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 ($0.09 less than iTunes). Also, music is at a higher quality - 160kbps VBR. You can browse the site with Mozilla, however, ActiveX is required for full functionality so IE is required to use the store. Also, Microsoft takes a hit at Apple for not licensing iPod functionality to third parties (kind of ironic when ActiveX is required to use the site).... If you are an iPod owner already and unhappy about this policy, you are welcome to send feedback to Apple requesting that they change their interoperability policy."
one of the many reasons I and other people use mozilla (instead of IE) is to AVOID activex controls.
Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I already have an iPod and I already use iTunes and I am perfectly happy with both. Plus, Apple is perceived to be "cool" (at the moment) whereas Microsoft is "uncool", so I can't see people switching.
You better bet that M$ is going to be rolling out the marketing machine on this baby, and spending money Apple could never dream of matching...
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?
"Locking people into a technology" is not inconsistent with healthy competition (ref. Playstation vs. Xbox vs. Gamecube - all of these lock users into a technology, but compete plenty). Microsoft has been accused of leveraging a dominating position in one market (operating systems) to compete unfairly in related markets (browsers, media players). So it is "competing unfairly" that is the complaint, not walled-garden technology.
This is of course the legal aspect. You can still choose to dislike Apple for the iTunes model. Some might also choose to sell the stock, as failing to license is a mistake that has already proved disasterous for Apple once (can you say: Mac vs. PC?).
The only common DRM formats out there are Apple's AAC FairPlay and WMA.
Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)
Apple's policies are meant to lock you into their technology and service, but you are free to choose any of the many alternatives to the iPod. Perhaps they are hoping to create a monopoly, by making the iPod the nr 1. choice... it'll have to do so on its own merits against the competition.
Microsoft on the other hand uses an existing monopoly in the Operating System market, to push other technology down your throat and locking out competitors (as well as use strongarm tactics on vendors). That's why they are in trouble with the watchdogs.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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.
If iTunes / iPods accounted for 90% of the music player market
They're not that far off.
and if Apple were trying to leverage this market share to take over other markets, I might agree with you.
Like, leveraging a near-monopoly on legal music downloads to take over the portable digital music player market?
Currently, I believe Apple is absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing related to the iTMS and iPod; they both enjoy great success simply by being the best* service and product (respectively) available. However, Apple does need to proceed carefully, as their market share grows further.
It will be interesting to see how big a dent Microsoft's marketing wizards can make in Apple's market share. That's what will really set Microsoft apart from the competition.
* Other players may be better than the iPod in some way, but when all factors are taken into consideration (including things like style, and availability of ridiculously overpriced specialized accessories), the iPod is the clear winner for most people
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
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?
You are right on the money. Apple has not invented anything other than a DRM scheme, as the file format for an AAC audio file is defined by the MPEG group. You can find out more information at www.m4a.com, including a list of players that are capable of playing AAC audio.
So Apple is using an open standards media format for playing content - regular mp3s, non-DRM'd AAC (or m4a) files, in addition to a DRM'd version of AAC. Everybody seems to slam Apple for being jerks about the DRM mechanism, "I should be able to make a million copies of that song", or "i want to play this song on some other player". But people consistently miss a fundamenetal point: the iTunes Music Store is a store, they sell products, and if they don't sell products you like, go shop somewhere else.
Are you gonna slam a record shop for only carrying vinyl when you want to buy CDs? No, you would just go to a record store that sells CDs (or whatever other medium you're looking for). If you want to buy music and play it on your Linux box, or you want to convert it into Ogg Vorbis, go buy it somewhere else. I half-expect to hear things like this from the iTunes Music Store slamming crowd: "McDonald's doesn't have any good vegetarian options for me, I'm going to sue them!", "I can't buy a steak at a donut shop, those bastards!", etc.
I'm not trying to be flamebait here, I'm serious. I really do not understand why so many people can blame a business for selling a different range of products than you might like. People, that's not how our economy works. If I sell products and people buy them, then I am meeting a demand and have market support.. If my product is not what people want (think RealPlayer subscription b.s.), people will not pay for it.
The other key point that seems lost on so many people is that, prior to (and even after) Apple's introduction of the iTunes Music Store with their very specific DRM mechanism, no other store had the same kind of awesome content, most music stores sucked (or still do), and consumers didn't give a shit. What's different with Apple is that they devised a DRM scheme that the record companies were happy with, and now they have hundreds of thousands of songs, many of which are awesome. Why is it Apple's fault that they recognized (and followed-through with) what it takes to play with the big boys in Hollywood?
Personally, I think it's a bullshit reason to not participate in online sales which doesn't have to be defended because it's "artistic" in origin. I guess these artists don't like their songs played singly on the radio, either? Or single videos on MTV? Whatever.
If you're a radiohead fan, are you really going to wait months for their already-released albums to be available online? I don't get it when people complain about artists they like not being sold, if you're a fan, you already have the albums.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
Exactly. Microsoft says,
We're sorry that this isn't easier - unfortunately Apple refuses to allow other companies to integrate with the iPod's proprietary music format.
Which is entirely untrue. The iPod plays industry standard mp4 and AAC (part of the mpeg4 standard, not a proprietary Apple standard as some think). What MS really means is, "Sorry, but we haven't been able to convince Apple its in their best interest to license our proprietary music format.
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!