Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Launch MSN Music Service in 2004
securitas writes "SmartMoney.com reports that a Microsoft spokeswoman confirmed plans to launch an online music download service in 2004 via the MSN Web site. The story was first reported in the Wall Street Journal (paid subscription required). Microsoft may undercut the per-song prices of competitors Apple iTunes and Roxio Napster. A reliable source is cited as saying that Microsoft has been in talks with major music companies and a post for a senior-level marketing position for the service was added to Microsoft's recruiting site last week. Observers expect that the company will use Windows or the bundled Windows Media Player to gain a competitive advantage over other services that require a software download to use them. Interestingly, in this May 2003 analysis piece about Apple's iTunes Microsoft denied any plans to launch a music download service. More at CNet."
When is this going to stop being news...when walmart start selling musi....oh wait...
When do you think the first "bug" will apprear that will break iTunes and/or Napster's music playback on Windows with an update to Windows Media Player?
I smell another anti-trust suit coming.. isn't this yet another blatant violation of the suit they settled not so long ago?
Please direct all bug reports to
That comes ten years down the line when MSN Music users find that the forty two page licence agreement included a line giving Microsoft the right to centrally archive all biometric data on their subscribers. Just in case the RIAA want it..
... despite the denial, who honestly thought MS would sit back while Apple muscled in on the media (ie: home user) territory that MS has more or less had to itself since WMP started to become useable ?
All that effort put into DRM, and no R to M ? Don't think so...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Perhaps they'll underbid comptetitor's per song prices - but I bet they'll make the songs heavily DRMed.
A Google cache of the WSJ? Hardly. Those guys know how to make money.
ZZZzzzz. b0000riiiiing.
Another single-platform, WMA-wielding crap "service".
I heard they were going with Ogg Vorbis for maximum cross-platform compatibility.
Observers expect that the company will use Windows or the bundled Windows Media Player to gain a competitive advantage over other services that require a software download to use them.
So the existing Windows Media Player will magically work with this new system without any additional downloads?
1. Spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt by announcing intent to compete
2. Launch inferior product tied to monoply powered desktop OS.
3. Work to bring service nearly to par while undercutting all competition with illegaly earned war chest.
4. Destroy competitors and cease innovation.
5. PROFIT!
we'll still need p2p for pr0n...
But how are these services going to generate actual profits? From what I understand Apple doesn't make anything from their .99 cent songs. They're mainly looking for people to buy iPods to play those songs on.
If Walmart and Yahoo and Microsoft and "Joe's MP3 Warehouse" are selling music at the same price point, where are the profits coming from? Or is this yet another Internet enterprise that is built on a house of cards?
I hope that all these services offer OPEN standards that can be mixed and matched. For instance, I don't want to buy a song from Walmart that only plays on "Wal-Player" or something.
Whadda ya think sirs?
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Given that Apple has said they barely break even at 0.99/song, and Microsoft says they plan a lower price point, it looks like Microsoft is going to eat costs to gain market share.
Given that the X-Box was rumored to cost Microsoft money for each box sold-- money they hoped to make up in software, it's not as clear how this will work for songs. Songs won't drive sales of Microsoft OS. That's the hazard of being a near-monopoly: everyone either has you, or already doesn't want you.
So how will they profit? Microsoft doesn't have a history of raising prices after driving off competitors; they're usually content to just rule marketshare and continue sales as usual. But they do have a tendency to use their clout to cut others out in deals.
So, prediction: Microsoft gains leverage in the market, then starts to cut deals with music companies saying "you only sell through us, not Apple or anyone else". Overall goal: ensure Windows Media Format (and DRM) become the standards, thus ensuring Windows is seen as the only OS for doing music.
Hazard: Apple already has a good media lock, so they won't be able to be un-entrenched in this.
Prediction: hell if I know.
A.
It's half way through November. May was eons ago in IT speak.
My understanding is iTunes is basicaly a promotional tool to sell iPods.
I would imagine that Apples longterm plan is in 6 months or a year to renogiate the contracts, pointing out how much more succesful it was then predicted, and start making money then.
Aside from that I am left with a question, how exactly is Microsoft expecting to turn a profit from this venture?
Sure they can undercut Apple, but what will that gain them?
Microsoft has no iPod like device to sell.
I don't know, if I was Bill 'Money' Gates I would be tempted to give this particular market to Apple.
In the past this would mean doom for everyone else:
1) Crap out the usual MS ripoff of existing products
2) Bundle the crap version in windows with threats to OEMs if the try to remove it or just compile parts of the service into system libraries
3) Break everyone elses software 'accidentally'
Every knew this was going to happen in the past which would lead to the 'France' effect where everyone would hurry up and surrender to MS since you might as well get it over with sooner rather than later.
Those days are over.
MS can't touch iTunes + iPod.
Obviously this will simply be crippled WMA files, but then again, AAC files aren't exactly a standard. I hate to say this, but the fight between iTMS and Microsoft on this may simply come down to who has the best selection and can offer the lowest price. I think someone else predicted this service coming when a previous story broke about Microsoft music devices/software. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that Microsoft is going to capitalize on whatever everyone -else- does well. Just some early thoughts on the subject... - JS
Of course, if the DOJ's actions were anything to go by, they're probably feeling bulletproof, having gotten away almost unscathed.
Problem is, if they want to use their OS advantage, they need to release a new one that pushes this new service, and their next OS isn't due for some time. When's the next service pack due?
I'll come back and scream "Told you so" when such a service pack breaks iTunes in a subtle way. I don't expect Microsoft to be innovative in its anti-competitive techniques either.
Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer -
So now we're going to be complaining about the Blue Sound of Death? What would that even sound like? Is it anything like one hand clapping?
Now we're in for it. I can imagine the DRM attached to an MSN music service would the most restrictive yet, allowing only one copy of each file downloaded on one PC, ever. The real run happens when the clueless user installs the latest security patch, only to find that none of their music works, and reads the fine print to discover that a PC is defined as "the unique collection of hardware, software, and specific Windows version that exists at the time of each music download". Don't like it? Well, if you had never stolen that music and put J.Lo out on the streets, this never would have happened, Bobby. Now, pony up for another copy of that track and we'll call it even, and might not even send Lars and Mungo to your house for a visit...say, would you like to buy a Longhorn upgrade?
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
What's going to happen for EU countries, who may force MS to take it out of their operating system?
People inside the EU will therefore not be able to use the system? Or will have to purchase Windows Media Player to use the system?
If this is the case, surely it'll hurt the popularity of MS Music?
Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
I am in awe of these compaines wanting to jump on the online music bandwagon. I believe with everyone putting all their "eggs" so to speak in the online music basket they are setting themselves up for what I believe could be akin to the .com burst. With so many new online music services coming online, the only for-profit entity coming out ahead are the labels. With the strong-arm tactics currently being used by the RIAA and such towards file swappers, I can imagine there is a lot of overhead involved to run an online music store.
So this would explain why MS were so concerned about shipping a "substandard" version of windows without WMP... ...Otherwise they wouldn't be able to tie in all those European customers to a hobbled music service with a "oh look, you already have the required software installed" media player...
It's not that MS is necessarily killing competitors with each little feature, its more the way they use each toe hold to push forward into the next market and the next market and so on. Even if they were the worlds best and nicest software producer I think this kind of monopolistic action is extremely dangerous.
1984 arrives at long last and we discover that it isn't the government watching us, but Bill Gates...
I don't see how it violates the settlement, unless they prevent Windows users from using other music services. As long as you can still play the other stuff on your computer, there is nothing to stop you choosing whichever service you want. So they are not using market power to tie people in to their service.
Of course, they may well have a strategy to gradually extend the features available to Windows Music Shop users, while restricting these to other people - for instance, it may become a lot easier to burn CDs from Windows Music Shop than from iTunes, because of some obscure driver incompatibility that you need a degree in CompSci to unravel. Or it may be possible to play only Windows Music files from within Internet Explorer. I should stop now, before I give too many ideas to the folks at Redmond.
Microsoft are still allowed to compete, as long as they do it fairly. The moment they stop competing fairly, there will be a howl of protest, and the lawyers can start dusting off the terms of the agreement.
Microsoft don't want to have friends in the business ?
The important questions from all Europeans: When will we be able to use it?
And I am sure their software will come pre-installed on all future windows OS' for your convenience. Another "feature" that you probably won't need and will have some sort of exploit available with default configuration.
Perhaps it was just a case of thier forward thinking visionary approach.
As opposed to Linux and the fanboys perpetual game of catch up.
Wonder why the big push for Microsoft mutli-media computing recently in Mag and avderts? Well this is just part of it. Microsoft wants to be your single source of entertainment. Just wait until they launch their video channels.
It's such a shame they have picked such crappy lossy formats for their media player. You will not have to wait long for the new security exploits to start poping up either.
Warn your friends. They don't want to touch this with a ten foot pole. We don't need another Microsoft monoculture and attempt at monopoly setting computing back.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
The classic guinea pig model. Let everyone else test technologies and when there's money to it, jump right in to the bandwagon. How original. Microsoft is hardly an innovator of technologies anymore.
Could this be Netscape vs. Internet Explorer all over again?
Once again, Microsoft is late to the game. Apple started it this time with iTunes (where it was Netscape with the web browser). Initially, Bill and MS were reluctant to get on the bandwagon with the Internet. Then, it started to leave without them. They smell money and take off after it. "Well, we'll just give our browser away for free and because it's installed by default, why would anyone pay for Netscape?" Of course many "average" users didn't blink and eye used IE and Netscape died.
Are we going to have the online music wars now? MS, again late to the party says, "Well, we've got Media player already installed by default and it's free. Now all we have to do is undercut everyone else on the prices of singles and albums and we'll own the market. If anyone matches our prices, heck, we've got so much money in the bank, we'll just give the music away. We'll also slip some DRM in and make our compression technology proprietary. Customers will love us for free music and the RIAA will love us for DRM."
Nahhh, Microsoft is definitely not a monopoly.
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
The Sherman Act prohibits the use of a monopoly to leverage entry into other markets, and it'll be a clear violation of the Act if they bundle their music download service with WMP.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Maybe they can have enough clout to get past the DRM restrictions that keep me from playing the stuff in my car. My in dash MP3 player so far is incompatible with everyone else's offerings.
However since they push the WMA DRM'ed format, I doubt it.
They can sell bottled water by advertising it's quality over the run of the mill tap water.
Who will sell high quality MP3's that are better than lawsuit vunerable internet MP3's?
It makes as much sense as selling 8 track tapes because nobody has the stuff to copy them. It's high cost, not compatible with current generation devices (sure you need to buy new portable devices and in-dash units yada-yada NOT!) just to keep away from a de-facto standard format. Who can't play MP3's? Heck even my DVD player in the living room will play MP3's. There is no other format that will play in my car, portable, living room, etc.
Too bad the industry is bent on not meeting the consumer demand.
The truth shall set you free!
"I don't see how it violates the settlement, unless they prevent Windows users from using other web browsers. As long as you can still view sites using another browser on your computer, there is nothing to stop you choosing whichever browser you want. So they are not using market power to tie people in to their web browser"
Hang on, don't they already do this? At least in the UK, I already have access to the service, and have downloaded 4 tracks already, which could be burned to a CD for 99p ($1.60?) each. It already works via WMP 9. Maybe we're just the guineapigs.
BTW, due to an interesting set of circumstances, you can download Tubular Bells parts (sides) 1 and 2 as one 99p track each, or the whole album for 7.99! (assuming 1 credit=1p; this can vary)
Phil
I heard the whole site will validate as XHTML 1.1 and not use any nonstandard technologies!
I take the view that this is a good thing (tm) for Microsoft to do. They're big enough that they may be able to muscle the record companies into cutting them a deal for the songs. This of course will anger Apple and set off a series of lawsuits in every direction. Either way it shakes up the industry quite a bit, and that's what we need. Lots of competition. And I imagine M$ is bound to lose money anyway on this deal, since they don't have a hardware player. And if it did come down to litigation, I don't think anyone would be sorry to see lawsuits directed at the RIAA or M$
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
I can't believe people can be so damn nearsighted about the potential that Microsoft could potentially be providing a better service than their competitors. Moreover, why are you complaining about lower prices? Isn't that the goal of capitalism? It's only bad when Microsoft uses their monopoly (and that requires removing competitors) to gouge the consumer.
Frankly, if iTunes can't cut it, or if Napster falls through again, I'd more than happy to be a happy legal consumer through Microsoft. Sure, Microsoft may not support Linux, but did that stop GAIM, OpenOffice, Samba, etc? Hardly, and I doubt linux users will have a hard time getting access to music they already purchased, DRM or not.
And let us not forget that Windows Media Player is a damn good media player for the average retarded consumer using a computer. If they want/need more, they could go to RealPlayer, iTunes, Winamp, etc. See, it's often forgotten that it's not slashdot users that make up the majority of computer users, but rather gun-toting KKK members. They need easy.
I for one am happy to hear about new competition in the market. Go Microsoft. (and I'm no Microsoft fan.)
I actually feel more sorry for the non-Apple competitors in this arena. They're largely tied into the WMA and Redmond OS and have alread surrendered their souls to the new comptetitor. Talk about squeezed from both sides. At least it's unlikely that competition from Micro$haft will completely destroy the Apple solution.
It is odd that such a 'technology leader' is always second (or later) to market. I guess they have to rely on the true innovators to show them the path to money. "Your potential, Our passion?" finally makes sense now, as long as our potential is the one to create new markets for them to dominate.
Just remember, if you are in the software industry, every dime you spend on Office/Windows/... is a dime our passionate friends will use to take your market away once it becomes lucrative enough to pursue.
The problem is that MS includes media player with the default windows install. In fact, there is no way to remove it. Furthermore, they have put their own add on software into the OS at a very low level and load at system boot (ala IE) to make their software appear much faster. Unless they agree to do that with iTunes, musicmatch, etc, then they are abusing their monopoly.
This would basically represent the exact anti-trust case which they lost. The justice department could just replace all instances of IE with Media Player and resubmit the lawsuit. And just to be consistent, after the DoJ won the case, they would have to roll over and give MS a sweetheart deal.
Of course, they may have already purchased someone else's software to make this happen. I can't imagine whose. It seems like all the major players have already been purchased by other major players.
In any case, Walmart seems to be trying to launch it's music service in time for christmas. It is hard to see MS competing with this, especially given that MS has, as of now, no product and no significant relationship with the labels. Even if MS controls the front end and DRM, It would require a massive amount of shenanigans to catch up. They might be able to succeed in the EU, but MS seems to be having a number of difficulties there, and may not ship a music enable Windows after the new year.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The problem is my nearsighted friend is that they will undersell Apple itunes until it goes under *then* gouge their customers.
Ever notice Office is like hella expensive?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I can't believe you'd ever suggest realplayer for anything.
That's like suggesting quicktime for windows, except worse.
Isn't "why would we want to" a better question?
no, however in their efforts to under sell Apple and Napster there does risk some illegal behavior. It would be illegal if they were to sell the songs and loose money in an effort to force out of business the competition. Its considered unfair business practice. Remember microsoft has lots of money to throw around.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
... me.
The IT section color scheme sucks.
M$ has even less going for it than AOL did. That merger between a huge new media company and an old one failed. The old one keeps it's content locked up regardless of it's own new best interest. Time Warner STILL only squezes it's content out through the tightest of bungholes at $1.00/pop-tune. Apple makes no money from the music itself. Do you think that the same big dumb music companies will let M$ screw them around or have any of the money? Sooner or later, music companies are going to realize DRM is a huge boondogle and M$ will be hosed away. Kerfloop - there goes another billion or two of M$'s big fat bankroll.
Oh well, back to ripping the old LPs to ogg. Between my old music and new free music services, I don't need iTunes and other DRM gimped junk. Go get you some new music:
Then go spend the money you saved on a live concert or on an ablum by people who get paid by their publisher.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
.. that wipes out your music, will MSN actually let you download it again without extra fees?
Only Apple creates both hardware and software necessary for a no-hassle music experience. The iPod and iTunes are meant to work as a unit. For Apple to get iTunes working in a hodge-podge of an operating system such as Windows is a testament to Apple's desire to make the music experience consistant on both platforms.
Apple is out to sell iPods. Microsoft and all other companies that get into selling music online will see nothing but losses because they, nor Apple, receive any significant funds in selling music, but do get profit from selling the players.
Expect MS to pick an existing MP3 player (either by acquisition or endorsement) for their WMA player. However, Microsoft has shown their DMA attempts to be far more restrictive than Apple's. Limitations, as well as the predictable issues that WMA causes for some in configuration and use, may doom their online music attempt before it begins.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Of course MS denied any plans to open a music store back then. The few people outside Apple who had heard of it probably expected it to tank; who was gonna bet that an Apple-only product, competing against p2p/free download services like Kazaa and using a relatively obscure file format, was going to be the success it turned out to be? But now that Apple has shown that people are willing to use services like iTMS, Microsoft will no doubt come swooping in and try to make a billion or two.
MS has nothing to do with anything until someone else has already made a ton of money in a given market segment (think Xbox after Playstation, game peripherals after Thrustmaster, IE after Netscape, and even the graphical OS after the debut of the Mac). So it's not surprising that they want a piece of the music store pie at this point in time, after others have already spent lots of money figuring out what works for the consumer and what doesn't. It's like free R&D and user testing.
My only question is how MS is going to make money from this by charging less per song, if even Apple is only breaking even on iTMS. A monthly subscription fee maybe? Who knows, we'll have to wait and see.
the coolest club on
Uh, yeah, that's true. The "integration" argument against MS is completely stupid and should not have been pursued. Integration is decidedly and demonstrably BETTER for the consumer - witness Mac OS X, KDE, etc. All of these have various aspects of "integrated" applications, of course when KDE integrates the file manager and web browser, then it's INNOVATION!
Microsoft should have been brought up on anticompetitive licensing and marketing deals with OEMs. This prevented OEMs from getting an alternative product to market. What would the industry look like if Dell and Gateway had been distributing Linux for 5 years already? I think that is a much more winnable charge than this fuzzy muddy "hey judge, uh, they are like combining software and stuff".
(not that I don't think that great power demands great responsibility and that the government has the right to ask for open protocols and formats from the software that is used on the vast majority of computers, if anything at least for national and economic security - to my knowledge this didn't happen, they just kept flogging the stupid browser debate...on the other hand, it doesn't seem like the government really cared much about punishing MS)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Thanks. As a non_Apple_owner (obviously) I didn't pay much attention to the news a few weeks ago.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Why exactly is that interesting to you? The denial was in May. That's six months ago. I'm guessing they weren't ready to announce it at that time. Even if they were out and out lying and they had plans to launch a service but they told CNET they weren't, that's still not that interesting. Stop trying to nitpick and find a scandal in everything MS does.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
MoFscker
They don't know money from
toilet paper, man.
If things go the way the /. post suggests--yes. Absolutely yes. And this time it's to stamp out two or three competitors, rather than just one (Netscape).
However, I doubt the US will do anything about it. My hope lies in the EU. After the US anti-trust suit, MS started pumping campaign donations of millions of dollars into both political parties. If there's anyone left in the government who realizes we can do fine without Microsoft (outside Massachusetts), I shall be very surprised.
The US seems to be the only country on the planet which isn't completely annoyed by Microsoft.
or they might just force m$ music on all of us. just imagine the wintel tune ingrained in all of our minds.
Pull your head out. Internet explorer sucked ass. Netscape was way better, and IE isn't doing much in the way of getting any better now that it has a monopoly position. How did that obviously inferior program out compete its far superior competitor? Unfair leverage of a monopoly-as determined in a US court of Law.
Unless Microsoft is explicitly prohibited from bundling this software with windows, then Microsoft is going to do to the music download industry what it did to the browser industry.
It is not about who has the better service, but how can we prevent being locked into one service, from one vender. Not really much better than the current price-fixing monopoly that we have now in the RIAA.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
Does any one else but me think that MS is just spreading itself too thin by trying to cover EVERY flipping market out there related to IT? Granted I know every business model ends with #.PROFIT, but it is obvious the whole focus on security didn't pan out and we are still waiting for this awesome .NET to take over the internet. Ah screw it, it is Bills' company let him run it .
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Talk of this is extremely risky at the moment. The EU is looking at this very problem right now. Word of this only hurts their defensive position and assures harsh punishment by the EU.
Got Code?
napster, iTunes, walmsrt, et al are robbing americans of the freedom to choose!!
I don't see how it violates the settlement, unless they prevent Windows users from using other music services. As long as you can still play the other stuff on your computer, there is nothing to stop you choosing whichever service you want. So they are not using market power to tie people in to their service.
Microsoft are still allowed to compete, as long as they do it fairly.
What about if the price for each song is low enough that they are losing money on every transaction initially. Apple is nearly at that level now, yet they do not hold a monopoly.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
I'm posting anonymously to help protect my identity because I *gasp* work for a member of the RIAA.
I can tell you that these types of services are beginning to bring some interesting problems to the record companies, namely what royalties are paid to the artist. In the actual recording contracts, royalties are VERY specific and their definition is not very open ended. This mainly helps the recording company by taking certain monies from royalties and helps avoid confusion. And then something like music downloading comes along, which simply does not fit into ANY of the pre-determined categories in the royalties contract. And believe me, there are many specifically defined categories. This is especially true for some older contracts, where music downloading was not really a viable option. In those instances, it's attempting to fit the square peg in a round hole.
On a side note, the RIAA members may have resisted this, for this specific reason. Royalties are obviously huge for the RIAA members and attempting to pay royalties on a category that does not fit into the recording contract is problematic, to say the least.
Either way, it's simply food for thought.
going to be the one with the least restrictions on the music files that can be downloaded, even if it will be much cheaper than it's competitors.
It is odd that such a 'technology leader' is always second (or later) to market. I guess they have to rely on the true innovators to show them the path to money.
No, that's not odd at all! Thats shrewd. Let other people pave the way, then devise a best-of-breed from what's out there, and make a minor improvement. For example, the consumer electronics adage- that America made it first, and Japan made it smaller. Witness the transistor radio.
The real issue being, can Microsoft get a best of breed product/service combo out there? The XBOX is fun to play, and the penny-arcade dewds have create things to say about Xbox Live, but I'd never give up my PS2...(inferior as it may be, I still think its better)
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
What more can you ask for? The worlds "leading" authority on security will create a online music service.
I wonder if the record label executives know that ROT13 is not exactly a new break through in cryptography.
- soupmaster
Everyone thinks that Microsoft reversed its original decision to not make a music store. Perhaps I am a pessimist, but I think this was their evil plan all along. This is the AntiFud tactic.
1st: Deny Plans for new product and or service. Tell everyone that the current players are doing a good job.
2nd: Wait for competitors to invest deeply in new service.
3rd: Deliver knockout blow to unsuspecting and overextended foes by entering market you said you'd stay out of.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
They're big enough that they may be able to muscle the record companies into cutting them a deal for the songs.
Well, since WalMart has a revenue stream 10x that of Microsoft's and makes a higher quarterly profit than MS, not to mention the fact that the have a pre-existing relationship with the labels, they should be able to get an even better deal from the record companies. That means they'll be able to undercut whatever Microsoft tries to establish as a new price point.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
1. MS delivers a crippled product. No one buys it, and they flop
/. party line that MS should be barred from entering this particular market?
2. MS delivers a good product (large selection, minimal DRM, smaller price). The consumer wins.
What exactly is the problem here?
Yes, they could try to leverage current WMP installations, but if the product they are selling is fundamentally flawed (as compared to iTunes, for instance) then it will fail.
Or is the
I say bring it on. They have some large competition to deal with.
Palladium.
It's laying the foundation for songs being locked to your hardware. Voila! Non-swappable songs. (Later on after they kill off all competition.)
Vaya con huevos, my darling.
m$ doesn't provide anything better than their competitors longer than it takes to eliminate the competition. They just build it in to take advantage of the lack of inertia most people have toward going to get alternatives. They'll maintain a semblance of feature parity until the competition disolves and then let the app languish or just bloat it into uselessness.
Considering that Steve Jobs admits that Apple isn't making money on the music, that it's a tool to sell more iPods, m$ undercutting prices of the competition is the perfect example of exerting monopolistic power.
Do you really want m$ controlling the DRM?
The potato it is uninformed.
Just like with IE vs. Netscape, M$ doesn't expect a profit. And it needs to do two things with their music service that will provide advantages in the long run.
1. Tie users into their DRM. Plain and simple.
2. Tie users to their media player which will be restricted to their DRM.
Number 2 kills the following companies on the Win platform: Real, MusicMatch, BuyMusic, Napster and even iTunes so long as iPod sales for Windows drop off. iTunes will still exist for the Mac tho.
Cringley's latest article has some excellent points on M$' whole DRM, platform agenda and why they lose money in most of their non-Office and non-OS ventures.
Frankly, this smacks of the same shit that happened a few years back with the browser wars. M$ sees threat, launches their money losing alternative. Then bundles it, forces relevant M$ apps to use it, and then breaks compatibility. And thanks to huge lock on the desktop - along with, really, apathy on the developer and user base - presto, competition eliminated and monopoly suceeded.
With their media player, a similar thing will happen. But instead of breaking standards, M$ will force their propreitary format on everyone who wants to use their player, thusly creating the artifical standard. Deja'vu all over again.
I really hope the EU kicks their ass on this front and them releasing a music (then video, I'm sure) service could potentially add more fuel to the fire. These guys (M$) are due a good ass kickin. We don't need their vision of computing nor their abuses. The real world does not have just one car maker or one company who builds all the houses everywhere, or even one company who makes a variety of cd players. The software world should be no different.
One reason I can deal with Apple's DRM is because I can take the songs, burn them to a cd and then rip them back in. I still have very good quality, but the songs are not restricted and in a more widely usuable format - mp3. And in the end, compatibility with all my machines is the gold standard of which I try to live by. It's hard, long road, but not an impossible one.
but I'm still not buying anything the RIAA peddles. Screw the RIAA and the big labels. I'll keep buying movies instead.
i mean really, everybody all of a sudden starts selling music?
i don't plan to, nor do i know anyone who plans to purchase from online music ventures.
i think it works out this way:
the stupid users are too stupid/afraid
the smart users know how to get it for free
how does that make a good business model?
Always a step ahead. Always innovating!!
And Jobs is not going to roll over the way AOL/Time Warner did. We'll finally find out what happens when the irresistable force meets the immovable object.
[Of course, Apple's case will be quite hypocritical, given that MS will be doing in Windows exactly what Apple is doing in OS X; but Apple doesn't have a monopoly, and that's the technicality which will matter...]
IANAL
I can go to dozens of olds discussions and find comments that $1 is too much to pay for a single song ($1 x 12 songs=the price of a CD which is too much, yadda, yadda, yadda). But now when MS may be dropping the price it's an unfair and illegal business pracitce.
So which is it? Is the price fair and all the bitching about the RIAA is wrong headed? Or is MS right (can most /.'s even admit this) and they are providing the songs at a more reasonable price?
Yeah, I'm sure the Board of Directors are just terrified at the idea of yet another gentle tap on the wrist for misbehaving. Darn that Sherman Act!
Ehhh?
Konqore isn't intigrated into KDE. It's a sepret program most distros who include KDE chouse to include with KDE. But your free to NOT include it.
It also exsists as an example of how one could create a web browser for KDE.
"Inovation" is Microsofts catchphrase Linux people don't use such market speak.
Even if they did... the creation of what is known as "The KDE browser" isn't anything anyone would call inovation. It's nice and that's streching the deffinition of "nice" just a bit.
This "Intigration" stuff happend becouse Microsoft used it's monopoly on Ms-Dos to force Windows to be preinstalled with Ms-Dos on new PCs that include Ms-Dos. Oh yeah and to make sure any shop preinstalling Ms-Dos ALWAYS preinstalls Ms-Dos and not DR-DOS.
Yes Microsoft had a monopoly on Dos and that was not a bad thing becouse they were providing a suppereor product for a reasonable price. This is how that monopoly was maintained. Not with tricks or FUD.
But SOME people wanted the cheaper (in cost and quality) Dr-Dos and Microsoft was out to make sure that didn't happen. So Somebody sued Microsoft the DoJ stepped in and we ended up with a conset decree declaring that Microsoft will not bundle software UNLESS it was intigrated. Microsoft has been streching the deffinition of intigration every sense.
But I think Microsoft at least showed intent to do so when they murged Dos and Windows in Windows 95 making Dos part of Windows.
Much later when Microsoft created Internet Explorer and began intigrating it into Windows Netscape got angry and rased the issue again.
However I should illuminate that Netscape wasn't doing much diffrent from what Microsoft did. Giving away a suppereor commertal product to gain support with plans to discontinue the free version in favor of a commertal version.
So there comes a question was Microsoft trying to create a monoploy or just insure it's own userbase continued to have a hig quality web browsere for free. Reasonable minds will disagree.
It should be noted that IBM pulled exactly the same stunt in OS/2. Is Microsoft just folowing IBMs exaple?
When IBM did this Netscape complained. They discontinued Netscape for Os/2. They could afford to so they thought as Microsoft held the majority marketshare and IBMs OS/2 was lagging behind.
Netscape at this point noted they couldn't compeate with a preinstalled web brwoser.
Some people took that to mean Netscape was just pushing out the free web browsers in favor of it's commertal browser and once it became the standard the free Netscape would vanish.
They had to do something to make money.
So the question is... WHAT was Microsoft thinking when they preinstalled IE?
Reasonable minds will disagree.
I don't actually exist.
MS isn't big enough to cut down on warez and music on Usenet.
Plus, most people can barely work their browser; Usenet is in the realm of science fiction and fantasy.
That's a good thing, because it keeps Usenet off the screens at the RIAA members headquarters.
As for Konqueror, the decision to integrate everything into the browser is considered by many of us to be a reason not to use it. I've heard its defenders, but by-and-large they're the same people who defend Microsoft's "integration" of IE into Windows. Remember, the FOSS crowd is a broad church. You'll not find many defenders of Microsoft's Clippy amongst us, for example, but the original lead developer of GNOME, now the lead developer of Mono, is on record as saying he believes it's an excellent idea.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Who here actually uses Windows Media Player as their default music player? Anybody?
If you do, please tell us why?
>>Ever notice Office is like hella expensive?
Well, if you're
*A full-time or part-time student currently enrolled at an accredited K-12 education institution organized and operated exclusively for the purpose of teaching its students.
*A K-12 student under the age of 18 attending a legally recognized home-schooling program.
*A full-time or part-time student who has completed K-12 educational requirements and is enrolled and taking at least six credit hours in an accredited institution of higher education.
*A full-time or part-time faculty or staff member of an accredited educational institution, working at least 20 hours a week and who has duties related primarily to the education of the institution's students.
*A household member of a person who qualifies.
and don't use it for commercial purposes, then you can buy/use Office 2003 Student/Teacher version (Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Outlook) for $139 at Wal-Mart.
Office may be hella expensive for businesses, but with M$s new licensing it's quite affordable to many. I work in an educational environment, so I don't know about business volume licensing, but for educational institutions it's basically dirt cheap.
Going by the sticker price, it may be hella expensive, but many don't have to pay retail.
As long as water is wet, this statement will always evaluate to true. Why does this even have to be stated any more? Can we mod the post to -1 Redundant?
today is spelling optional day.
Who cares? The boat has already left the harbor. Good luck grabbing market share from iTunes and Napster.
"Observers expect that the company will use Windows or the bundled Windows Media Player to gain a competitive advantage over other services...."
In other words I won't be buying music from Microsoft because I can't use their wares (since WMP won't run on my system). I can't say I'm terribly upset by that, as long as other vendors still exist.
Now that Moz has caught up and passed IE, I've switched back. But iTunes is a pretty nice program now: if Steve doesn't screw it up badly in the next few years why would I switch?
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
So the question is... WHAT was Microsoft thinking when they preinstalled IE?
Reasonable minds will disagree.
I seem to remember hearing that there was quite a bit of paranoia in Redmond during the mid 90's about how Java and browser plug-ins could remove a lot of platform dependencies. Whether this perception is accurate is irrelevant. It's what they perceived. So, MS management had two goals. 1.) Get developers to abandon Java and 2.) control the point of access to the rest (at the time, the web browser). I think they're still operating under this notion of controlling the points of access. It's just the landscape has changed.
You must be *that* retartded consumer, you are talking about. You moron. Just shut the f*** up
Another way in which it violates is that Microsoft will probably undercut their competition. We've already heard from Apple that they don't make much on the music. If apple made, let's say, $0.50 per song, that'd be quite a bit. I bet apple only make $0.10-0.15 a song, if that. Now Microsoft comes in, lowers their price to gain a foothold in the market. They are "able" to do it b/c of their vast financial resources, but no one else can compete. They will be using their monopoly to an unfair advantage
I think we've seen before with MS that just because you or I consider it a clear violation of the Act doesn't mean that MS will actually face any penalty for it. At least in the US, no one has leveled any judicial penalty of note yet. I don't expect that to change any time soon. To clarify, I don't consider it a penalty when Microsoft can buy their way out by giving schools MORE of their software and compounding the issue by allowing them to count it as full retail value rather than actual cost.
It's worth adding that you don't have to prove any of this stuff to get the 2003 Student-Teacher Edition...which installs on up to three PCs.
The Sherman Act prohibits the use of a monopoly to leverage entry into other markets, and it'll be a clear violation of the Act if they bundle their music download service with WMP.
I'm not sure this is exactly true. Sherman Section 1 prohibits "tying" when it's used in restraint of trade. Unless MS is requiring that you join the MSN music service, they're not by definition tying. Coke dropping a free sample in my mailbox is analogous-- the product is sitting in my lap (for free) but by no means am I required to buy Coke at the store...
FYI, there's actually a lot of backlash against the MS anti-trust case right now in academic circles. I am by no means an MS apologist, but a lot of what went on behind the scenes was IBM/Oracle/Sun coopting the political/legal system to hamstring their chief competitor. In America at least, I'm not sure there's any gaurantee that a similar case (substitue WMP for IE) would necessarily get interpreted the same way. MS has learned how to play the game (read political donations), i think...
My question then, is at what point if any is there a perceptable loss of quality for people ripping ACC to MP3, rather than ripping from a standard CD? Do you need high-end stereo equipment and a trained ear to hear the difference?
I see opportunities for new "independent record companies", ie. new music companies that do not have the huge overhead and excessive middleman costs.
Right now the artist and consumer are the ones squeezed out. The cost of a CD is almost nothing to produce, it is all the money the music companies spend on advertising, high paid executives, buying time on MTV, etc. that drive costs up. The artists make very little of it.
But there could be room for a music company that eliminates a lot of the overhead and uses creative methods to advertise and distribute it's product. Possibly free or low-cost downloads of new material to get customers to try a new artist, etc. Most of the music companies big cash flow is in the younger music market. Getting kiddies to buy a Britney Spears album, etc. But as you get into the college ages people start to get inputs from new sources like student radio, etc.
The big music companies will jump on the MS bandwagon because of the massive size of the captive Windows market (the sheep) and because MS will guarantee them their artificially high prices. But if artists have a different avenue to take that gives them more control over their creative efforts and a better share of the profits they may be willing to take that route.
The music companies will continue to pump huge money into "last years thing" - think Sony paying Michael Jackson to basically produce nothing for them. Much of these losses will be hidden because the music companies are part of larger corporations that span many markets.
But over time free market economics would get them. That is if our goverment lets them. Efforts like the DCMA can try to stop this, but in the end I don't think it can. While there may be a law that says it is illegal to sell computer equipment that circumvents copy-protection, there is nothing that say an artist or a new music/media company is forced to release their material in proprietary copy-protected format like Windows media.
One way the big companies and MS will try to stop this is with "subscriptions". The spreadsheet MBA boys love a constant cash flow. Think cable TV. Think MS software licensing. They want that continued consistent cash flow. That is why MS formed MSN. They saw what AOL was making. So they will try to convince people to pay a monthly fee to download and listen to music. It will be like the cell phone companies. You will get so many minutes of music a month for a certain price. And you will probably pay a premium for going over a limit.
This could lead to some competition for the subscription market, just like there is in the cell phone business. But I think it may end up like cable TV. You will pay an artificially high price for a "package" deal that includes all kinds of music you don't want. Think the Home Shopping Channel, etc on cable. They will make the costs of buying just the songs you want high enough that many people will just "take the package" and accept it. Think of all the people who are up to their ears in credit card debt and just get by paying the monthly minimums. As long as they can go along with what society tells them they should be, they will pay their little montly charge to "be happy".
In the end the dinosaurs will go extent. MS may continue it's reign a while longer, but I think they are just stringing things out. There are opportunities available for success that lie somewhere between totally free or pirated, and over-priced and controlled.
IMHO.
Valoo !
No wonder Microsoft is so concerned about the EU antitrust case. It revolves around its media player.
What do you mean Tom paying more then the average tuition for a word proccessor isnt normal?
A psychopath can't tell the difference between right and wrong. A sociopath knows the difference - he just doesn't care.
i didnt say that they were committing a crime. I say there was the potential for unethical practice. And while I have no information that microsoft is engaging in such actions, i do know that microsoft does not have a shinning track record when it comes to ethical and fair business practice.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
wow only 139$, Name: MS Office Open Office Cost: 139$(US?) FREE! ...
A psychopath can't tell the difference between right and wrong. A sociopath knows the difference - he just doesn't care.
His comment to me was how much sucked to try to do things the legal way and be frustrated at every turn. IMO, this is why iTunes took off like a rocket. For the most part, it just worked. Any competitor that doesn't make it as easier or easier will be doomed to failure.
This week's winner in the Slashdot "Windows Is For The Retards, Linux Is For The Geek Elite Sweepstakes." Thanks for playing.
Not true. MS sells Xbox at a loss, because they are using it as a loss leader for the games.
Apple sells iTunes at a near loss, as a loss leader for iPod.
iTunes is now 99c/song. If more supply enters the market (MS) that price will drop. It may drop to the point that people are selling at a loss. Just because MS can afford to sell at a loss doesn't make it a crime.
If the market price is such that you sell at a loss at that price, that is fine.
Its only a crime if the market price is higher than your price, and you are selling at a loss in an effort to crap out your competition.
Microsoft wants to dominate the living room and is probably planning to have the media player client in future Xboxes be able to access their music service. This in turn sells more Xboxes which in turn sells more Xbox games which is where Microsoft makes their money because game vendors have to pay a per title license fee to Microsoft.
I wonder if they are going to recycle Start Me Up for this one?
Take off every Sig.
I have THE solution, and have said it before. Here it is, I WANT them to implement it, so they are welcome to steal it from me. (hey, just give me a little credit for revitalizing the music industry) :-)
Music stores should have a HUGE database of MP3s/WAVs in the store. I mean every damn song ever recorded.
Every song older than 10 years old is $0.10.
Every song 5-10 years old is $0.25.
Every song 2-5 years old is $0.50
Every song 2 years old to 6 months old is $0.99
Anything newer than 6 months you have to buy on CD. (maybe this could be rolled into the 0.99 if it didn't fly)
1. You have kiosks set up so customers can browse the database, creating their own CDs of songs (either audio, or burned as MP3s - ZERO DRM)
2. They submit the request for the CD to be burned, which is all done behind the counter. (to avoid the customer support nightmare if they did it themselves)
3. While they are waiting for their CD to burn, they can browse the latest CDs, merchandise, etc.
4. They could charge a reasonable fee for the media and the burn. Maybe $2 per CD? Free songlist, but artwork might cost you an extra buck.
Advantages:
It gets people back into the stores! One of the first rules is to get them into the store, and they will spend money.
It isn't online, so you don't have to worry about people hacking in.
It is reasonably priced. Imagine building your favorite songs of the 80s for a few bucks. Those songs are just sitting around not making money anyway.
Maybe there is an online service where you can build your CD and submit your request, and you can go in and pick up your CD, or have it shipped to you.
They could list other people's CD compilations. Maybe have a voting system, so you could see the top 10 compilations.
Future: DVD burns of videos, concert footage, interviews, Behind the Music, etc.
Make record stores a cool place to visit again! Give people the music they want at a reasonable price, and you will be rewarded. Am I the only one who sees this?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
They willmake their money by making this part of MSN for which they will charge you 19.90$ a month. which is a lot more profit than apple willmake off the player. plus if you stop your subscription maybe the music wont play?
My problem with that line of logic is - what the heck are they allowed to do if they can't add new products to windows? Are they stuck where there are now - never to enter any markets?
In short, they'll rip off every idea Apple had with the iPod, iTunes, and ITMS but make it less consumer-friendly; no rescuing any of the songs you've purchased if you have to migrate to another PC or reformat your hard drive (at least not for free).
Jay (=
Apple's case isn't hypocritical; they aren't doing what Microsoft does, which is integrate. They Bundle.
They don't make iTunes and *integral* part of the OS, the way Internet Explorer is. Even Safari isn't an integral part of the OS; you can if you like delete all the Apps (Mail, iChat, Safari, Internet Explorer, iMovie, iDVD, etc) and use your own (Thunderbird, AIM, Firebird, Mozilla, etc) without affecting the stability or reliability of your system.
With Apple, you can unbundle without any ill effects. The only technical aspect that might be similar is the way Quicktime and AppleScript is integrated into the OS, but that's been the case since at least Mac OS 7.6, or how recently Apple added WebKit to offer HTML rendering as a service; but WebKit is based on (and continually updated against) KHTML, and was added in order to compete with Microsoft.
GPL Deconstructed
Obviously, MS could lower the cost to $0.50/song and lose money on each sale, but that would only undercut Napster 2, walmart, etc. Apple Doesn't need to worry since Mac users won't (can't) switch, and windows iTunes users will be locked into iTunes/iTMS due to their collection of AACs and a 1-year time advantage.
Yet another music download service? Doesn't Microsoft have better things to be spending their coding resources on? And is Vegas making odds on which one of these services will go under first?
I find it hard to believe that they are not making money at less than 99 cents a song when they are not paying for packaging, store space, advertising..etc. 99 cents a song makes most cd's close to the same price they are charging at the stores. I will hold out until prices reach a resonable price of 25 cents a song.
Telecommuting! What about socialization?
Two things, if you will..
Please refrain from making disparaging comments about the majority of Earth's population (i.e., non-slashdot "users".) I do not appreciate you referring to my wife as retarded.
And this goes for all of you!
As a side note, I "need" easy as much as the average consumer. My computer is a tool to accomplish certain tasks, and I appreciate any program that allows the computer the accomplish those tasks with as little user-interaction as possible.
I do appreciate your main point, I simply do not appreciate that way you went about it. That is all.
Legal disclaimer: All spelling and grammatical errors courtesy of Bob.
You're right, Open Office is free. I have it installed and use it pretty often. I've thought about completely ditching MS Office before, but the features and functionality of MS Office (starting with their 2000 version) compared with OOo, well, I just stay with MS office. OOo to me is comparable to Office 97.
I hate blowing $13 to $16 on a CD with two decent songs and eight that are just painful to listen to. Even if I rip the music and sell it back to a resale store, I only get $1 to $2 back (up to $4 for a hot pop album which I rarely buy).
Instead, I can get just the songs I want for $0.99 each. When Napster was in its prime, I just grabbed the songs I wanted from others. I tried other services after that, but finding the songs I wanted gor to be a pain in the neck and the quality of the songs I did find was likely to be poor.
Now that I'm out of college and have a real job and a family, I would much rather spend three minutes and a buck to get the song I want than spending half the night to find a "free" version with digital clicks and parts of it missing.
The point that sold me on the service is that I can burn as many music cds as I want. That's all I relly want. If I buy it, I should be able to playit, and I can.
open mind: teaching computers the stuff
AH HA! So that's why M$ refuses to remove Windows Media Player from European versions of Windoze. It will undermine their ability to beat iTunes and Napster in Europe.
You've got to be kidding.
Someday I'm going to have to explain to my children how Microsoft ran the Xbox at a loss for years and won the whole gaming market away from it's competitors, and why Linux and the Mac never saw a game written for it again.
Someday we'll have to explain why our generation allowed Microsoft to move into PDA devices because it's Outlook syncronization was so darned convienient. Oh, and because it could play games and music.
Someday we'll have to explain why music once came on hard plastic disks and why we can't get music on anything but a windows machine because it played so nicely on our Windows PDA.
If that's not "tying" into other monopolies of theirs, we've truly got trouble brewing.
"Sir, we have just recieved notice that Apple has sold over one million songs with iTunes!"
"AHAHAHA. I am Bill Gates! what do i care. They won't get far. It's a service that they are running at no profit. It will die in a few weeks."
"But sir, you said that a few weeks ago, and now iTunes is gaining ground!"
"Even so, why do i care?"
"Because at this rate, iTunes will re-shape the way people buy music! Apple will,,, Apple will... Have a monopoly on us!"
"What? A monopoly? That's my turf! Quick! Get the development team on this - we will go in to competition!"
"But sir, we dont have enough spare people to accomplish such a task!"
"Thats ok, pull developers out of our Longhorn Project."
You are confusing me with someone who cares.
But then if you need visio, project, etc... it costs more. Not to mention the "new fileformat of the week".
While OpenOffice isn't perfect I'd rather use it [or latex] to make documents then some pathetic lame huge-ass suite from MSFT.
That's another rant too. Ever notice how big Office is? Ever notice how big OO is?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I believe that MS has been spanked by Apple's iTunes/Quicktime for Windows release. God forbid that the average Windows realizes that there is better software, services and lesser DRM'd media formats available for their use. They must be stopped before it's too late! Hopefully, it's too late already.
Karma Schmarma
I'm more willing to bet this will be the case.
I wonder if I will have to agree to some EULA where somehow Microsoft will still own what music I buy, along with my computer, and MP3 player.
When I was your age we didn't have music file sharing utilities. We had to go out to a store and shoplift the CD.
With all these new music services popping up, shouldn't there be at least ONE that has a Linux client?
Observers expect that the company will use Windows or the bundled Windows Media Player to gain a competitive advantage over other services ...
..."
I think you meant "to gain an anti-competitive advantage
That's what tie-ins with the OS are all about, y'know.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Seriously, will anyone ever sell non-DRM`ed vanilla MP3`s?
No. The major record companies won't sell you music that you can then give away to the entire planet with no additional effort. This is non-negotiable, and you may as well learn to live with it.
If you want to play it in your stereo, burn the stupid song to a CD and keep the original file on your PC. Just about every major player in the music downloads market lets you burn CDs up to a reasonable limit. Hey, presto! You got what you want!
Grow up and quit whining. This is a business, not the Let's Keep Ender Ryan Perpetually Happy Club.
Who will explain to your children how to spell its?
OOo? What are you talking about?
A psychopath can't tell the difference between right and wrong. A sociopath knows the difference - he just doesn't care.
Hello! People?
As per one of the other posts here, this is old news boys. We have had MSN music downloads using OD2.com's delivery mechanisms incorporating DRM with media player for well over 1 year!
So far Billy-boy has shown no fear of the Sherman Act. The bundling and competition strangling continues....
Engineering is the art of compromise.
" smell another anti-trust suit coming.. isn't this yet another blatant violation of the suit they settled not so long ago?"
What kind of country do we live in, where a company can't move into new markets without getting sued by the govt. The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves.
answer: VOLUME! (so crank it up)
to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
My only question is how MS is going to make money from this by charging less per song, if even Apple is only breaking even on iTMS. A monthly subscription fee maybe? Who knows, we'll have to wait and see.
Who says they want to make money? That is secondary to crushing the competition at Microsoft :-) Here's how it will work...
1) Microsoft builds half-ass online music store and ties it to the OS.
2) Needing content, Microsoft enters into a contract with all the major record labels. Labels will be guaranteed a percentage of each sale.
3) Give songs away for free! Thus screwing the record labels and making 'pirating' the songs legal as long as you do it on your Microsoft operating system!
Doesn't sound so far fetched to me. They did it with the source code for Explorer, right? ;-)
Public education worked for me! :-)
Just like how Apple purposely broke iPod support for MusicMatch Jukebox with iTunes for Windows.
I used the most recent version of windows media player a few days ago. What a joke. And it's one of the better interfaces in XP apps. Not that I'm in love with iTunes all that much, but at least it works and makes sense. XP crashed twice while playing mp3s in media player on one machine, then I saw it crash the same way on a completely different machine later that day. Both users said, "oh, yeah. It does that when I play mp3s for too long." IFO would never use microsoft's music service, I doubt they can make any improvements on Apple's offerings, and Apple is already picking up independent labels with very fair terms.
TallGreen CMS hosting
With all the security holes in M$ products, it shouldn't be long before some crackers have found a way to download their whole database. Can't wait. :-)
Apple innovates, Microsoft copies. Can BSOM (figure out) be far behind?
No way. Do you realize how many songs/albums are out there, rotting away? Think of the sheer volume of things that you cannot get on iTunes, or even P2P systems. Want the definitive collective works of Johnny Cash? Go into a record store with this system and be able to listen to and buy every single song that Johnny Cash was a part of. Like a certain guitar player? Find every song he/she played on.
The one disadvantage is that opening up the massive vault of the past will shine a very bright light on today's artists. Why should I buy the latest N'Stink album when I have the entire works of the Jackson 5 available to me? Why listen to Christina when you can hear Aretha?
As for getting off the couch, eventually people will need to get their asses off the couch. Don't underestimate the bandwidth of getting off your ass and going down to a record store to pay a reasonable sum for a CD with 700MB of MP3s on it. To beat P2P, the music industry has to make going to the store worthwhile. This system could do it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
iTumes key advantage is that you can use with any CD player on the planet. The CD player is world's proferred music platform, here, not Windows or OS X. If Jane User can't got from her Dell to her Discman with one click, she's not going to use it for music. period.
So my question, which is: which online stores besides iTuines, support one-click burning to CD-R? These are the only viable competitors. (possbile exception: if most of the*cheap* CD players suppport "some other format," than a competitor may be able to survive on that. )
Steve understands that all comes down to: "Rip. Mix. Burn."
Does Bill?
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
OpenOffice.org
That's how I've seen it referred to before...
it's C#
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
Oohh its the year of the paid music download boom, but will it end up as a burst bubble like the dot coms? Me thinks almost as certainly as this post will get modded down.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
They won't be making it any cheaper than ITunes because ITunes, by Apple's own admission, already doesn't make any money. Now conceivably they could make it a money loser given that they have huge piles of money to throw at it, but then there's serious anti-trust issues. Leveraging their OS monopoly to create a monopoly on music sales is a definite no no for them.
:)
The interesting thing here is that this sets the potential for the RIAA and Microsoft to have a monopoly battle royale. If Microsoft tries to leverage their monopoly position to drive down the royalties the RIAA has to pay, then this whole thing might end up in court. With any luck they'd destroy eachother and make the world a better place
I wonder what the RIAA would have said if you'd gone to them and told them that they'd eventually have to compete with the maker of DOS in the music distribution business.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
"Ever notice Office is like hella expensive?"
Ever notice that Office hasn't had a serious competitor? Maybe Sun should do something like.. oh. I dunno.. advertise?!
The point I'm making is that the value of going to record stores is the physicality of the media. Remove that and you're complicating an already established process of downloading at home. Accentuate that value and you may make it worthwhile to go out to a store.
Ivan
There is no graceful way to eat an egg salad sandwich.
It's so nice to see Microsoft bringing new inventions to the marketplace. Things that they dreamed up *all by themselves* and are *totally unique* to Microsoft. I think they should apply for patents right away. After all, they should be rewarded for taking a risk by offering something so totally new that noone else has even conceived of the idea.
This is of course, part of a long history of such great innovations. The web browser. On-the-fly Disk compression. The recycle bin. Pretty icons instead of their old ugly ones. Minesweeper. And of course, who could forget the invention of the GUI? Because of these great innovations, Microsoft well deserves their throne as the monopolists they are!
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
god DAMN it! MP3 was going great until Microsoft came out with their goddamned Windows Media bullshit. Polluting filesharing networks and everything. Fortunately it wasn't becoming popular TOO quickly.. and then the release of iTunes Music Store and iTunes for the PC meant that Windows users were once again more likely to use a jukebox that actually ALLOWS you to create MP3's.. now MS is gonna come in with their billions and try to lead the sheep back into the .wma world which will ruin it for the rest of us as usual.. thanks, assholes.
God I hate Microsoft. I don't care if people want to use their shitty products, but I'm sick of them flooding the market with third-rate ripoffs of EVERYTHING that are good enough to be commonly accepted, but have enough insideously stupid flaws that ruin it for those of us who want to have a decent computing experience.. it's like, if they won't use our platform and suffer, we'll make them suffer on their platform!
grr.
and what alternative PC based desktop O/S was ready for mass marketing when Microsoft became dominant? the OEMS may have yelped about the price, but their MS-DOS and Windows boxes flew off the shelves and that in the end is what mattered.
"Microsoft has started testing an international news search service in competition with Google's, upping the ante in the hotly contested web search market. Microsoft web portal MSN has unveiled a test, or beta, service called MSN Newsbot to search news in the languages of four countries - the UK, France, Italy and Spain. MSN Newsbot is an experimental, automated news service that gathers news from more than 4,000 sources online, according to the Newsbot website." Source Mirror
http, html, and the first web browser were developed under NeXTSTEP. After a couple years, and comments from Joy et al about how the browser could become a platform, Gates panics, buys the first IE while writing their own, screws Netscape, and integrates it into Windows.
iTunes Music Store developed under OS-X (basically NeXTSTEP). After a few months, and lots of positive press about how people might actually pay for music if its easy, Gates panics, decides to screw their partners, and integrate their own music store into Windows.
NeXTSTEP/OSX seems to be the platform for innovation. Windows is the platform of derivation. Hell, even Office for OS-X is way better than the Windows version - and it's made by Microsoft!!
Now really... Before you get too high up on your horse with your bold print and rhetoric, you'll at least try to realize that my point was that some folks in certain circles (academia, etc) believe this.
Believe it or not, there's a whole world outside of the microcosm that is Slashdot, and some folks don't all agree with you. Many of them (the academics I spoke of) know far more about the competitive dynamics and legal aspects of the Tech industry the guys who post here.
Just so you know, the world of anti-trust can't be held to the same high standards of, say, a murder trial. Simply because an outcome happens does not guarantee that the defendant was actually guilty or innocent. Executives rarely go to jail, so the outcomes sometimes are politically motivated. I happen to know of a recent antitrust case which was prosecuted by the DOJ in order to damage a European company-- all to get revenge for a decision that went against a US company in Europe! Rarely do the judges who decide the case know anything at all about economics. They know the letter of the law and that is about it. Every DRM case out there ought to make it blatantly clear that Federal judges are woefully unprepared to decide anything that has to do with business activities or technology.
What I'm trying to get at is that the slap on the wrist MS got was a signal by the Judicial system that they were unsure of the gravity of MS's actions. Microsoft did the all time worst job ever of defending themselves (PR and in the courtroom), gave practically no political handouts, and got a slap on the wrist! What do you think is going to happen the next time a case comes up and they actually have learned some lessons from this past case?
Don't count on another anti-trust victory...
Whoops, you must've come to the wrong website. His reference to the average retard not only described your wife, but also yourself. The main point of your "argument" seems to be an indication of the intelligence factor you deal with, but regardless, your comment was much appreciated. (My roomates got a good laugh out of it.) Best of luck.
It's not a matter of what was ready when it became dominant. It's a matter of what Microsoft did AFTER it was dominant to prevent other OS's from competing in their space. They raised the price of their OS to any hardware vendor who bundled competing software. People like BeOS could never develop partnerships because Compaq, HP, Dell, and the others were at the mercy of Microsoft. If they pissed of Gates, the price they paid for each copy of Windows would be raised and thereby they would be at a competitive disadvantage with the other hardware vendors.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
MSN + music + bugs = free music for all.
This is a big deal because the RIAA can't charge back a 10% breakage royalty reduction on MP3's like it has done since the days of 78's made from shellac. Among other unethical accounting practices performed on their slaves, I mean artists.
Three things, I think:
1. Selection. The amount of music they could make available would be immense.
2. Combine that with software so you can search for all songs written by a certain writer, or have it suggest similar songs, or recommendations, or other people's recommendations. Don't do it online, do it client/server. Faster, and it would keep people in the store.
3. For an hour trip to the store, you could pick up several gigs of MP3s. Try and download that off the net, and you'll be waiting a while. Not to mention the guaranteed quality. Not to mention the fact that not everyone has high-speed access.
Hey, it may not be a perfect system, but I think it could work.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
At least we agree on one thing.
The reason why I made the free sample analogy with Coke is because MS did not charge incrementally or separately for IE. If Microsoft had required purchase of IE with Windows, that would have met the legal requirement for tying. That was the only point i was making in response to the original poster, that integrating IE is not tying...
Analysis of MS's pricing has pretty much shown that IE didn't cause the price of Windows to rise faster than inflation. And this makes sense- no consumer in their right mind would pay for a browser considering how many are available for free. Granted, people paid for Netscape for a while, but that was before the flood of alternatives.