "*.sig" | xargs rm
OK what I'm about to say sounds very strange coming out of my mouth... but here goes.
... iTunes. I can send those same DRM tunes to ... iPod.
....
.WMA song I bought from BuyMusic.com, and a .M4P song I bought from iTunes. I can't play them both in a single player. To me, that's both Microsoft's and Apple's problem to solve. Apple can probably "solve" it by allowing third party hackers to write a Quicktime plugin for WMA. I wonder how Microsoft plans to solve the fact that their Media Player can't play the most popular DRM format (in terms of number of downloads) for music?
I think Fester has a point.
Using Windows Media Player, I can play DRM tunes from BuyMusic.com, Napster, and other stores which use WMA DRM (of which he purported there are several others). I can send those same DRM tunes to various supporting hardware.
Using iTunes, I can play DRM tunes from
All that said
I have a
MORTAR COMBAT!
It's an odd-numbered Tuesday of an even numbered month.
We like Apple, Sony, and daisies today. Next Friday is when security through obscurity goes out of vogue.
For example, their OS should not include a "Buy Music Now" button that forces people into a specific solution.
Why??? Give me ONE good reason WHY it shouldn't have such a button? Has ease-of-use been totally tossed out the window with the advent of the open-source movement? So what if MS is biased towards their own services with their OS. It would be STUIPD of them to advertise competitors services with their OS. It's called business. MS plays that game very well.
For that same reason I think the 'monopolistic practices' judgement against MS regarding IE is hogwash. The entire time it was just Netscape whining that MS made a better product and more people used it. Yes MS undercut Netscape's business, it happens every day. It's called a capitalistic society. Yes MS made it extremely easy to just use IE instead of a 3rd party solution. In my opinion it would be a poor design decision in their OS to do anything but. KDE has a default web browser. MacOS has their own default web browser. But when Windows includes their browser with the OS its antitrust. Looking back now on the 'include a browser with the OS thing' it was nothing but starting a trend. What development team in their right mind would ship an OS nowadays without a web browser ready to use out of the box. "Hey, lets make our operating system harder to use because Netscape likes to whine." Who's bright idea was it to create a business plan off charging for a web browser anyways? The instant I paid for Netscape 2.0 I thought to myself that this is a stupid idea. Unfortuantely at the time there really wasn't much of a choice. (Mosaic? Hah!) I'm of the opinion that if MS hadn't stirred up some competition in browser market that the web would be a very stagnant place to visit. (Although, as a web developer it pisses me off that now that they've won the war they've scrapped innovation in favor of the status quo.)
No one would whine if Apple put in a 'Buy Music Now' and the only choice by clicking that button was their distro service. Oh wait, they already did. Its called iTunes.
To give you another example, have you ever used the 'Print these pictures online' button in WinXP? It's rather handy. Granted, MS is directly associated with 1 of the 3 choices of online print shops and I'm willing to bet that they get kickbacks from the other 2, but regardless its convenient. As I recall Apple does something similar (and probably has been doing so longer) and I'd also be willing to bet that the services they point you to give them revenue in one form or another. Also keep in mind that MS's Print Online 'Button' is extensible. Gallery does just that and allows WinXP users to publish right to their photo gallery from their desktop. (Quick plug: If you're looking for a web-based photo gallery, there is no better choice than Gallery. Check it out.) So knowing that MS has allowed extensibility in the past and has not 'forced' you to use only a specific set of service providers for media type applications if they ever did put a 'Buy Music Now' button on the desktop what would make you think they would limit it to their (as yet non-existant) service without giving a choice?
MS OSes are like the road system. Sure you can offroad in certain areas, especially if you are an enthusiast, but to conduct your normal day-to-day business most people need to at least interface with the roads.
How is that any different than MacOS? Out of the box its (allegedly) a 'complete' package. Joe Sixpack would be perfectly happy browsing the IntarWeb and checking his spam with what comes with the OS. Maybe a personal finance manager and a game or two. The problem is that there was a paradigm shift a few years back on what an OS is and you missed it. We're not using DOS anymore. The OS isn't just the shell that you run your programs from anymore. Its become an entire package and what's wrong with th
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
It's pretty seamlessly integrated, so we'll forgive your confusion.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
The Register posts a story reporting that Slashdot has posted a story about The Register posting a story...
I can't afford a sig!
I realize most people (with the Slashdot crowd exception) don't know much about Ogg Vorbis and don't have any problem with MP3. But the battle's just begining.
Microsoft wants to push its DRM with the WMA format, iTunes and iPod use other methods of DRM through the devices and software with the MP3 format. But both WMA and MP3 suffer from a major problem in that neither compression codec is free or open.
MP3 players/burners (hardware or software) must collect some money with which to pay royalties for use of (de)compression codecs. WMA is the same way if anyone besides Microsoft provides the software to (de)compress the format. Enter Ogg.
Ogg Vorbis was developed in the open source community and is free of royalties and most restrictions (no more than any other open source software). Some tests have shown that Ogg Vorbis does a better job of retaining sound quality at high compression ratios. And finally, the best reason to switch: There are Ogg Vorbis player for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X that don't suffer from any restrictions. (In linux, XMMS no longer plays MP3s due to licensing restrictions.)
For the curious, a couple places to start looking for players and more information about Ogg Vorbis are:
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
At least Clinton wasn't gun-ho about taking our rights away.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
AAC is a proprietary format designed by Dolby Laboratories (Sony and Fraunhofer signed on after the fact) which requires a license to use. The licensing terms can be found here.
WMA is a proprietary format developed by Microsoft. It is a proven industry standard, already in use by thousands of consumer-level electronic devices. The licensing terms can be found here.
Note that AAC is considerably more expensive to use, and therefore isn't any more "open" than WMA. And given that WMA is used by thousands more devices than AAC, wouldn't it be considered the "industry standard" and not the other way around?
Is that iTunes, in the preferences, will let you set your default ripping format to be mp3.
WMP will not, unless you buy an add-on. It makes you use WMA. Hmm. And though I don't know becuase I don't use windows, as far as I can tell, the DRM is non-optional. I have a friend who recorded himself performing a few short classical pieces he performed himself on the piano. He recorded them in WMP. They now have this bizarre DRM embedded into them which cannot by any means be removed, and the files can only be played on the one computer at a time "designated", and they can only be played when you are connected to the internet and Microsoft's servers are responding.
Yeah, when apple *SELLS* music, they use AAC. This is pure pragmatism. By using 128 kbps AAC they can get the same sound quality as 192 kbps mp3 with reduced storage and transmission costs. There is no reason whatsoever they could not have used mp3 with their DRM wrapper; they chose AAC for efficiency purposes.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
No, that's the standard nonsense. We've been getting this for YEARS in mac discussion channels. Apple is a monopoly, and more closed than MS, because you can only buy Apple products from Apple.
I suppose by this same logic, Charmin is a monopoly, because you can only buy Charmin Toilet Paper from Charmin. And Blockbuster is a monopoly in the same sense iTunes is, because when you are physically inside of a Blockbuster franchise, you can't rent movies from Hollywood Video.
Microsoft isn't a monopoly, though, they're just successful.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Sounds like an Onion headline! Truth is stranger than fiction, I guess.
You're missing Microsoft's point, like just about everyone else who has posted today. The point is this:
If you choose to use iTunes, you can ONLY buy online music from Apple's iTunes Music Store. This is the way it will always be, since iTunes is integrated with iTMS and iTMS is the only online music store selling properly licensed (DRM) conent in the iTunes/iPod AAC format.
If you use Windows Media Player, you will be able to buy online music from serveral different services, like Napster, BuyTunes, etc. Several different companies are distributing online music using the WMA format. Not to mention, you will be able to play back this content on thousands more electronic devices that support WMA.
That is the choice MS is talking about. The choice of online music retailer, and the choice of playback device. It's about marketplace competition to sell you a service that doesn't exist when you run iTunes.
Having iTunes available for Windows offers yet another choice for Windows users, and that's fine and dandy. But the MS point is still valid.
Microsoft's complaint seems largely to be whinging that Apple is the sole seller. But does anyone know if the Windows version of iTunes makes it hard for a third party to provide a separate selling service that would automagically work with and update iTunes?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
AAC used by Apple is a part of MPEG specifications. There is a number of alternative AAC encoders/decoders. OTOH, Microsoft format is 100% microsoft-only.
"Unless Apple decides to make radical changes to their service model, a Windows-based version of iTunes will still remain a closed system, where iPod owners cannot access content from other services."
Trying to make people believe they have a real concern over people getting locked into a proprietary system makes me want to hurl big green chunks...
The only concern they may have is that people could get locked into a proprietary system that they do not control.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
While Microsoft was under investigation for anti-competitive[**] behavior against Netscape and Sun, it couldn't afford to be too blatant about squeezing utility companies out of the Windows 'ecosystem'. This is, at least, is one possible narrative to explain why Windows Media Player still lacks so many useful integrated features. Another is that Microsoft's notorious bureaucracy and slack coding might explain its failure to produce competive or coherent software, but we shall be charitable here, and if only for the sake of argument, discount this narrative altogether.
I posit a third, there are no Microsoft developers left. No one is going to risk their time, money and energy making something for Microsoft to steal. There was a brief period when Microsoft had the cheapest and easiest platform for developers to get and use. Those days are long gone.
With no developers, nothing left to steal and nothing left to give, Microsoft is useless. Microsoft is stagnant and will remain that way. They are busy trying to make hardware lockouts, digital rights denial and other fuck you tools that no one wants but Microsoft and big dumb companies. They deserve each other.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Sure, if I ever found out how to compensate the members of Kultivator for all the great time they've given me...
And Audio Hijack Pro for OS X also allows you to save the file as an MP3.
But, er, uhm... what exactly is your point?
How much time am I saving by (timed using my cable connection):
1. Buy and download an album (or a cd's worth of music) from ITMS. (1 min 34 seconds)
2. Play said album and hihack the audio to save/convert. (64 minutes)
3. Convert said audio (if necessary). (3 minutes)
4. ****
5. Profit! Er, sorry. Wrong post.
Okay, so... I can spend 68 minutes "intercepting" an album that would take me approximately 7 minutes to do otherwise (download, burn and import as MP3 -- or, non-DRM'd AAC).
Thanks for suggesting that I waste my time!
----
#SickNotWeak
Caution...Satire Alert...Please step to the side...
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
Correct me if I am wrong, but MS is claiming that iTunes *technically* restricts the user somehow (I don't know how much of this is true since I don't really know the service very well). This is *much* different than the MS monopoly based on an overwhelming installed base of Windows, but without explicit technical restrictions to competitors.
It seems to me there would be hypocrisy only if Windows *technically* prevented other software (like other browsers or office suites for example) to be run.
Rodrigo
What good is a service like iTunes to you if you can't download the songs at a reaonable rate?
Canada has over twice the broadband penetration as the US, and has had for quite some time.
http://www.point-topic.com/content/DSLAnalysis/Bro adband penetration.htm
Note this is 5 broadband lines *per 100 population* difference, not just *per computer*, so it is an even higher disparity then you may first think.
even bill clinton mentioned several times that saddam possessed nuclear capability. as for material breach, hans blox last report was very clear. he was without a doubt.
saddam posed a very real, present, and credible threat to us, and the targets of terrorists. period. this is indisputable. he was responsible for hundreds of thousands of murders. that is undeniable.
there were major intelligence flaws. our cia needs an enema, in a big way. but what many are calling lies are simply different interpretations of the same information. we are in a war for or survival. some might not see it, nor choose to believe it, but we are. we must take the fight to the enemy. we have been in this war for 20+ years, dating back to the tehran hostage situation. they do not need to declare war, and in fact, they won't.
bush is hardly a fascist. your hatred makes you see things that aren't there. he is not destroying liberty. time to grow up. your not three, stop temper tantrum, and go back to your desk and start your homework
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
I am a little disappointed in iTMS's selection actually. Maybe I'm missing something but, No
:(
Chemical Brothers or Leftfield, and what about the best New Order album Substance, and Bjork's Vespertine or Homogenic
These aren't exactly small artists, and I had been hoping to buy some of the more obscure stuff.
Hopefully it just takes time for them to build up their catalog.
It's a pedantic point, but all corporations have monopolies on the goods they produce. That's the benefit of being a corporation--monopolizing your own goods and services. That's why Apple and Microsoft get to decide that no one else can make Macintosh computers or Windows software.
Note that having a monopoly on the goods and services you produce does not necessarily make you a monopoly of an entire marketplace like Microsoft, which is what most people think of when they hear the word "monopoly." (Used to be Standard Oil or ALCOA.)
"I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."
they would have launched their own music download service months ago.
If they did, wouldn't you be blaming them for anti-competitive practices, and for using their desktop monopoly against the "good guys" like iTMS?
I can just imagine you, about 7 years ago, saying "If MSFT understood the web, they would have bundled a browser into their OS months ago. They suck, unlike Netscape. Netscape gets it"
Just imagine if every shiny new Dell came with a big BUY MUSIC icon right on the destop. And hey, Dell's got this great promotion: since you bought a PC from them, you get to download 5 songs from MicrosoftTunes for free! All of a sudden you've got a huge new market of people who just discovered buying music online - and hey it's just a buck a song. iTunes? Never heard of it.
Do you think that would get MS into legal trouble the way MSIE being embedded did?
Ecce Europa - Web Design for Business
My next laptop is definitely going to be a Mac... I have used PCs pretty much exclusively for 10 years or so (*nix and a little bit of mac sneak in occasionally), and it wasn't until I started using Movie Maker 2 on XP that I just spat it and got fed up with Microsoft.
I made my little movie and then simply wanted to burn it to a VCD or DVD format on a CD so that my family could see it...
Could I?
Nope.
Oh, they do have a 'burn to CD' option... but what format does it burn to? Some bloody MS format I've never heard of that apparently will be in all sorts of consumer products... bull... why would anyone bother putting that in their product when burning movies to DVD with a Mac is so straight forward?
There's no option to save to MPG, just nothing other than Microsoft (Other than ridiculously large DV files).
Bah to them... They've completely given up trying to make things as easy as possible and decided to try and force people to only use their software.
Well piss off.
iTunes can be minimized to a little block to control the player. i don't know what does it on the windows version.... does it still have the "traffic light" on the top left? try there. Also for mac users(soon for windows?), there are hacks to itunes and something called "iTunes remote" that has been out for a long time... it lets you set up all kinds on configurations to control iTunes. For example one was a very thin strip that could run along the top or bottom of your screen. i have not used it in at least a year, but it exists and worked well... i just don't need it on a desktop with 2 CRTs.
Hmmm...I find your ideas intriguing. Please subscribe me to your mailing list.
__
Thou hast besquirted me, O leotarded one.
Jobs: "The Mac is a desktop appliance, the first since the telephone."
Murray: "I looked up 'appliance' in the dictionary, and it said that an appliance was 'a means to an end.' That's the Mac. It's a means to an end."
- Steve Jobs (Project Manager, Macintosh) & Mike Murray (Marketing Manager, Macintosh) at the unveiling of the Mac, January 30, 1984
Yes it does. No online music retailer in its right mind would use non-DRM music formats today. And iTunes supports only one: AAC. So if you're buying licensed online music and using iTunes, you're using AAC. And since only one online store sells AAC music files compatible with iTunes, that's what you will use: iTunes Music Store. When MusicMatch actually releases something, then you can say you have a choice.
Gee, that's a good defense of iTunes! Critic: "iTunes is too restrictive, users would better be served elsewhere to get more choices." Respondent: "What do you mean it's too restrictive? You don't have to use iTunes to listen to your music at all!" Critic: "Uh, that's exactly what we're saying... don't use iTunes and you won't be restricted..."
By listing the non-DRM formats that iTunes supports, you are dodging the issue at hand: online music distribution formats. Sites like Napster et. al. could not care less whether iTunes plays AIFF or u-law files (or even, dare I say, Mp3 files).
Online music retailers care only about DRM-ready file formats that prevent copying. For iTunes, this format is AAC. The days of online Mp3 sales are numbered, because record companies hate allowing kids to copy away and share at will.
To understand Microsoft's argument, you need answer only two questions:
All of a sudden, the choices seem limited from my perspective...