Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Opens MSN Music Store
pbranes writes "Microsoft has opened their online music store today with 1 million songs and it will be officially opened tomorrow when Windows Media Player 10 is released. Music costs $0.99 and $9.90 for albums ($0.09 less than iTunes). Also, music is at a higher quality - 160kbps VBR. You can browse the site with Mozilla, however, ActiveX is required for full functionality so IE is required to use the store. Also, Microsoft takes a hit at Apple for not licensing iPod functionality to third parties (kind of ironic when ActiveX is required to use the site).... If you are an iPod owner already and unhappy about this policy, you are welcome to send feedback to Apple requesting that they change their interoperability policy."
Active X? Are you serious? You must be joking? You want me to use WHAT?
NO SOUP FOR YOU, BILLY!
Appologies in advance to you Appleites out there and please be gentle :)
BUT.... How can the monopolies commission come down like a ton of bricks on Microsoft for locking people into a technology, when the only way you can legally download music for the iPod is through iTunes? Surely by not licensing their DRM technology, Apple are creating an equal monopoly for the vast number of iTunes users out there?
And I'd be interested to know if any Apple fans could answer - why does this not bother you?
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
Finally, we have some real competition to Apple's monopoly of online music stores. This is what competition is all about. Microsoft is offering higher quality music, and at lower prices.
This can only be a good thing to consumers, to have another choice. And given Microsoft's reputation at playing catchup and sprinting ahead, I would not be surprised if Apple starts running scared.
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
one of the many reasons I and other people use mozilla (instead of IE) is to AVOID activex controls.
Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
With all of the securty holes in it. You have to be living on the bleeding edge of getting screwed. I did and got hack. That was the was the last time I used IE for anything.
Okay, I don't have an iPod, so I may be confused here, but I thought iPods could load mp3s, right? So all Microsoft has to do in order to load songs to an iPod is to sell you an mp3.
And hasn't Real already figured out how to properly encrypt a song to load on an iPod? So MS could use that approach, too, and sell DRM-enabled songs that would load directly to the iPod. (and don't even start me on whether that's legal or not -- it clearly is, under interoperability clauses, though it'll probably take a court ruling to get that through people's heads).
Sounds to me like MS is *choosing* not to support iPods.
I already have an iPod and I already use iTunes and I am perfectly happy with both. Plus, Apple is perceived to be "cool" (at the moment) whereas Microsoft is "uncool", so I can't see people switching.
You better bet that M$ is going to be rolling out the marketing machine on this baby, and spending money Apple could never dream of matching...
They have Radiohead, that's all I care about. I've been waiting for months for it to be added to iTunes. That's what most people will be looking for anyway: does this store carry the music I want? Most people don't even know what an OS is.
I think that the key here is "any Windows developer". Look at the second word, and try to remember who sells THAT particular software.
ActiveX sucks. AAC does not suck. (and WMA sucks.)
That's the difference.
Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)
seemed to me to be mostly the same as what itunes came out with.. I can't find anything on there (that i know and like) that I cant find more of on itunes
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
It's not even funny how much KDE/GNOME resemble Windows, right down to the colors, look, and feel of the desktop. There's even a start menu!
It's not even funny how much Windows resembles MacOS, right down to the colors, look, and feel of the desktop. There's even a recycle bin/garbage can!
It's not even funny how much MacOS resembles the desktop interface at Xerox PARC, right down to the colors, look, and feel. There's even a mouse!
Seems that no one can even design a retail OS without plagerizing someone else's UI.
Typical Microsoft bashing. I use iTunes and
Apple requires me to download their software
to browse the iTunes store. Why, then, is
Microsoft so wrong in using their own technology
to run their store?
Apple has yet to run into any serious competition. This is great news for consumers, because it means that prices will start moving downward and bit rates will start moving upward. I would buy a lot more music from iTunes if they would sell it uncompressed. The AAC compression clips the bass, so it's not a good value if you like songs with a lot of bass in them.
Bullshit. I'm looking at both right now and the only similarities I'm seeing are with the album artwork being placed next to the album title and information. Call out the National Guard, storm the Redmond campus.
/. hoping to score a little karma. Congratulations, you're officially a whore.
Why not just say you think it's unfair that Apple isn't given free reign over online digital music sales and distribution and no one else, especially Microsoft, should be allowed to compete. That's what you're really thinking, but instead you pull some old and tired anti-Microsoft diatribe out of your ass and post it to
I really wish the mods would pull their heads out of their ass and determine if a comment is full of shit or not before modding it up like this. All it took was to open the MSN Music Store in a web browser, open iTunes, then switch back and forth a little. While these two UIs have some similarities, it's clear the MSN Music Store is not a blatant rip-off of the iTunes store. In fact, I happen to prefer the MSN Music Store UI to the iTunes one.
There is no such word as "virii".
I love the, "How dare Apple stifle consumer choice by not opening up the iPod!" when in order to use their music store you have to use their OS, their browser and their media player.
Yes, Microsoft, they are all about "choice."
Last I checked, MSIE isn't exactly losing to those browsers.
> So why would I need to enable cookies to download music, or have administrator rights, just to visit a site...
You don't. But you do need administrator rights to install software to enable the store functionality (that's what the ActiveX control is). You might as well ask, why do I need administrator rights to (install iTunes to) buy from the iTunes Music Store?
Of course it works fine under ME. However, MS has been trying to systematically erase our memory that ME ever existed.
Ironic, that Microsoft asks that Apple customers complain of the lack of open standards for the iPod. The same company that will not share it WMA standard among many other things (Windows, IE...)
Gee, this is wonderful. I'm thinking of all the people who I've helped out by disabling activeX downloads on their machine thus making them spyware free who will now blindly follow these directions.
>choose "enabled" or "prompt"
Yeah, enabled is the way to go. Why get bothered with an annoying prompt when shady companies want to install software on your machine!
Welcome to the world of Bonzai Buddies, mystery pauses and crashes, and no privacy! I hope you enjoy your new ever changing homepage too!
Its like it would kill MS to divest from activeX.
Yuck!
Unsandboxed Windows-only binary executables run via your web browser -- that's not how the web's supposed to work.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Bitrate and sound quality are not the same thing.
In fact, bitrate and sound quality are only relevant for a particular encoding scheme. For instance, I could take a 128kbps AAC (aka, "mp4" or m4a) file and compare that to a 160kbps mp3 file, and the lower bitrate AAC file usually would sound better than the mp3 (or at the very least would sound the same as the mp3). Because AAC (which, by the way, is an open standard defined by the MPEG Group) is a better encoding mechanism than mp3, you can produce a smaller file with a lower bitrate and still capture the same quality (if not higher) of an mp3.
So bringing this point to the current discussion, we know that Microsoft is offering downloads at a higher bitrate, but who says the quality is better? If it is, then it's better than what? A 128kbps Windows Media File?
I think the question is this: how does a 128kbps AAC file (like you would get from iTunes Music Store) compare in actual sound quality (not bitrate) to a 160kbps Windows Media file from Microsoft's site?
"If you are an iPod owner already and unhappy about this policy, you are welcome to send feedback to Apple requesting that they change their interoperability policy."
How about we start writing to microsoft about changing their policy about Word Document files so that they could be 100% compatible with other word editors? How about we write to microsoft about releasing the source of the Windows API so Linux users could run windows apps flawlessy without having to resort to hacks like WINE?.... I could go on and on...
Microsoft has no right to complain about closed standards when they are the biggest violators of this crime. I have never, in my life, seen a more hypocritic statement.
To determine quality, we should hook it up to a spectrum analyzer. From that, we'll determine the dynamic range. The best formats should have a higher dynamic range to file size ratio.
You might be surprised which format wins out.
MHz don't matter!
KB/s dont' matter!
Both are false.
Lets agree that AAC will sound better than MP3 at 128kb/s.
I've heard people claim 160 kb/s MP3's are equal to 128kb/s AAC's. Great. Fine.
Lets compare apples to apples. 192kb/s AAC's will sound better than 128kb/s AAC's. You can't argue around that, because its inarguable. Its almost a trivial statement... day is bright, night is dark. Its in that category.
By the same token, if we make the MP3 bit rate high enough, it will sound better than an AAC at a lower bitrate. Again, inarguable. This is simply a fact.
For myself, I think a 256kb/s MP3 sounds better than any 128kb/s AAC.
Of course, I think 128kb/s is too low to encode music, but I understand a lot of you guys actually listen to music on those iPod earbuds and thus you are incapable of hearing a difference.
Perhaps its best for you to say "When I listen on my iPod earbuds, I can't hear a difference. Of course, I think FM radio sounds pretty good too, so I'm an easily satisfied person".
That would be accurate. The rest of what you say is simply, er, nonsense.
Quality is about reproduction, not bit rate. WMA is an insult to the ears.
Yes, because the majority of those billion results are about 150K in size and are actually viruses. That is great that you want to find obscure music, but to be successful and make inroads on people who continue to steal music, these companies have to offer the popular artists.
Do they think people's motivation for using pay-to-download site will just be the fact that it's legal?
Imagine that idea, people might do the legal thing when presented a legal alternative. But there are other reasons as well. I can tell you that after iTMS came out, I have not downloaded an illegal song. I was given a legal alternative that works well. I do not have to install P2P clients that come loaded with spyware and I do not have to weed through Code Red, Blaster, Nimda or whatever viruses are spread through those networks. Those are the better reasons for moving off of P2P clients.
Well, Mac users don't seem to have a problem with DRM-laden AAC files, so what's the difference?
Here is a link to a multi-format double-blind listening test of several codecs at 128kbps. Not to give away the ending, but LAME MP3 and iTunes AAC are tied in 2nd place, behind Ogg. Somehow I doubt that 192k LAME MP3 is inferior to 128k AAC.
It's amazing how many computing "problems" can be solved by using existing industry standards instead of creating lock-in prototocols and licensing. In the end most businesses prefer open standards where they can leverage competition between implementations.
With the number of applications for simple security wrappers on various media content for delivery, it's clear that the attempts to "patent" the idea of any form of content-specific data delivery is silly. You need a security envelope, a transport or media, and a secure playback facility.
The rest is just competing on the details of quality, reliability, and price as perceived by the customer, not by the RIAA/MPAA or other media manager.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Worse yet, you will find no documentation telling you which of the available bitrates is the "original". Is it the 384k CBR or is it the 320k VBR? How 'bout the tracks for which neither of those is available. How do you pick the one that is "the original source" to avoid double-lossy encoding?
Some review site claimed to have the answer (it's been referenced here before). If I recall they said it was 320k VBR mp3. So ideally you'd select that format to get tracks that are encoded only once. Problem is, just try to find tracks at that bitrate. They're rare, meaning the review is probably wrong and you still don't know which file to download to get the one that is only encoded once.
Amy
Because when you download and install iTunes, you don't have to configure your browser to accept any other crack that happens to be sitting in ActiveX packages on the same server.
ActiveX is the second biggest security hole in Microsoft's browser, and one of the reasons it "loses" the competition is because you can turn it off. Forcing you to turn it on again is just plain wrong.
Where did he get this figure? MSN Music site itself says they have over a million.
Mossberg thinks eventually MS will catch up.
Right. Version 3 will probably be slick. Hey, you know, the site design is already pretty clean and easy. The focus is clearly on the music, almost the detriment of the site itself.
I dont have an iPod or any other portable music player, so file compatiblity is really a non-issue for me. The reason I will stick with iTunes and eschew the MS site is simple - I like the fact that iTunes is a stand-alone client that has full GUI functionality and doesnt require a constant web connection. I can bring my laptop when I travel and even without an internet connection listen to music, create playlists, etc. Plus, the user interface is so much nicer than being "hobbled" by having to do everything within a web browser. Can Microsoft offer that?
And if the way we experienced music was through a spectrum analyzer I would agree with you. Do you let your dick or a computer program tell you what a hot girl is? Alright maybe the wrong question.
No, but IMHO, this is another one of those features that Microsoft is coming out with that they will attach to Longhorn once it is released, thereby quashing all competition as it will be (heavily) advertised in the OS.
"Would you like to add a Passport to Windows XP?"
Sound familiar?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Don't laugh too hard.
Ms getting into the content distrobution market is especially scary. If IE and a number of other windows apps are any testament, MS may very well throw DRM out there in their next version of WMP or just autoinstall it through some undocumented API on your machine when you visit their site for support. All of a sudden, the other music companies DRM becomes invalid, and MS's rules supreme on PC's with their DRM and their music store which is the only store from which you can buy music from which'll work.
Did I also mention they're adding in a virus scanner, and that virus scanner may decide to uninstall p2p apps or block websites deemed by MS as virus havens?
Then how many years/decades will it take the DOJ to kill the monopoly?
I'v got my tin foil hat, how bout you?
Candy-Coated Knowledge
From the MSN Music Site...
How can I get MSN Music downloads to play on my iPod?
Although Apple computers and Apple iPods do not support the PC standard WindowsMedia format for music, it is still possible to transfer MSN Music downloads to an iPod, but it will require some extra effort. To transfer MSN-downloaded music to an iPod, you need to first create a CD with the music, and then you need to import that CD into iTunes. This process will convert the music into a format that can play on the iPod.We're sorry that this isn't easier - unfortunately Apple refuses to allow other companies to integrate with the iPod's proprietary music format.If you are an iPod owner already and unhappy about this policy, you are welcome to send feedback to Apple requesting that they change their interoperability policy.
First off, WMA is only a "standard" on Windows not all PCs, and only because MS makes it so. The iPod plays a lot formats (MP3, AAC, WAV, AIF, Audible, Apple Lossless), just not WMA. The only proprietary format the iPod uses is the DRM attached to AAC files purchased from the iTunes Music Store. And that is the iPod owner's choice if they buy music online. It sounds like sour grapes because MS isn't making the licensing fees that would be attached to every iPod that plays WMA format.
There must not be any advantage for Apple to support WMA or they would have by now. Sure they could sell iPods that would work with other music stores, but that may just cut down the sales from the iTMS.
Besides, I don't see MS shipping a compatible version of WiMP or IE so Mac users can use the store, and even on Windows you have to use IE (or an ActiveX compatible one) as your browser. MS shouldn't point the finger at Apple when they are using proprietary formats themselves.
Plus MS apologizing for a lack of ease of use, that's a first, but they're putting the blame on Apple for this. And the balls they have to get people to tell Apple that Apple should change their interoperability policy...HA!