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."

Comments

Using bundled software for monopolistic advantage?

[DJ Rubbie]

I smell another anti-trust suit coming.. isn't this yet another blatant violation of the suit they settled not so long ago?

steps, not 12

[freerangegeek]

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!

Let me see if I've got this right...

[Schwartzboy]

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?

Aha, now I understand

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Using bundled software for monopolistic advanta

[tgma]

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.

Well, here we go again.

[moonboy]

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.

Re:Everyone's jumping on the bandwagon now.

[RobotRunAmok]

Rather than ask, "Why MS?" a better question might be, "Where are Tower Records and Virgin Megastore and Fye and Sam Goody?" These are all brick-and-mortar establishments who will be in the warehouse business when legal downloads do to CDs what CDs did to vinyl.

All music will be sold online, almost exclusively, within our lifetime, meaning there will be plenty of space in the market for the right retailers. How many of the "old names" will make the cut, and how many will be opportunistic "new tech" names like MS and Apple?