Off-The-Shelf Online Music Stores

jpkunst writes "The Chicago Sun-Times and C|Net news.com report about a new product from Loudeye Digital Media Solutions and Microsoft: pre-fab online music stores for companies who want to join the digital music goldrush. I wonder when this bubble is going to burst."

Comments

what bubble?

[silicongodcom]

when will what bubble burst? best i can remember is that apple's barely making any money at all off the actual music sales, let alone all the companies following

Re:what bubble?

[FooAtWFU]

that's the point. Best I can remember is that most of the dot-coms weren't really making ANY money off anything.

Re:what bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but Apple has made money off the 4 million iPod's they've sold. It's like giving away condiments with your burger and fries - if you don't offer them, people may go somewhere else.

Re:what bubble?

[sagarsanghani]

True, Apple makes about 5 cents a song from itunes. So even selling 25million songs is not a lot of money. However- iTunes is the big trojan horse for selling iPods. And that is why Apple has had its best year -EVER!

Re:what bubble?

[TedCheshireAcad]

So now not only do we have fragmentation of content, but also fragmentation of point of sale! This is gonna be reaaaaally good for the online music industry.

Re:what bubble?

[the uNF cola]

Big difference is, apple can afford to do this. As apple has said, they want to make money for other devices that are promoted by the tunes-store.

And it's true, it is a bubble. Most fell down -- emusic and a few others tried to do what iTunes is doing now. Now napster 2 and all these other ones are coming out. Eventually, they'll all go away except for a few successful ones.

The same thing happened with housing, a bubble of people buying off of cheap loans on expensive houses, and now there are a lot of people declaring bancruptcy (s?).

Same thing happened in the .com era.

Re:what bubble?

[mahdi13]

Apple makes about 5 cents a song from itunes. So even selling 25million songs is not a lot of money

When did $1,250,000 of pure profit in 2 months become "not a lot of money"?

Re:what bubble?

[Ab0rtRetryFail]

Quoth the semimetallic deity:
"best i can remember is that apple's barely making any money at all off the actual music sales, let alone all the companies following" (sic)

Apple is barely making money off it DIRECTLY, true, but Steve himself has said that the store itself is just a trojan horse so he can sell more iPods.

I'm sure that companies looking for branding opportunities and/or a loss leader can "make money" off a music store concept. A cell phone company, for example, could use a site to promote a youth-branded cell phone service. I think Sony has proven (with the PS2) that an item can make you money while being a loss leader in and of itself. Plenty of stuff is marketed this way (razors and blades model), so perhaps the bubble will not burst at all. Just my $0.02.

Re:what bubble?

[sagarsanghani]

Thats not pure profit. Once you factor in operating costs, marketing etc it goes even lower. Also compared to what they make off the iPod that is nothing.

Re:what bubble?

[Jason1729]

And that is why Apple has had its best year

I thought it was because of all the people so fed up with windows product activation jumping ship to apple. At least that's why I bought Apple stock 6 months ago.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:what bubble?

[dema]

From http://www.urbandictionary.com:

A virus-like program that pretends to be something else in order to get into the system.

From _The Iliad_, by famous dead poet Homer, when the Ithacans gained victory by hiding in a huge wood horse so they could get into Troy.

Please explain the accuracy (or, inaccuracy I should say) of the "iTMS = trojan" analogy, it's the second time I've seen it today. Apple is using a product to help the sales of another product. End of story.

Re:what bubble?

[BobTheLawyer]

Absolutely. How many mult-billion dollar companies bother to develop revenue streams generating income in the single figure millions? It's simply not worth the management time and development costs. Large organisations don't, as a rule, do small things efficiently.

Re:what bubble?

[geoffspear]

For a company with $5.74 billion in revenues in the past 12 months, $1.25 million in 2 months isn't "a lot of money".

Re:what bubble?

[TrippTDF]

This is a lot like a little mini-bubble. The big problem is that so many people are hoping on this bandwagon, consumers are not going to know where to turn. Apple will probably come out on top of the pile, as they have the recognition and the coolness factor at the moment. However, consumers stand to become very, very confused in the fray. I for one can't keep track of who has a music service and who does not anymore. Consumers will get overwhelmed by the choice. Hell, the more companies that come out to play. the better it could be for Apple as more and more people turn to the popularity/ease of the store. Still, there is not a lot of profit there. Again, thanks to the RIAA eating a chunk of the money that Apple is taking in. And I suppose that's the real reason it will fail if it does- the RIAA still taking too much of the money to make it feasible. Unless you are trying to push another product, online music sales are going to be a tough business to enter.

Re:what bubble?

[Goldfinger7400]

It has a bad connotation I guess, but folks are using it as a way to explain how this is useful as a marketing device. Kind of like the old "getting your foot in the door" analogy. But that one brings up connations of shady salesmen peddling their wares... Eek!

Re:what bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hook, line and skinker...you've been trolled :)

Re:what bubble?

[fastidious edward]

Not a lot of money... Apple had revenues of USD5.74bn and profits of USD1.60bn last financial year. USD0.00125bn doesn't scratch much.

Re:what bubble?

[SpyPlane]

So how are companies without iPod's supposed to make money??

Oh well, I wouldn't mind Microsoft or Wal-mart loosing a bit of money. I might even sneak out a laugh.

Re:what bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Analog to the DotCom bubble, when people were paying for eyeballs. Now it's eardrums.

There are many dotcoms that survived. Most were first entries in their field (Amazon, Cisco, Akami). Some were late entries that had a superior product (Google). Some were extensions of "brick and mortar" companies (Dell, Charles Schwab). MANY early entrants flamed out (Netscape).

Same thing goes here. There will be tons of roadkill. Apple and Microsoft are safe, and hedging their bets. A few late entrants will succeed big. Many early entrants (Napster) have already flamed out after their 15 minutes of fame.

[yes, I know Netscape and Napster could have major comebacks, as they still exist in some form. But their rapid growth and "can't miss" record is tarnished.]

Should be fun to watch. But if you are anywhere NEAR the consumer music market, you HAVE to place your bet and go for it. Or you will be letting a whole huge oppportunity pass you by!

Re:what bubble?

[fastidious edward]

The term 'trojan' goes all the way back to the horse presented to the people of Troy as a present but was a sneeky Greek attack (a brief history here). A Trojan in the true sense refers to this, so I suppose the parent was referring to iTunes being a sneak ploy to get people to use iPod.

Not that the 'hacker colloqualism' of trojan horse is a misuse, it is not, but to see this as the primary source is just wrong.

Re:what bubble?

[Echnin]

You'll have to tell me if you ever make money off that refer link, Brian.

Re:what bubble?

[dema]

Yes, and as with the use of a trojan horse as a virus or at Troy the attack was a suprise. In this case, Steve Jobs and Apple openly say that the reason for iTMS is to sell iPods.

Re:what bubble?

[Frymaster]

which is why it's going to burst. apple makes money in the long run off hardware sales, but all the "me toos" showing up won't have that second revenue stream - hence failure.

of course, near-certain doom isn't never enough to stop thousands of get-rich-quickers, people with a low common-sense-to-money ratio and general greedheads from fighting over the steering wheel fo this bandwagon. it's gonna be ugly.

apple created a whole new business model. microsoft will turn it into a bubble... sigh.

Re:what bubble?

[one4nine4two]

I can only see this as a good thing. In an ideal world a la carte music will be as ubiquitous as albums, to the point where you can walk into Best Buy and go up to a terminal and burn yourself a CD of whatever you want. We'll have multiple venues to get exactly what music we want, legally. At the very least it would force ripoff stores like Sam Goody and Disc Jockey out of business.

Re:what bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how your post is insightful, well you have a ~low UID, what was I thinking...

An insightful post modded as such??? Never. Someone with a low UID making a pointless "lets join the dots together though it makes no sense" post, then of course!

Most moderators live in fear of the editors after all, and tose that don't get banned pretty quickly.

Re:what bubble?

[MikeMo]

Best year ever? Even better than the year they had $12BN in revenue (1994)? Based on what?

Re:what bubble?

[Dechah]

But surely all of these ventures need financing. And surely the financiers, after getting burnt badly in the dotcom bust of 2000 will be a lot more stringent in their lending criteria for these sorts of vendors. I could not imagine anyone getting very far in a venture capitalist's office these days with just a winning smile and a flaky idea about how selling songs over the web is going to make zillions. you would be escorted out of the building by baseball bat wielding security guards.

Re:what bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

i think the reason is because you did not say that M$ will fall to Linux hegemony within 12 months. Or maybe you corrected someone who has unfounded beliefs, but as long as they have a following of Linux is better than anything the sheep will line up behind them.

Re:what bubble?

[RAruler]

Did you see his webpage? Woah, take about shitty webdesign right there. Plus the added bonus of all those shitty referrals.

Re:what bubble?

[malfunct]

What this may be able to do is kill the record industry as a requirement to market. If you have everything you need to sell your music in a box for a cheap price, someone should be able to open a portal site that links you back to the author. All that is necessary at that point is getting radio playtime.

Then again not many people won big by marketing direct through mp3.com so maybe its a dead end. Would be nice if selling music became so easy that every band did it for themself, would solve the record industry problem in 10 or 15 years as thier locked in contracts ran out and no new bands would sign with them.

I guess I can dream.

Re:what bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is a very obvious analogy here: online CD stores! There were quite a few of these back in the "dot com" days - everyone wanted to be the Tower Records of the Internet and, overtime, they all either went out of business or became part of Amazon. (For example: Music Boulevard merged with CDNOW. CDNOW became part of Amazon.)

In those days, there was a "supporting" company called Discover Music that offered up music samples to preview the tracks on CDs before you buy. As all of the Internet CD stores dried up, the clients for Discover Music dried up and they merged with Loudeye.

How soon, it seems, these guys forget their own history.

Re:what bubble?

[Ab0rtRetryFail]

Ech:
There's a possibliity of making money of the referals, yes, but I'm not banking on it. The iPods are actually sold out anyways, I think they're becoming hard to find now.

RA:
I know its a shitty webpage, yes, but its a boilerplate geocities site, so I'm suprised that you expected any better.

It's mainly there as a placeholder until I can get a more decent site up and running.

Re:what bubble?

[shamino0]

... to the point where you can walk into Best Buy and go up to a terminal and burn yourself a CD of whatever you want ...

It will be interesting to see if this ever happens again.

It was tried in the past. A system called Personics was once available for this. You'd go into your local Sam Goody store and browse through songs at a listening station, writing down track numbers for whatever you wanted. Then you'd give the list to a clerk, who would quickly make a cassette with your mix. Tapes were pretty inexpensive - about $10 for an 8-song tape, IIRC.

I thought it was a great idea. I made several such tapes. But it obviously was not a financial success, since it's gone and there is no successor taking its place.

Re:what bubble?

[pegacat]

In an interview with Stirling Moss (legendary racing car driver of the fifties/sixties) he describes how when he was ahead of the pack on a wet course, he would sometimes fake sliding and fishtailing to make it look more dangerous than it was. The other competitors would see this and think "well if Moss is in trouble, *I'd* better take it easy" and slow down a little.

So o.k., Steve Jobs *says* that Apple aren't making money, and the online music business has no profit margin... but heck, *I* don't like having competition either... :-)

Re:what bubble?

[nelsonal]

When you have to divide it by 362 million shares, and the only number most investors will ever look at is EPS. Keep in mind that's probably pre-tax so it goes to ~$850,000. However if apple made about $50 million pre-tax selling iPods (not too unimaginable given $230 million in revenue since iTMS launched) that isn't a bad return on their investment.

Re:what bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

apple created a whole new business model. microsoft will turn it into a bubble... sigh.

Which business model is that? I mean, I know they're the first in everything they do even though others have done it for years, but please be more specific about which fabricated "first" you are claiming for them.

Re:what bubble?

[Doc Ruby]

How do you distinguish between a bubble and business development? Bizdev has a working biz model, with product/services delivered to customers, whose revenue exceeds costs, to produce profit. Fast growth can be a boom, or even a goldrush, which might be followed by a bust if not sustainable. Bubbles are seen in equity speculation, where profits are not related to equity price. Speculation bubbles inevitably burst, with a shakeout seeing some survivors when the market is sustainable, or a totally collapsed market when it's not.

The music download bubble burst a long time ago, when Napster got popped by the traditional businesses. Now we're seeing another goldrush, driven by cheaper technology, and Apple's iPod/iTunes marketing. The equity market is still in disarray, but this time it's being led by profits, which are scaling. Products like LoudEye do reflect a possible incipient goldrush, but since music downloading both increases efficiency of the music consumption market, while removing limits to scale, there's not necessarily a bust lurking just over the next ridge.

We are likely seeing a rational entertainment business develop, now that it's been squeezed out of the slippery hands in Hollywood, into the firmer grip of Silicon Valley. Time to sell shovels!

Re:what bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe. He said comdom.

Re:what bubble?

[Logicdisorder]

I can see a bubble that could burst. When people start to understand that what they are getting on iTunes as far a format and bit rate encoding goes is pretty low quality. And I will not buy music on-line until they have a format that is as good as CD audio. Now I can hear some of you now saying "But you can not hear the difference" Well that might be true if you are using an iPod or some other type of players but then if you look at the output that they can do then it is no wonder you can not hear a difference. But you put that same song though a good amp then you are going to hear how bad the encoding they use is. And if you look at most of the major on-line music stores they are not using MP3. Why? I do not understand. WMA sounds like shit unless you use there lossless one, then you might just as well have it in a wav file. The only formats that I would look at using at the mo is OGG and FLAC.

Re:what bubble?

[Fembot]

Seems to me more like the loss leaders like baked beans and bread supermarkets use to lure punters in with... they then easily make up for the loss with other purchases through out the store.

Re:what bubble?

[bit01]

Very true. I've met very few business owners who weren't "going broke", in a "challenging market" or "taking years to establish" etc.

Re:what bubble?

[Ohreally_factor]

You just go on doing what you're doing and gobbleshoe. I trust you won't hold your breath!

Speaking of breath, I'm not going to waste mine trying to convince you of the possibility that AAC encoded from masters can approach the quality of music files encoded from music CDs with other codecs.

I don't know whether or not WMA sounds like shit. I've never listened to it. While Apple has offered me a compromise DRM that I can live with, I'm not touching any MS DRM with your ten foot pole.

When all is said and done, it seems to me there is at least a niche market for online Ogg sales. Maybe you can convince Rio to open one up, to support sales of it's players.

Re:what bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Stereophile did a review of the 3rd generation iPod that included technical measurements of the iPod output signal on an AudioPrecision for frequency response, noise, distortion, and jitter analysis. The iPod did extremely well in these tests:

http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?934

The technical measurements are here:

http://www.stereophile.com//digitalsourcereviews /9 34/index5.html

One thing that was mentioned in the review is that the included ear buds are not the greatest as far as sound quality but if you put some money into a good set of headphones, the iPod is an excellent source component. (Examples of high quality headphones might be the Etymotic for a small portable set or something like Grado Labs for a larger "listening at home" set. A set of Etymotics cost almost as much as the iPod itself but are "custom fit" to your ears.)

As to sound quality of purchased tracks:

Many years ago, I participated in listening tests involving various audio codecs including MP3 and AAC. You don't need super high quality equipment to hear coding artifacts - in fact, sometimes a cheap pair of headphones makes the artifacts even more obvious compared with a high quality set of headphones or good set of speakers.

My observation is that for MP3, compression artifacts are very audible at 128k and even 160k. At 192k these artifacts are must less common and only really show up on certain material which is "difficult" to encode. A typical offender is "hard rock" type stuff where you have a "fuzz" or distorted electric guitar tone (particular with long sustaining notes) combined with drums. You tend to get this "sparkling" artifact showing up in the guitar tone as a note decays and this slush slush type of thing going on with the drums, particularly the snare drum. In other words, MP3 has problems with sound sources that have a large "noise" component or whose harmonics are spread over a wide enough portion of the audio spectrum - distorted electric guitar and drum sounds fit within this criteria. Another place I have heard artifacts is with something like Gregorian chant - I assume this is another "complex harmonics structure" type of thing.

Up at 256k, I personally can not hear artifacts in the MP3 anymore. Under the right listening circumstance, maybe I could tell the difference between 256k MP3 and original CD audio but I just don't know - the compression artifacts are normally the "give away" for me.

For MPEG AAC at 128k, I was unable to detect any obvious artifacts. This is probably because I didn't know what type of material AAC has difficulty encoding - there is probably something that causes AAC to fall over, I just don't know what it is. Same deal - under the right listening circumstance, maybe I could tell the difference between 128k AAC and the original CD but, again, without some artifacts to "give it away" I'm just not sure.

My experience with WMA is that it just doesn't sound very good. The high frequency artifacts are really really bad (probably worse than MP3 at the same bitrate) - I can only assume this is something overlooked for some reason. Possibly the guys that designed WMA had poor hearing at high frequencies and they just didn't notice or I don't know what.

The uncertainty with compressed audio makes me want to avoid it if possible. I think it's a reasonable compromise to used compressed audio on a portable player in order to carry a reasonable sized music library around but, at some point, hard drive capacity is going to make this compromise unnecessary.

AAC is certainly the best lossy codec I have heard at this point. MP3 at a relatively high bitrate works well too. If storage space is not a concern, FLAC is the best of both worlds - you get about 50% compression and you know it is bit for bit perfect - no loss.

Re:what bubble?

[The I Shing]

Somewhere a patent troll with a patent on selling downloadable music files is licking his chops and drooling. Soon there will be hundreds of thousands of victims to choose from.

He'll have his pick of all kinds of small companies that can't afford to fight him off. Microsoft and that other company won't defend or indemnify any of the users of their system, and Mr. Patent Troll and his lawyer (he'll only need one) will just sit back and rake in the licensing fees.

When that guy pops up, hoo boy with that bubble burst.

Re:what bubble?

[sean23007]

Even after getting burned so badly, I would think that the venture capitalists' offices would be able to afford guns for their security guards. But that's just me being naive, I guess.

Re:what bubble?

[RAruler]

I'll give you that, it's not the worst Geocities page i've ever seen :)

Re:what bubble?

[Logicdisorder]

Yea it would be good to see an OGG store, the main problem with OGG is that it does require a bit of CPU to work. And most of the players today have been geared more towards power saving and since the main formats like MP3 and AAC are not the hard on the CPU. I have heard that they are porting Linux to iPod and it can get Ogg's running and 70% of realtime, And there is an Ogg player for sale now but it is not that wide spread.

Burst...

[swordboy]

It'll burst when someone creates a non-RIAA internet radio station / distribution hub. Unsigned artists submit their music to the site, a group of public moderators give the music good/bad karma and the good stuff gets streamed to millions of PCs. Users can download the stuff that they like with a simple click and yet another simple click burns it to CD or moves it to the player.

Re:Burst...

[McAddress]

until artists start making decent music. the business is going nowhere.

Re:Burst...

[glenrm]

This is a great idea. It would be like an eBay for music, why stop there why not include other digital goods, such as software, audio books, independant film, etc.

Re:Burst...

[wo1verin3]

Great until some troll mods up Celine Dion and Bryan Adams... :(

Re:Burst...

[tsmccaff]

No one wants to listen to unsigned artists, no matter how much "karma" they accrue. Its sad that there are probably many great bands toiling away without a label deal, but if it isn't being shoved down your throat by Clear Channel or TRL, no one will pay any attention. Somebody modded the parent post with "funny" which is much closer to the truth.

Re:Burst...

[_LFTL_]

While it's definitely not the perfect solution, and lacks alot of the features you've cited, iRATE is a nice "distribution hub" that basically gathers links from free music sites, points your client to the site, and then allows you to moderate to your tastes. I've definitely found some music I like that I never would have heard on through normal outlets.

LFTL

Re:Burst...

[LetterJ]

This is like saying that there aren't any painters producing any good paintings. Just because you're trying to buy paintings at garage sales and WalMart doesn't mean that no one is painting great art, just that those places don't have any decent art.

In almost any style, there are innovative, original musicians making music. For instance, one of my favorite styles is acoustic/roots rock. PasteMusic has a bunch of free MP3s and an Internet <a href="http://www.pastemusic.com/radio/">radio station</a> of their music. In the last 3 months, I've found several artists through them and bought 8 new CD's. Out of those 8, I'd only heard of 1 of the artists before hearing them through Paste. These are not the artists that your local gas station has at the checkout or carried by Target, WalMart or BestBuy. They're also not ultra-rare imports or obscure techno. It's straightforward music, made domestically (for me in the US) that just happens to not be distributed as widely as the popular stuff.

I haven't bought a CD in the top 40 (or top anything measurable) in several years, but I do buy CD's regularly. Just get off the damn music freeway and see the rest of the music countryside.

Re:Burst...

[object88]

Sounds like a job for... SlashRadio! (Or /R, for folks with ADD.)

On a slightly more serious note, how's this model different from what mp3.com started off as, aside from the moderators (which were, IIRC, the unwashed masses on mp3.com)?

Re:Burst...

[fastidious edward]

There is lots of decent music here. And they stream OGG!

Re:Burst...

[commodoresloat]

And of course 10% of all the songs you download will be the audio equivalent of goatse....

oh, never mind; I see you already mentioned Bryan Adams.

Re:Burst...

[Zhe Mappel]

until artists start making decent music. the business is going nowhere.

I don't mean to mock (for a change, heh), but there is so much good music being made and already in print that you'd need a second lifetime to hear it all.

A guide, my friend, is what you need. It's called music criticism: go find some at the library, then use a library card to check out some CDs, and soon you'll be sorry you've lost so much time.

Re:Burst...

[SoSueMe]

It'll burst when someone creates a non-RIAA internet radio station / distribution hub.

Do you mean like this?

Re:Burst...

[Anonymous Coward]

much like GrooveTip
"GrooveTip enables you to discover, download and discuss music that has been provided by GrooveTip artists who, when you purchase their songs, receive 75% of the sale price. Information relevant to each artist is provided including photos, forums, newsletters, upcoming gigs, sound samples and bios."

Re:Burst...

[NDPTAL85]

Their top hits will be

1. My trolling will go on
and
2. Have you ever ever really, really really ever, loved a slashdotter?

Re:Burst...

[jc42]

... until some troll mods up Celine Dion and Bryan Adams...

Heh. Funny thing: Recently I heard (on NPR of all places) a track that someone had done by removing the atrocious instrumental backup on a Christina Aguilera song, and replacing it with their own - very sparse - instrumental. It was really nice. She can actually sing. You just can't tell on her recordings, because of how the recording company fscks it up.

I wonder if the coming changes will give other awful pop stars a chance to show that they really can make good music when freed of the big recording labels?

Re:Burst...

[hiryuu]

...removing the atrocious instrumental backup on a Christina Aguilera song... It was really nice. She can actually sing.

I recall being told once that she performed with Dave Matthews, doing some blues-y/jazzy type thing, and that everyone was wowed by it. Truth? Anyone know?

Re:Burst...

[ex-songwriter]

It happened. Did you miss it? It was called MP3.com. Thousands of acts, unencumbered by labels, producing music in their home studios, and nobody wanted what they had to offer. Why?

Re:Burst...

[alex_ant]

Judging by her appearance, there are few people she hasn't "performed" with.

Re:Burst...

[Barbarian]

Actually, she only "performs" with African Americans and Latinos.

Re:Burst...

[alex_ant]

OMFG I got modded down for dissing Christina Aguilera on Slashdot. :)

Re:Burst...

[Tokerat]

It has already begun.

The Newgrounds Audio Portal

Re:Burst...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, ... until someone starts with a site named mp3.com ?

No, wait, this has already been done, it didn't work so good.

Re:Burst...

[mu-sly]

MP3.com worked fantastically for a while, but ultimately a stupid interface, too much commercialism, having to sign up every time you downloaded something (why not just allow you to create a perpetual username?), and lack of any peer review system meant that it's signal-to noise-ratio was just too high for most people to bother with. (Plus the signup thing - even with fake details - was just too much of a drag.)

What's needed is not outright censorship of music that doesn't fit your taste (like the record companies do), but just a slashdot-style moderation and meta-moderation system for music. That way, every artist can still be heard, and people who want to just download the "best" stuff can find it easily enough.

A system we're planning over at Ampfea will do something along these lines. We're currently a rather music-technology-geek friendly community, but we're working on making our site a lot more accesible to average Joe as well.

Not that it will make much money (if any) but it'll be a damn good system!

Re:Burst...

[schon]

It happened.

No, it didn't.

It was called MP3.com.

I tried MP3.com - it was completely useless

nobody wanted what they had to offer. Why?

Because MP3.com made it too difficult to get, or even to try.

Even if I just wanted to sample, MP3.com required me to give them my personal information. Why? Why not just let me listen/download first, and create an account if I felt there was something of value? (Like allowing me to rate stuff I listened to, and referring me to other stuff, based on other people who liked the same stuff - something else that was missing.)

There was a band I was interested in - they put their stuff on MP3.com - I wanted to listen to their new CD, to see if it was worth buying... but I couldn't find any easy way to do that - it's just too much hassle, and too much of an invasion of my privacy, so I just said 'screw it'.

Re:Burst...

[schon]

Unsigned artists submit their music to the site, a group of public moderators give the music good/bad karma and the good stuff gets streamed to millions of PCs.

The problem with that is taste - not everybody has the same taste in music..

A better idea (IMHO) is instead of a 'group' of moderators, anyone should be allowed to sign up to moderate - then the system can keep track of who likes what, and customize the stream for each user, based on those moderations (people who moderate similar to you should have similar musical tastes - the server can recommend new songs based on stuff that these people rate 'good'.) The more you use it, the better it gets at recommending music you'll like.

Bubble-Bursting....

[Tsali]

"I wonder when this bubble is going to burst."

I'm predicting 2004, second quarter.

Of course, I'm a software developer, so I don't know squat.

Re:Bubble-Bursting....

[Gropo]

I dunno... This is kind of like watching one of those old Edgerton films... We're currently viewing the penultimate frame to the bullet contacting the balloon.

Re:Bubble-Bursting....

[Anonymous Coward]

We can tell you're not management material...

You looked past the next quarter. For shame!

Dotcom bubble?

[grmb1]

All this fuss around online music sales is becoming to look much like dotcom bubble to me...

Re:Dotcom bubble?

[WellAren'tYouJustThe]

Well aren't you just the master of the obvious?

Re:Dotcom bubble?

[grmb1]

Well, I am indeed. :)

Re:Dotcom bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well aren't you just the one and only WellAren'tYouJustThe?

The important element: WMA

[burgburgburg]

LoudEye does all the work, Microsoft gets check after check for licensing WMA technology and their monopoly is extended once again. Oh, and their highly restrictive DMA grasps tighter at the throats of users around the world.

I'm looking forward to it.

Re:The important element: WMA

[Havokmon]

Oh, and their highly restrictive DMA grasps tighter at the throats of users around the world.

The tighter you squeeze, the more users will slip through your fingers...

Re:The important element: WMA

[3Suns]

It's not the DRM (I think you meant this instead of Direct Memory Access) that's the problem. If copyright owners want to restrict how their property is distributed, fine. The problem is that the DRM is not an open standard, and people who don't have Media Player 9 on Windows are forced to choose between breaking the law or being left with nothing to listen to. If, that is, this becomes a trend.

Re:The important element: WMA

[Lord_Dweomer]

"Oh, and their highly restrictive DMA grasps tighter at the throats of users around the world. "

Yes, I know exactly how you feel.

DAMN YOU DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION!!!!

Re:The important element: WMA

[Basehart]

My favourite source for all things electronic music related published an interesting bit on how the Microsoft / Loudeye deal further promotes the WMA format:

Flooding The Orchard

Re:The important element: WMA

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting how apropos this Star Wars quote from Princess Leia is in describing DRM. Most of us recognize that in truth, the more DRM applied, the less appealing the notion of purchasing the content being sold.

Re:The important element: WMA

[Jon Abbott]

The tighter you squeeze, the more users will slip through your fingers...

I find your lack of faith disturbing... :^)

Re:The important element: WMA

[Ohreally_factor]

I thought DMA, in this instance, meant Dominant Market Aquisition.

Re:The important element: WMA

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought I smelled Microsoft's foul stench when I came on board this article.

Me too

[nizo]

I wonder when this bubble is going to burst.

Yeah who would ever want to buy music online. Oh wait a minute...

Easy

[CrazyTalk]

The bubble will burst when everyone realizes that they are not making any money from this (just like the old dot coms). It is well documented, for example, that Apple makes little to no profit off of iTunes; all the profit comes from sales of iPods.

Re:Easy

[djupedal]

As you say, tt's not about having a cash flow off one product. It is about the combined revenue from all sources. This hasn't got hell to do with the dot coms, however.

If Apple can do it, so can others....the doing is in not being greedy at one point, and remembering the goal. That's aka 'discipline', and we all know how hard that is to come by in the marketplace.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, it is going to be very difficult for others to emulate Apple's business strategy. As far as I can see they are just imitating the music store aspect. It's going to be another 6 months to a year before anyone can combine a viable iPod alternative with a half decent music store. Even then they still have to compete with Apple's innovation and compete amongst themselves.

Plus it is not simply "about the combined revenue from all sources". You would bleed money that way as expenses rise in various parts. Apple's business plan is very very limited and defined in scope. Use their music store to sell more iPods, leverage the cachet value of the iPod to drive traffic to the music store. It's very easy to count the dollars in that set up seperate from the rest of Apple's business. Less so when you talk about combining all products and services of another brand or partnership or whatever. From my observations most partnerships like this tend to die from inertia.

I think Apple has a willingly captive audience when it comes to the iTMS. First there is the core Mac users for whom this decision is a no brainer, then there are all the PC users who own an iPod or the countless kids who knows which player has achieved icon status and all the rest.

This is very much like the dot.com bubble, esp when I hear first hand at business meetings about web portals considering going into the online music store business to create instant brand awareness, I can't help but groan inwardly. I've seen at least two powerpoint presentations as to why online music is the next great growth industry and every executive is falling for it hook line and sinker without ever going into specifics about figures or bundled services.

Re:Easy

[djupedal]

I didn't say it would be easy. In fact, I implied it would be at least 'hard'. Re-read the part about discipline. You've essentially agreed with me.

Plus it is not simply "about the combined revenue from all sources". You would bleed money that way as expenses rise in various parts. Apple's business plan is very very limited and defined in scope.

1.) Revenue is gross, and calculated separate from expenses. It is that simple.

2.) Apple's business plan is hardly limited, and obviously over the heads of the masses. Thus the hook/line/sinker mentality.

Woohoo!

[Quasar1999]

Now for the love of god, someone buy an iTunes Music store and start selling me the music in Canada!

Re:Woohoo!

[spuke4000]

Try this, reviewed here.

Re:Woohoo!

[geekoid]

why don't you start one, and cut out the middleman?

Re:Woohoo!

[molarmass192]

They use WMA, so to listen on an iPod you'd have to burn to CD, rip, and re-encode. Re-encoding previously encoded music introduces some very noticeable artifacts. Anyhow, isn't downloading music legal in Canada after some recent court ruling? So just fire up Kazaa and go to town.

Re:Woohoo!

[rtv]

ehTunes?

Re:Woohoo!

[Quasar1999]

Puretracks is crap... if you want more info, check out my posts about it from my profile... no need to rehash it yet again... DRM is crap if you can't reinstall a machine and get the music you paid for to play.

The question becomes

[smaug195]

When will there be a player that supports all these music services. The iPod supports iTunes, theres a napster player that supports napster, I'm not even sure about the WMA's. I think iTunes will remain the dominant store just on virtue of iPod sales alone.

Re:The question becomes

[damiam]

Most WMA-supporting players (including Napster) can play DRM'd WMA files, which is what you get from every music store except iTunes. So basically, everything's compatible with everything else except for iPod/iTunes. It's conceivable that some other player could add AAC support. Also, RockBox, ipodlinux, or some other open firmware project could potentially add support for alternate formats, but that's a long shot.

Re:The question becomes

[Anonymous Coward]

All the players work with the free mp3s you get from kazaa.

Re:The question becomes

[radish]

IIRC the Rio Karma supports AAC, but not the (proprietary and unlicensable?) Apple DRM, hence it doesn't work with iTunes. I may have got that ass backwards though so correct me if I'm wrong :)

Re:The question becomes

[shamino0]

IIRC the Rio Karma supports AAC, but not the (proprietary and unlicensable?) Apple DRM, hence it doesn't work with iTunes.

Just a clarification: not all iTunes AAC files have DRM. Only the ones you purchase through ITMS. If you rip tracks from CD into AAC format, there will be no DRM on the resulting files.

If (and I don't know for sure, since I don't have a Karma) the Karms supports non-DRM AAC files, and it supports iTunes for MP3, then it will also support iTunes for non-DRM AAC.

Of course, if you purchase a song from ITMS, it will have DRM. You'll have to burn a CD and re-rip to get it into a non-DRM file, which will degrade the quality somewhat.

Re:The question becomes

[BasilBrush]

Or rather, no player is compatible with the market leading music store except iPod, and no music store is compatible with the market leading player except iTMS.

It reminds me of the Playstation. Most people buy a PS2 because most of the games are incompatible with other consoles. Most people buy PS2 games because other games aren't compatible with their market leading console.

Perfect two way lock in for the average Joe.

Re:The question becomes

[damiam]

You'll have to burn a CD and re-rip to get it into a non-DRM file, which will degrade the quality somewhat.

Alternately, you could hack the encryption, now that programs for doing so are circulating. Then you end up with a professionally-encoded, high-quality AAC file instead of the lesser-quality ripped MP3 or same-quality but much larger ripped FLAC.

Remember the dotcom?

[Sir Pallas]

Perhaps, like the dotcom boom, the Internet music "boom" will actually be a whimper. Apples seems to be the only group that has thus far broken the sound barrier. Microsoft is just playing the catch-up game that they accuse others of playing.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, someone please explain to me why anyone would want to have a cloned music store? What value is added? What are the licensees bringing to the table?

Re:What?

[Lev13than]

Ok, someone please explain to me why anyone would want to have a cloned music store? What value is added? What are the licensees bringing to the table?

Customer segmentation. If your website is devoted to, say, West Coast Christian hiphop-jazz fusion and you already attract fan traffic to your site, you can gain an addition revenue stream by offering a wide selection of West Coast Christian hiphop-jazz fusion music. Since you can offer this without any investment in infrastructure, it's money in the bank. The provider is happy becuase they don't need to spend much to get you up and running, so they can increase sales through an aggregator model of boutique stores.

Re:What?

[nicodaemos]

Don't you understand that a Coke branded prefab music store that sells a crappy boy band CD on a crappy proprietary media format is a strong competitive advantage to a Hostess Ho Ho's branded prefab music store that sells crappy boy band CD's on a crappy proprietary media format?

You must be a techie ... you just don't appreciate the brilliance of this business strategy.

Re:What?

[nicodaemos]

So basically what you're saying is that the prefab music stores are simply an extension to the affiliate marketing programs that Amazon and other web sites currently have.

Re:What?

[Lord_Dweomer]

"Customer segmentation. If your website is devoted to, say, West Coast Christian hiphop-jazz fusion and you already attract fan traffic to your site, you can gain an addition revenue stream by offering a wide selection of West Coast Christian hiphop-jazz fusion music. Since you can offer this without any investment in infrastructure, it's money in the bank. The provider is happy becuase they don't need to spend much to get you up and running, so they can increase sales through an aggregator model of boutique stores."

You hit the nail on the head. I predict we will be seeing a lot of specialty services popping up very VERY soon. What I'm wondering though is if I want to use this service with multiple sites, will I have to download new software for each separate site? Or will it just be a front end, and load each sites music catalogue when I need it?

Also, I think this sort of thing would be great for local/college radio stations that play a lot of local bands and such. Imagine a radio station where you can listen to the new local music, then hop on their service and purchase it right away. Does anybody know of any free services that currently do this? Where you can listen to a net radio station, and if you like a song, click a button and it downloads instantly?

Re:What?

[geekee]

The value added is that there is now a separation between the people writing the software and the people running the store. A grocery store company doesn't need a construction division to build the stores, and an online retailer shouldn't need to write the software themselves. The software writers reduce their risk by lining up clients willing to gamble on the online music business, and letting them take part of the risk The value the resellers add is in negotiating good deals with record companies and credit card companies to reduce expenses, as well as make good choices in servers and ISPs. This will hopefully lower the price per song below $1.

Re:What?

[shamino0]

What I'm wondering though is if I want to use this service with multiple sites, will I have to download new software for each separate site?

They will probably all be standard WMA files - playable through any WMA-compatible device that supports the DRM facilities.

The real question is if each separate specialty store will have a separate license key for the DRM, or if you'll use a common Loudeye key.

If it's the former, the result is going to be a nightmare. You buy a new computer, and find that some of your songs can be brought to the new machine and some can't because some keys are portable and some are not.

It's already bad enough that the big players (except for Apple) have different DRM rights on a per-song basis. But now we have the possibility of even worse problems from lots of separate stores with their own unique rules and licenses. It'll get to the point where you have a hard drive full of music and no clue what you can and can't do with it.

I don't want to think of what will happen if your hard drive dies and you have to restore all the song files from a backup tape.

Apple's worked out these problems, by making sure that every song in the ITMS has the same DRM, and that keys are transportable to new computers. I haven't heard anything about this from the other stores, which leads me to assume the worst.

Re:What?

[mlk]

There was a plugin for WinAmp by MP3.com which did this, showed you the cover art of the currently playing band, links to download the song/buy the CD, and MP3.coms online radio stations which played this song.
Plus some other random info (comments & so forth) it was quite cool.

this is bs

[pavs]

most of the online music stores suck anyway, why do we need more prefab music stores that will all sell the same junk anyway. Just because you can build it and put it up faster doesn't mean it's any better.

Re:this is bs

[Neurotoxic666]

Yeah. You're right. There should only be iTunes. And only Microsoft. And just GM cars. All 'round the world. Yeah baby! Screw Jay & Silent Bob, we already have Cheech & Chong. Ha, and screw Nintendo too - Intellivision did it first. And oh man, do I miss the high-rates long distance calls. Those were the days. Fuck the small telcos.

Ever heard of competition?

Re:this is bs

[AKnightCowboy]

most of the online music stores suck anyway, why do we need more prefab music stores that will all sell the same junk anyway. Just because you can build it and put it up faster doesn't mean it's any better.

Because everyone was complaining that the RIAA's business model is dead and we need online music distribution to curb music piracy. If online music distribution fails then the RIAA can come back and say "see, you tried and they still pirate music... they're just little thieves."

Re:this is bs

[Anonymous Coward]

Caffein is goooood. Hmkay?

Spelling, it seems however, is bad.

OMG!

[i_am_syco]

Apple should get one! And they should call it "iTunes"! IT'D SELL MILLIONS! 25 million at least, I predict.

Yeah, reminds me of the good old days.

[aclarke]

At the company I used to work for we built a prefab online CD sales store in 1999. I think our client got around 60 clients running the site before they went belly up. It was a fun project - all the sites were run off a single data/code base with a syndicated industry information populating templates so each site had the same content but looked completely different.

But back to business ideas: it seems the first wave was taking an existing idea (music stores) and putting "internet" in front of it. Now the idea is taking an existing "internet" idea (online music stores) and making it "digital" (digital online music store).

Go figure.

So this is how M$ cashes in???

[seven of five]

Microsoft is rumored to be offering some kind of an Itunes clone next year. But to sell OTHER PEOPLE music storefronts - that's one way to make some money... at least in the short run.

Re:So this is how M$ cashes in???

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. In a gold rush, the people who make money are those that sell picks and shovels.

That is what they are doing. Selling picks and shovels.

2000 Q2

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just the echo.

Re:Why would anyone want to pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, next they'll try putting water in bottles, and expect THAT to sell!

OH MY GOD!!!

[wrinkledshirt]

Slashdot editors, can we please have a music section? I thought the focus on SCO was bad, but it seems like every day I have to read about some new online music service, some new music technology, some new music legal hassle, some new commentary about how music sharing is helping/hurting the industry, etc.

Fine, I understand if it's interesting to many people. But on the front page every day?!?

Re:OH MY GOD!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a deep breath, relax, and picture your spirit animal. That's it...

Not much of a bubble

[arrogance]

but there are some e-commerce enterprises making money: Yahoo and EBay, for example.

Maybe the creation of new services will level off once the traditional music distribution system is eliminated or rationalized.

Where's the msPod?

[mh_tang]

This quote says is all. "Loudeye Digital Music Store, which uses Microsoft's Windows Media 9 series digital media platform..."

Given the alternatives (mp3 on Kazaa, aac on the iPod) already out there, who is really going to choose to buy their music in .wma format?? I just don't see this really taking off with public. It's a case of too little too late, and trying to copy the iTMS model without really offering anything compelling.

If you want to really be inspired, read this article from Rolling Stone where they interviewed Steve Jobs, who knows how to do this the right way...

And then there's Microsoft. What happens to Apple when they build an iTunes-clone into the Windows desktop?
I think Amazon does pretty well [against Microsoft]. Microsoft hasn't really been able to compete with them -- maybe not wanted to. EBay does pretty well; Google's done pretty well. Actually, AOL's done pretty well -- contrary to a lot of the things people say about them. So there are a lot of examples of people offering services, Internet-based services, that have done quite well. And Apple's in a pretty interesting position. Because, as you may know, almost every song and CD is made on a Mac -- it's recorded on a Mac; it's mixed on a Mac. The artwork's done on a Mac. Almost every artist I've met has an iPod, and most of the music execs now have iPods. And one of the reasons Apple was able to do what we did was because we are perceived by the music industry as the most creative technology company. And now we've created this music store, which I think is nontrivial to copy. I mean, to say that Microsoft can just decide to copy it, and copy it in six months -- that's a big statement. It may not be so easy.

Re:Where's the msPod?

[billtom]

Given the alternatives (mp3 on Kazaa, aac on the iPod) already out there, who is really going to choose to buy their music in .wma format??

Well, non-/. people generally simply don't care about the format. All they care about is: does it play on my stuff (computer and portable) and is the DRM not too restrictive (and is the price right, of course). Really, they *just don't care* about the format.

So Windows users will use a WMA encoded service over the copyright infringing P2P services if they value their time (ie. not having to filter through all the bad/incorrect encodings to find the good one) and don't mind spending money.

And Windows users will use a WMA encoded service over iTMS if they don't use an iPod as their portable device (because very little else supports AAC and the average user doesn't want to do the burn to CD and re-encode as mp3 trick).

OOM

[tr0p]

With the Loudeye Digital Music Store, which uses Microsoft's Windows Media 9 series digital media platform, companies can quickly start their own customized and branded digital music service without having to negotiate with the record labels or create the music-service technology.

Sounds like OOM business design. Now I quickly make $$$ from this by writing "Object-Oriented Music Design Patterns For Dummies" book and patent it, then sell the rights to the RIAA. Keep up the good work, we might be able to bring back the gravy train!

Re:Why would anyone want to pay for music?

[alienhazard]

amen! why pay for gas either? the prices are heinous! just drive off after pumping. And what about food? Why dont we just get it for free by leaving before they give the check? What has this world come to? what has happened to our god given right to free stuff that others work hard to make?

There is no spo^H^H^Hbubble

[Unregistered]

Apple will be the only online music store to survive. Apple makes no profit, so nobody can compete on price points and make a profit. If you charge more people will go to apple instead. Either way, you go bankrupt while apple sells iPods.

btw, i use iTunes for the 1st time today, so it's not 25,000,001 songs downloaded.

Re:There is no spo^H^H^Hbubble

[mcc]

Apple makes no profit, so nobody can compete on price points and make a profit.

Except for Microsoft, who doesn't expect or even try to make a profit on anything except for Windows and Office. And who has an online music store coming out next year.

Re:There is no spo^H^H^Hbubble

[Scudsucker]

But Microsoft practically invented butt pirate DRM. Microsoft can compete on price but I don't see how they are going to compete on ease of use or user exerience. I think the only company that can really compete with Apple is Wal-Mart, and thats because they are well practiced at squeezing every last drop out of their "partners".

Re:There is no spo^H^H^Hbubble

[Unregistered]

shit. Of course, a lot of people (non nerds mostly)are afraid to trust MS with financial info for fear MS will get hacked and the credit card #s stolen. Not that it would happen, but a lot of people think that MS is also running unpatched win me systems. Which is good for the rest of us.

Re:There is no spo^H^H^Hbubble

[Chris Johnson]

Who the hell is going to sign a music industry contract with Microsoft? That's just crazy. They don't have the glamour to attract musicians, and God knows no labels are going to sign off on contracts with Microsoft. Unlike a hell of a lot of other businesses, the music business is no stranger to treachery. It's founded on deep-rooted treachery itself, these are not people who will happily get into bed with Microsoft. This is the only business I know of that's really comparable to MS. The lawyers will never reach an agreement. Each side will be certain the other side is totally untrustworthy and plotting horrible tricks, and that would be perfectly true- no deal.

But Record companies DO PROFIT

[jetkust]

Maybe Apple doesn't make any money on their music store. But the record companies basically get a free distribution system and extra profit at no expense. Money IS being made from this.

Re:But Record companies DO PROFIT

[jc42]

Maybe Apple doesn't make any money on their music store. But the record companies basically get a free distribution system and extra profit at no expense.

And there's an elephant lurking unseen in the corner, to abuse an obvious metaphor.

Apple isn't making money from the iTunes store because the recording companies claim all most of the money. And they don't pass it on to the musicians.

This is very likely doomed. Apple has to be talking to unsigned musicians and small local recording shops. Once iTunes gets really well established, Apple will simply start signing the musicians themselves, and thumb their noses at the recording companies.

They can't do this now, because they need to list the commercial music to work up market share. If Apple had started with unknown musicians, they wouldn't get market share. So they play nice with the recording labels, for a while.

But consider: A couple months ago, I helped a couple of friends make their own CD. They are "unknowns", except in a non-commercial sort of music (which I happen to play as well). So they used a local recording studio to do the recording. They own the master CDs outright. They did a CD run through a local shop, and are distributing it themselves, by word of mouth, personal connections, and a web site. The people who like their kind of music really like the CD, and they'll probably pay off the expenses in a few more weeks.

Suppose Apple were to offer them a deal: List their 24 tracks with iTunes, and split the money, say $.50 for Apple and $.49 for the musicians.

I think they'd jump at it. They still have the CDs. But listing on iTunes would bring in money, unlike signing with a major label. This was done somewhat as a lark, so any income is basically frosting on the cake (to abuse another metaphor).

Meanwhile, there are all those zillions of other good but unknown musicians all around the world. Most of them would never be signed with the major labels, because their music isn't commercial.

But suppose Steve Jobs offered them the same sort of deal. "Use your local recording studio to make your album; give us copies; we'll sell them and give you half the money." The cost to Apple is just the storage and a little management. They pay for this with the first couple of sales, and the rest is profit. The musicians take a bit longer to pay for studio time, but after 100 sales or so, they're getting income from it.

Ya gotta expect that the Apple folks are looking ahead to this.

And we can hope that the future lies with the online distributors who give the musicians a good share of the money.

Re:But Record companies DO PROFIT

[cens0r]

But apple in no way wants to negotiate with 1,000's of independent artists. They are not a record label. They don't have talent scouts. They want a record company to do all that work for them.

Re:But Record companies DO PROFIT

[plierhead]

But apple in no way wants to negotiate with 1,000's of independent artists. They are not a record label. They don't have talent scouts. They want a record company to do all that work for them.

Yep, this is basically what Jobs said in an interview - that the only thing the record companies CAN do well is identify and nurture talent (if shafting them up the ass can be considered nurturing I guess).

That does sound too simple though, and I think Jobs is being economical with the truth. There are doubtless plenty of individuals around who can identify talent - e.g., all those individuals currently employed by the record companies.

What he's really saying is that the record companies can both identify talent, and also, because of their market clout, they can legitimise, brainwash kids with it, turn it into the mainstream.

Pretty soon Apple will have that market clout, even if right now they don't have the talent spotters.

So, yeah, I agree with the grandparent post, some time in the not too distant future, Apple will start working directly with the artists themselves and cutting out the middlemen.

Perhaps the end game is that the record companies become "hollowed out" and their talent scouts, lawyers, publicists etc. become hired guns for the new distributors - like Apple. Once that happens, expect to find your neighbourhood CD shop has morphed into a cafe/listening joint with CD burners in the corners.

Re:Why would anyone want to pay for music?

[Kirk Troll]

Nobody worked hard to make Linkin Park.

But then again... nobody in their right mind would download that shit.

The bubble will burst

[An Onerous Coward]

When Wal-Mart decided to open their own online music service, I started getting skittish. Now I'm positive the whole thing will collapse when any of the following entities announce the creation of their own online music store:

* K-Mart
* Home Depot
* The Municipal Government of Topeka, Kansas
* Richard Stallman
* The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
* Satan
* Hormel Foods
* Gary Coleman
* Rick and Linda's Bait Shop and Outboard Motor Repair (Jump of I-75 at exit 215B, then head north seven miles to the lake. Can't miss it.)

If you see any of these, it's time to sell short.

Re:The bubble will burst

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you put things in at least the right order...

Satan THEN Gary Coleman.

Re:The bubble will burst

[cthrall]

There was a time during the dot com boom when K-Tel Records issued stock and it was trading at close to fifty (historical pricing here). This, for me, was an indicator that we had entered some kind of alternate universe...it was also about the peak of that bubble.

I think if K-Tel offers a successful online music service and the stock goes over $20, we're at the peak of a micro-bubble.

Of course, as with all bubbles, if you can ride the sucker and make some cash, then go for it.

How about just a prefab store?

[MattW]

How about just a pre-fab store, period? Maybe by branding it an "E-Music" store it is suddenly worth thousands upon thousands of dollars. Talk about $50 pickaxes.

Re:How about just a prefab store?

[ScrewMaster]

A dot-com bubble wafted into the air, I assume it burst ... I know not where.

Article text, in case of /. effect.

[grmb1]

Loudeye and Microsoft Enable Branded Digital Music Stores and Services.

Loudeye has teamed with Microsoft to enable the rapid deployment of third party branded digital music stores and services. By combining Windows Media 9 Series with Loudeye's private labeled products and services, companies can rapidly launch a customized digital music store or service for a fraction of the cost of building a solution in house. Microsoft and Loudeye are working with AT&T Wireless, Gibson Audio and others.

Read more about our digital music collaboration with Microsoft, our recently announced branded music products, or contact Loudeye sales directly at 877.502.5488 or email salesteam@loudeye.com to begin your digital music business.

The Loudeye Digital Music Store is a customer-branded, turnkey solution designed for any online business to extend their brand, increase sales, retain customers and differentiate themselves in the marketplace by capitalizing on the popularity of digital music.

Next year, AT&T Wireless plans to be the first wireless carrier in North America to introduce a compelling mobile music offer utilizing Loudeye services and the Windows Media 9 Series platform. The company plans to integrate the online music store experience with all of AT&T Wireless' mMode(TM) capable phones, including the Motorola MPX200 Smartphone, enabling mobile users to discover and purchase music ranging from ringtones to full-length songs.

"As technologies advance and converge, the wireless phone will become the next major platform for music content delivery, and AT&T Wireless will be at the forefront this transformation," said John Bunyan, senior vice president of consumer data offers at AT&T Wireless. "Working with industry leaders like Loudeye and Microsoft, we will ensure it's easy and fun for customers to discover, experience, share, and buy music, while on the move."

The Loudeye Digital Music Store represents the integration of all the components necessary to create, promote and operate a digital music store online from a single company. The Loudeye Digital Music Store can quickly help businesses promote, sell music and leverage cross merchandising opportunities.

The Loudeye Digital Music Store offers the following features:
* Digital music download delivery
* Branded players to provide both live and on-demand audio and video content to end users
* Digital rights management using Windows Media DRM
* Usage reporting and analytics
* Digital music royalty settlement
* Streaming music samples and cover art
* Music metadata
* Rich media ringtunes

The Loudeye iRadio Service offers 100 channels of pre-programmed music delivered through a customer-branded player interface and capable of supporting delivery to a range of consumer music devices and appliances. The iRadio service can be deployed online for retailers, portals and other content companies as well as offline for consumer electronic devices and appliances, digital home entertainment systems and other digital broadcasting outlets.

"Because Gibson is new to consumer electronics, we wanted to make a statement by designing the most comprehensive digital music solution on the market, which for us meant including a powerful digital music service," said Kris Carter, President of Gibson Audio. "Loudeye gave us the ability to give the Wurlitzer Digital Jukebox a full featured digital music service in a fraction of the time, and at a fraction of the cost, it would have taken to develop ourselves."

Both products are built on the Loudeye Media Framework, a complete set of technologies and applications leveraging Loudeye's 6 years of industry experience and $60 million infrastructure investment. The Media Framework is designed to support business models including wireless ringtones, music samples, branded media players, consumer music appliances, Internet radio and digital music downloads.

Re:Why would anyone want to pay for music?

[AKnightCowboy]

amen! why pay for gas either? the prices are heinous! just drive off after pumping. And what about food? Why dont we just get it for free by leaving before they give the check? What has this world come to? what has happened to our god given right to free stuff that others work hard to make?

Another person confusing copyright infringement and theft. *sigh*. If I take your gas and don't pay for it, you don't have the gas to sell to another customer. If I create gas out of thin air that is completely identical to your gas for my own use, you still have your gas to sell and nobody is missing anything. Sharing is GOOD. For Pete's sake, the only people that are against sharing are fscked up RIAA lapdogs who must've been the ones running home to mommy when other kids asked to play with their toys. Selfish pricks.

Re:Remember Netscape?

[Unoti]

Yeah, but Microsoft plays a pretty mean game of catch-up.

Witness: the internet. Back in the day, Microsoft was promoting MSN as a non-internet alternative. TCP/IP wasn't even in Windows. Once they saw that the networking was going IP, they played catch-up pretty well.

Witness: Internet Explorer. Netscape was dominating the browser market for a long time. When Internet Explorer came out, it was terrible technologically. Microsoft was playing catch-up. It seemed ridiculous for Microsoft, this upstart in the internet world, to try to take on Netscape. Netscape had a huge lead.

naturally

[geekoid]

the person who gets rich during the Gold ruch isn't the miners, it's the guy selling shovels.

Re:naturally

[gmhowell]

the person who gets rich during the Gold ruch isn't the miners, it's the guy selling shovels.

Don't forget about the guy who sells pants to the miners.

Same company that "supplied" music to LAMP

[lysander]

This is the same company that dicked over MIT's LAMP project.

Let's hope their clients are getting what they're expecting to get.

Re:Why would anyone want to pay for music?

[Gr33nNight]

But I WILL NOT share my girlfriend. You can copy her all you want though.

PRINCESS LEIA!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The tighter you tighten your grasp, the further the jizz squirts from your penis."

OH YOUR GOD!!!

[SweetAndSourJesus]

If you see a story you don't like, ignore it. Don't come here and tell us that you don't like it. We don't care.

You really need to relax if a slashdot story is making you whip out the exclamation points like that. It's not the end of the world, calm down.

Fine, I understand if it's interesting to many people. But on the front page every day?!?

Yes, for the reasons you stated.

Re:Remember Netscape?

[Sir Pallas]

Oh, I don't disagree. I just think it is funny -- as I recall them recently saying that all OSS could do was play catch-up with them, the Motherland of all Invention. But you're absolutely correct. They do play a mean game. We can only hope they've learned from recent suits and lost customers, a'la governments all over the world. (Israel, China, Brazil) It'll be interesting to see if they can break Apple in this regard, especailly because Apple was greatly helped by a Windows client for their system. This seems like a distributed attack.. we're not going to do it, but we'll get a lot of other people to eat your market.

When will the bubble burst...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wonder when this bubble is going to burst."

When people buy all the old music they want, and they can't sustain on sales of crap-rock, crap-hop and crap-rock.

This Joke is Stolen

[Anonymous Coward]

Doh! Amazon! Google!

Quickly edits crush-em.xls

Thanks for the tip.

B. Gates

I've got an even better idea...

[twofidyKidd]

Why don't I just form a company, sign a bunch of bands to produce lots of content, and then just give it away for free!?!

Anybody care to buy stock now?

Caveat Emptor

[LoD at MIT]

One caution, especially for those considering using this service. Loudeye are the guys who screwed the pooch for the MIT LAMP system by selling material that they did not have the right to actually sell.

Quick backstory: MIT bought MP3s on hard drives from Loudeye to broadcast over MIT cable channels, which they have an ASCAP liscense for. Before the purchase, MIT asked Loudeye to verify that they could in fact sell MIT the music for this purpose. Loudeye indicated that they had the rights.

Of course, they day the system launched, the RIAA sat up and began complaining that Loudeye actually had no such rights.

Yeah. The lesson here? Always save the receipts...

Re:Caveat Emptor

[shamino0]

One caution, especially for those considering using this service. Loudeye are the guys who screwed the pooch for the MIT LAMP system by selling material that they did not have the right to actually sell.

I can see it now. Millions of people buy on-line music and download DRM-protected WMA files from Loudeye-based sites. Then the RIAA announces that Loudeye has no rights to be selling music and immediately sends threatening letters to Loudeye's customers (that's you and I). Meanwhile, Microsoft issues a patch for Media Player that revokes all of Loudeye's DRM keys, making the files unplayable.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a distinct possibility here?

Does that mean

[Anonymous Coward]

I will be able to purchase my WMA Britney Spears music on Slashdot.org?

Music section?

[freeweed]

Slashdot editors, can we please have a music section?

Isn't that what the little icon of a gramaphone stands for? The one right up top of the page there?

Re:Music section?

[Night Goat]

I think the original poster meant a section like YRO, BSD, Apple, Games, etc. Because as you pointed out, yes, there is a TOPIC for music. The sections are the things on the left, right underneath your personal preferences.

Re:Why would anyone want to pay for music?

[freeweed]

Good deal. I'll just need to borrow her for a few nights while I do my "genetic extraction".

*cough*

Attack of the Clones

[violet16]

This is very similar to a story a few days ago about Destra Music, the first online music retailer in Australia. Destra turns out to not really be a retailer: when you visit their site, it asks you to select from 9 familiar bricks n' mortar retailers. Then you're taken to that retailer's "store," which is identical to the other 8 retailers' stores except for the logo and theme colours. That is, instead of a single ITMS or Amazon-style store, we have 9 cloned, prefab stores.

What benefit does this hold for the consumer? The only one I can think of is that people who have particularly warm fuzzy feelings about one of these retailers can choose them over the others.

The real reason behind it, I suspect, is channel management. The record industry doesn't want to upset the retailers, so they're helping them remain at the cyber-storefront -- even though the retailers have no expertise (or real interest) in online sales, and nothing to offer of any benefit besides a logo.

The Destra Music site is awful -- it looks like a 16-year-old kid whipped it up in his lunch break. And it will probably stay awful, because none of these 9 retailers have any incentive to improve it -- why bother, when your competitors are using the same software?

Prefabricated music stores might work out well for LoudEye, just like Cisco did pretty well out of the tech bubble. But the consumer doesn't need a proliferation of near-identical stores.

Too bad...

[dgulbran]

I was hoping "Off the Shelf" meant something different... I'm sure that the RIAA would have a cow with this, but I'd love it...

A store that stocked CDs and the MP3 versions of the albums... I buy the "CD" on-line and get instant MP3s of the album I now *own*. Then they can slow boat the CD to me any ol' way... instant gratification, I have the CD that I wanted anyway, I don't have to rip it when I get it, and I get instant gratification.

Re:Too bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, what happens when you cancel your order?

Re:Too bad...

[acceleriter]

It was called mp3.com (before the first RIAA lawsuit). It's gone now.

Burst?

[Sebby]

I don't know if it'll really burst.

The way I see it, this is like when domain names were set free and available by anyone to sell. Except that song can be sold more than once.

If anything, I think we'll see prices fall the same way they fell for domain names with all the competition.

This is not HALF as important as...

[Moryath]

Russ Feingold betraying us all and allying with spammers to beg for campaign donations.

The Slashdot editors rejected the story, along with sending emails yelling at me for saying bad things about a Democrat.

Typical Slashdot bullshit. What do we really expect -- CmdrTaco probably runs a spam operation from his basement.

Backlash coming when beebs lose their purchases

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, this is gearing for major consumer backlash once all the me-too music stores come crashing down and fools lose their music because the authentication servers are not available anymore (i.e., music cannot be migrated to a new PC, etc.)

Wise people should purchase from the likely survivors only.

I feel very comfy buying from that beleaguered computer company, Apple.

But fools will want the government to come save them from their mistakes. Mark my words!

Placing TINY little ads!

[genericacct]

This sounds like an infomercial. We provide the software and the service, and all you have to do is cash the checks! It's so easy! Just listen to these successful clients!

Re:Why would anyone want to pay for music?

[GospelHead821]

Neither analogy is good, but yours is worse. If you create gasoline out of thin air, your new gasoline is just as good as the old gasoline. They're the same stuff. Now, if you'd like to commit to the idea that all new music is identical to old music (please, no boy band/Britney Spears comments), then perhaps this argument holds. However, the reason that music is valuable isn't because it is scarce, which is why gasoline is valuable, but because it is new, unusual, different. If it were cliche and uninnovative, it wouldn't be worthwhile music. Now, what are scarce are sources of worthwhile music. If you decide that music isn't worth paying for since, after all, it can be reproduced for free, then you'll lose the interest of those sources of music. They'll go do something else that puts food on the table, instead. So, to answer the question, I want to pay for music, since I enjoy having something new to listen to, every once in a while.

Insightful? Try asinine

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe this is *insightful*. If you prevent someone from getting paid for their product, that *is* theft. Don't forget, copyright infringement affects people on the lower rungs of the music income ladder, such as song writers, older artists who never made much money (i.e. jazz musicians), etc. If people want to "Open Source" their work, whether software or music, that's fine. Doesn't give others the right to steal it, if they don't chose to do so.

Re:Remember Netscape?

[Anonymous Coward]

I do, disagree that is.

Let's take a look at why Netscape failed.

1. IE was free. Ok, Netscape was free too if you knew how to get it for free. But it was more obvious how to get free IE.

Most of the money from iTMS goes to the record label. This is true of the WMA based stores too. This sets a minimum price. For most people with decent jobs, the difference between .99 and .89 or .79 isn't much. I know there are a few cheapskates out there that count every penny. But most people aren't penny counters.

2. Bundling

One reason netscape was crushed, was because MS bundled IE with every windows box.

MS has an advantage on Windows Boxes, in that it can bundle a MS Music store. Apple likewise has iTunes bundled on all Macs.

Apple has already done a deal with AOL. Who to say Apple doesn't start doing deals with other OEM, to pre-load iTunes on Windows boxes.

3. Netscape got caught sleeping.

I hope Apple doesn't get caught napping. Apple needs to keep making the store better. And keep iTMS has the gold standard in online music shopping.

4. iPod/iTunes

Ok, the iPod/iTunes has nothing to do with Netscape's fall. iPods/iTunes are both #1 right now. If Apple can make an economyIpod (eIpod), That has say 1 GB for $100, then Apple will make a killing in the lower end MP3 player market, and ensure iPOD stays at #1.

Re:Remember Netscape?

[aldoman]

Thats not catchup. That is just monopoly. If Microsoft didn't have Windows installed on 90+% of machines do you still think they would of 'caught up' with netscape?

Re:Why would anyone want to pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop acting like you have a girlfriend. This is slashdot - we all know the truth.

Why isn't MS going at it directly?

[YouHaveSnail]

It seems strange that Microsoft is trying to "help" other companies produce online music stores, rather than starting its own. They've never really been afraid to compete, particularly when they have a strong hand to play. So what's the up side of this for Microsoft? Does it help them mitigate their risk in a new market? Is it that they figure that lots of music stores are going to pop up one way or another, and they want a piece of all of 'em? Are they trying to keep a low profile to avoid more antitrust litigation?

In short, why has Microsoft decided to share this pie rather than take the whole thing?

Re:Why isn't MS going at it directly?

[nicodaemos]

Because as others have already noted, the guys selling picks and shovels are the ones who make money during gold rushes.

Secondly, Microsoft is trying to seed the world with their proprietary wma format - that's the first wave of the assault. The second wave comes when/if their formats are the default - they then launch their music service that seamlessly works with your pc, pda and phone.

You see, first it was their operating system that helped sell applications. Then their OS helped sell PDA's and phones (well not really phones, but let's pretend for a minute). Now that their OS is under assault, their thinking is that their media format may become the common denominator.

WMA may become the driver to sell their OS, pda's, phones, etc.

Re:Why isn't MS going at it directly?

[iso]

They're helping because they want to push WMA to as many services as possible. They don't care who wins, just as long as the winner is using their DRM.

Also, Microsoft has never been a company that jumps into an emerging market. Their behaviour is down to a science:

1) wait for an emerging market to mature and for the major players to drift up to the top
2) offer to buy the largest player at slightly less than they're worth
3) if they refuse, put hundreds of millions of dollars into developing a competing service or product.

They did it with browsers, game consoles, webmail, you name it. Microsoft will do what they do best -- sit back and wait and then throw their money at the best bet. They call this "innovation."

Repo Business

[JM Apocalypse]

Yes, it's going to be a golden age for the repo business. One which shall never end.

Re:Why would anyone want to pay for music?

[AKnightCowboy]

However, the reason that music is valuable isn't because it is scarce, which is why gasoline is valuable, but because it is new, unusual, different.

Then why does a Beatles CD cost the same today as it did in 1985 (adjusting for inflation and the like). If the reason music is valuable is because it is new then "old" songs from 2 or 3 years ago or longer should be free because who would buy them?

Re:Why would anyone want to pay for music?

[cthrall]

> Another person confusing copyright infringement
> and theft. *sigh*.

Another justification for copyright infringement. *sigh*.

So...if you write some code/a book/content that I find valuable/enjoyable, you don't mind if I take it and don't pay for it? Sweet dude.

Come on...REACH for that rationalization that makes it ok to get stuff for free and feel massively indignant when asked to pay for it!

Re:Why would anyone want to pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks to her webcam and secret exhibitionist tendencys when your not around, we already do.

Richard Stallman

[Anonymous Coward]

* Richard Stallman

here's a sneak preview at RMS's music video debut!

The point was it referred

[Anonymous Coward]

to Troy, not a virus, the virus meaning was totally dependent upon Greek mythology, as the virus meaning=f(troy) where f!=unity=FALSE.

Re:Remember Netscape?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats not catchup. That is just monopoly. If Microsoft didn't have Windows installed on 90+% of machines do you still think they would of 'caught up' with netscape?

Well, the default installs probably helped a lot, in that it got a lot of people testing IE, which gave MS a lot of feedback. But there's no denying that there was a definite point where IE became undeniably superior to Netscape. By version 4 IE had taken the technological lead, and when IE5 came out it left Netscape 4.x far behind.

If IE had stagnated at version 4 and been content to match Netscape featurewise, Netscape probably wouldv'e maintained a significant marketshare. But even if IE hadn't been installed by default, by the time IE5 rolled out people would've been downloading it *instead* of Netscape, simply because Netscape 4.x was really weak by comparison.

Netscape dropped the ball. IE kicked ass fair and square. For what purpose, it's hard to say, because in the end it really didn't buy MS that much to have won the browser war. What's the point of fighting over a free product? Just to get MSN as the default home page?

Anyway, without IE in competition, it's unlikely that Netscape would've become Mozilla, and we'd probably be years behind where we are now with standards compliance (HTML, XHTML, CSS, etc). It was a good thing. Done for all the wrong reasons by a loathsome company, but beneficial to most of us in the end.

Or even better...

[xixax]

Let's start a company where we get bands to sign up to giant loans at extortionate rates that we then spend on their behalf by deliberately choosing really crap distribution models that involve shipping slivers of acrylic all over the world. If anyone comes up with a parallel path for musicians, we'll use our artists money to lobby, sue and legislate them out of existence.

Xix.

Clever Marketing Dominance Idea

[goombah99]

THis is really clever on microsofts part. Already their on-message press releases about iTuns have always crytically emphasized that users want flexibility. This of course never made any sense since WMA is not more flexible that AAC.

But soon they will be able to say there are 9785+ competing online music stores selling WMA music versus just one place to get your AAC music. This will make a good sound bite. Even though all these are just MS shell companies and as soon as the profit is there MS will bring them into the fold. In the meantime everyone else gets to bear the risks, spend themarketing dollars. MS just collects checks.

Re:Clever Marketing Dominance Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

do you know what a shell company is?

Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.

And you're too busy being a cum-guzzling whore to do either.

Did MIT get it in writing?

[msimm]

If they didn't then shame on both of them. How did Loudeye come out?

This will knock Apple out of the competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Apple isn't very good at selling anything cheap, they'll be knocked out of the market by people able to cut costs and charge below $1 for a song, and operate on razor thin profit margins.

Serious Answer

[jasonditz]

"I wonder when this bubble is going to burst."

Wait until Time Magazine runs an article saying what a great idea it is to start your own online music service... the bubble will have burst a couple weeks prior to that.

Re:Better still...

[ex-songwriter]

Let's sit at home and bitch about business models we don't understand, live off our parents, and play video games that we paid $50 a piece for until our eyes bug out while paying $1 a can for the sugar water we chug all day.

Re:what bubble? - um - no Apple makes more

[Ralph Spoilsport]

True, Apple makes about 5 cents a song from itunes.

Ummmm, no. IIRC, Apple makes 40 cents. The record company makes 60, and out of that 60, 5 goes to the rights holder / musician.

HW

Re:Why would anyone want to pay for music?

[ex-songwriter]

Wrong. I'm not an RIAA lapdog, and I'm against "sharing." As a songwriter who doesn't record or tour, if you download a song I wrote without paying for it, I don't get paid. I get 8 cents per song I write per CD (or digital copy) SOLD. Sharing is NOT good for me. Just curious, what do you do for a living? And how would you like it (or pay your bills) if your didn't get paid for the work that you do?

Re:I forgot to mention...

[ex-songwriter]

You're an idiot. Sorry, my mistake.

Bandwagon - LOLx3

[salesgeek]

Call me back when all these online music peddlers are able to compete on price... Oh wait, the music industry would never fix prices.

Re:Better still...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll thank you NOT to refer to Mountain Dew as "sugar water" !!!

Re:Why would anyone want to pay for music?

[Ohreally_factor]

Me, I'd prefer doing a genetic injection on her.

realaudio stream . . . too bad

[capt.mellow]

Sorry, I can't stand the buggy realplayer, and will not install it ever again. Can't they (pastemusic) do a shoutcast stream?

Re:realaudio stream . . . too bad

[LetterJ]

Gift horse . . . mouth . . . If there's one thing I can't stand about "geek culture" it's the incessant complaining about details while missing the primary point. My point is that there is innovative music out there that isn't in the mainstream and isn't "obscure for the sake of being obscure". Geeks complain over and over that they don't want to buy music without previewing it first. Then, when someone puts up samples, they're not in the right format or high enough quality or long enough, etc. I posted in response to both what was said and what I've seen posted in these conversations before. Frequently someone posts, offering their non-RIAA music and then pulling out their rare, Dutch-import death metal or German techno as an example, leaving most people believing that leaving the beaten path also means leaving their favorite music behind.

If you don't like RealAudio, just download the MP3's directly or subscribe to the magazine and get the sampler CDs (you know, regular CDs) that come with every issue. It's not like they only provide one way to sample the music. If you'd like another format, ask them.

Re:realaudio stream . . . too bad

[capt.mellow]

LetterJ, your point is well taken (although it came across as petulant), but believe me, I was already ahead of you on resolving this. I sent an email to Pastemusic w/ my complaint, and the exchange was positive. I was interested in the alternative music at Pastemusic, otherwise I wouldn't have checked out your recommended link. There is nothing wrong with giving/receiving complaints--feedback is essential to improving a product or service. I am always seeking feedback on identifying problems or obtaining new ideas--and I don't take anything personally. And neither did Nick of Pastemusic, as you'll see below:
-----

We're rebuilding the whole thing in the next few months and believe us, Real is finished on Paste. We'll have mp3 streams....

Nick

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 9:16 PM
To: mail@pastemusic.com
Subject: realaudio stream? why not shoutcast?

I was referred to your site in a slashdot.org thread, but was disappointed to see that your stream was realaudio. I cannot stand the buggy realplayer, & I will never again install it. Why don't you set up an ogg or mp3 stream?

Pop

[Ingolfke]

There it went.

A blessing in disguise?

[PaulWay]

Personally I think this is good news.

Everyone vaguely into getting digital music knows Apple and iTunes now. As Steve Jobs implied, Apple is the brand that we associate with creative technology solutions. Like Amazon, Google or eBay, iTunes is getting to be the default, most popular option because it's well known and has a good range. The answer will simply be "Why go anywhere else?" When each of these smaller offerings has a tiny fraction of the range and is hard to use or offers bad service - and lets face it bad news goes around faster than good - who will want to take their chance with a new micro-distributor when you can go to iTunes (or get the music some other how).

Look at it another way. I don't shop online at any store that I also shop in person at. This is almost always because either the shopping interface sucks, they don't sell things online to my area (like fruit and veges), or the range of products is poor. So all these places that should have the money and the products to muscle in on anyone in the same field of business online is actually failing to do so. I know of several that have scaled back their online presence or cut it altogether after the initial fanfare.

So having a whole bunch of new players in the digital music distribution game pollutes the new players' names. I'm pretty sure that Apple will continue to hold its brand name high - and that it'll continue to make money out of iPods and other cool gear. Even if they're big brands or have big muscle, they'll never do as well as Apple in this regard.

IMO Microsoft has effectively kicked all its would-be helpers in the pants with this one.

Paul

Re:Why would anyone want to pay for music?

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual, a comment flat-out advocating copyright infringement is modded up as Insightful. I agree that, by definition, copyright infringement and theft are compeletely different and mostly unrelated. However, this doesn't make copyright infringement any more acceptable than theft. The problem with slashbots like you is you just don't want to pay. If you weren't going to buy it anyway, then you shouldn't keep a copy of it. If you keep a copy of it, then you obviously find some value in it and should reimburse the creator (if he so desires). If there are no safeguards in place, what incentive is there for content creators? For Christ's sake, even the GPL provides coders with protection!

Why is it that every single time someone violates the GPL, every single slashbot whines and bitches.
Then, every single time copyright infringement in terms of music comes up, every single slashbot advocates "pirating" music?
Copyright is copyright. You can't enforce the GPL and NOT enforce copyrights on music!

Maybe the one that WORKS will win

[Infonaut]

Here's a strange concept that Microsoft and Loudeye might not grasp:

The iTunes Music Store has been successful because Apple has meticulously assembled a set of products and services that act in a virtually seamless fashion.

Apple understands that subscription-based services are not what consumers want.

They understand that all of the little interface details you put in the online store are vitally important in making purchasing music actually more inviting and fun than using a P2P service.

Apple knows that people want to use their music on their computer at home, their computer at work, and their iPod. So they built in DRM but didn't make it draconian.

In short, this is not a "slap it together and people will use it" stand-alone web app. This is a set of complimentary hardware and software created with an intense focus on providing consumers something they love while keeping the record labels happy.

There's also the matter of the platform the iTMS runs on. It didn't come from Microsoft, and my guess is any Microsoft-based software "solution" will come complete with a host of security issues that are foreign to the iTMS.

Finally, if consumers get confused, it will not be for lack of a great digital music suite. And this time around, Apple isn't content to rest on its laurels.

A Open Source Music store?

[corralesroad]

If someone puts this together Loudeye and MS whould be an also ran. I can see some good uses for a "Music Store" you could download ringtones, etc, etc. For a small business. Throw in various encodings Ogg, AAC, MP3.

another music model to look at...

[muletaper]

livephish.com has supposedly been profitable from day one. another site with a similiar model has recently emerged -- www.digitalsoundboard.net three hours of FLAC for $13. wonder when their bubble will burst.

oh god, where does it stop?

[munboy]

isn't there enough online music stuff? when roxio jumped on the bandwagon i thought it was gonna end. walmart was too much. WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY too much. now this? like i said, where does it stop???? Muneer

RadioPIE

[JurgenThor]

tried this, they folded

Napster

[Geeyzus]

For what it's worth, my mom uses Napster.

I thought nobody would use that, but there is a definite reason to. If you have a straight-up MP3 only player, it doesn't play AAC files. She specifically is using Napster over KaZaA or any free alternatives because of the fear of being sued. But she can't use iTunes because of the AAC format.

Yes, I know you COULD use iTunes, by getting the AAC files, burning to CD via iTunes, and ripping it to MP3, but would anyone really do that when there is a much cheaper and easier alternative out there? I doubt it. Definitely, my mom would not be one to do something that complicated. Plus, the price is the same... 99c a track I believe.

I don't think many music stores can survive, but I don't see why Napster won't along iTunes, just because of the MP3 format vs AAC.

Mark

Loudeye?

[PurpleBob]

These are the same people who sold MIT their database of "legal" streamable music for the LAMP system. When the RIAA came down on MIT, MIT pointed to Loudeye and said "They said it was legal", and Loudeye essentially said "Uh, did we? Sorry, we meant, uh, legal to not do anything with."

Unless they back up the legality of their product, the music database that Loudeye sells is no different from Kazaa.

Wrong both of you

[xintegerx]

If you read the article, apple makes 0 cents from this. Absolutely no money. They only make money on the hardware (ipods)

Bubble??

[nametaken]

"I wonder when this bubble is going to burst."

Uh, done and done.

You're talking about the gross, anyway

[artemis67]

I read recently that Apple spent $125 million on marketing iTunes & the iPod, so even if you divide that expense evenly between the two divisions, it still puts iTMS way into in the red.

BTW, I seem to recall that Apple's gross per song was 25, not 40.

Hooray!

[arothmanmusic]

And since it's WM9-based and therefor Mac-incompatible, they don't have to worry about competing with iTunes at all!

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

That is good, open source based broadcasting.