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."
there are activex plugins for Mozilla folks..
look in the moz project directory
Don't Tread on OpenSource
128kbps AAC is at least as good as 192 kbps mp3's. That's not just what I think. Regardless, the poster is overlooking the fact that he's comparing apple's with oranges, as it were.
Anyone know how 160kbps VBR Windows Media Format compares to 128 AAC?
Aren't the specifications of "160kbps" and "VBR" mutually exclusive?
Sure you're not falling for the old megahertz trap there?
Higher quality because, in independant double-blind tests, people could hear the difference? Or higher quality because this-here number is bigger'n that one?
C'mon people, this is /. not cnet. I thought after watching Intel & AMD play the numbers game for years we'd be wise to this stuff. Seems not. Seems all Microsoft has to do is publish a bigger number, and we're all ready to slap "higher quality" on it without even a cursory look at file sizes, compression standards, or those pesky things like some kind of semi-objective test.
But this one goes up to eleven....
HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS
* Windows 98 SE, Windows 2000, or Windows XP
* Internet Explorer 5.01 (or later), which supports 128-bit encryption
* Windows Media Player 7.1 (or later), we recommend the latest version
* A 233 megahertz (MHz) processor (such as an Intel Pentium II or Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) processor) or faster
* 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM or more
* Speakers and sound capability
* Payment with a valid credit card with a U.S. billing address
* To enjoy high-quality audio as a Radio Plus subscriber, you will need Windows Media Player 9 Series (or later)
A little further down the page
Enable cookies[...]You must be an administrator on the computer in order for the ActiveX control to install properly. You need not be an admin to use the service once the control has been installed.
(All scripting options need to be enabled too)
So why would I need to enable cookies to download music, or have administrator rights, just to visit a site...
Details: Herebecause what you can't do is leverage one monopoly to make another.
Apple didn't started with a monopoly to become #1 for music players and digital music stores, that's the difference.
(I'm not an apple fan)
#include "coucou.h"
Because iTunes is available for both Windows and Mac, which leaves only *nix zealots pissy. And, of course, if you legally purchase albums the old fashioned way (CD), you can put any songs you *do* manage to rip to MP3 from them onto an iPod as well.
(No, I'm not an Appleite. I use one at work; I dislike it about as much as I dislike the Windows PC and the Linux PC I use at home. If someone wants to give me a Solaris laptop, I'll be happy to add that to my equal-opportunity despite.)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
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?
There are *plenty* of alternative mp3/minidisk/mp3cd players out there. Just because Apple is the sole provider for their product doesn't make it a monopoly.
Not that they are the sole provider... My roomate, for example, rips all his cds and puts the tracks on his iPod (he's still not even *close* to the 40GB limit), and I'm sure there are several other sites you can (legally) use to download music. Napster has become legit now, hasn't it?
-nova20
Microsoft has a pretty firm grip on the operating system market. It uses that grip to co-opt other markets, such as that for web browsers and media players. I understand that this is referred to as "an abuse of monopoly powers."
Apple has a monopoly on squat. True, it has a pretty big share of the music download business, and an extremely nice portion of the portable music player market. There is still some life left in those areas for other companies, though, and it's hard to see what vaguely-related business they could stomp on with their new-found musical might.
DRM still sucks though, no matter what the source. I'd still trust Apple more not to shaft us that MS, though.
Among the system requirements of the music store are these:
:-P
(from the FAQ at Microsoft)
- ActiveX controls and plug-ins -> Download signed ActiveX controls: choose "enabled" or "prompt"
- ActiveX controls and plug-ins -> Script ActiveX controls marked safe for scripting: choose "enabled"
- Scripting -> Active Scripting: choose "enabled"
- Miscellaneous -> Navigate sub Frames across different domains: choose "enabled"
You also need to install the ActiveX Control to use MSN Music with administrator rights.
Of course, if you're using an insecure configuration of IE, this is already your settings. Otherwise, you need to setup a new Internet Zone for Windows Media Player with these low security settings and cross your fingers there'll never ever be any exploits to run code in WMP 10's security zone. There's already a well-known exploit in the wild for IE that will work if Active Scripting is enabled (was that scrollbar trick recently in the news, I think).
Don't you just love the implications of IE integration with media players and all sorts of other stuff?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
There's already cheaper higher quality music out there.....at emusic.com. Its 192kpbs VBR there and average at about .23 cents a song ( it's a subscription plan).
IMO the selection there is better than you will find
at any of the competitors.
- I got my free iPod and a free Nintendo DS....why not
Neither MSN nor iTunes has the Beatles.
I think you're being a bit generous to WMA there. It's just terrible. It kinda looks like the person who posted this article had the whole Apple should open up their stuff a bit agends (not that I disagree) and wanted Slashdot readers to go off emailing Apple about it.
... it's the same goddam crap you'll find no problem on any of the P2P music-stealing programs.
One of the reasons I'd gladly pay for downloading music is because it's old or obscure and I can't find it elsewhere. If I wanted Britney Spears or some crap like that, all I'd have to do is look for it on any P2P program and I'd get a billion results.
Do they think people's motivation for using pay-to-download site will just be the fact that it's legal?
One of the many things I hate. thingsihate.org
Check out www.allofmp3.com
$0.01 per Mbyte, you can choose between ogg/mp3/wma an mpgeg-4 aac (compatible with iPod and iTunes). Also you can choose between bitrates up to 384 bps.
Therefore an average song costs between $0.05 and $0.15 depending on the bitrate you desire.
Some CD's they have in CD-DA (uncompressed!) format for $0.02 per Mbyte (or approx $13 for a long CD)
They have a database of about 250.000 songs.
Ok so they are based in Russia, but it is legal there (royalties are paid). Don't know if it is legal in other contries to use their service.
Interesting how MS requires IE for this, while the rest of the world is recommending dumping IE for alternatives like Mozilla and Firefox.
A computer without Windows is like a cake without mustard.
Those tests/reviews you linked to are old (heise.de using beta release) and invalid (vorbis.com using WMA8).
The best way to know the difference is to test with the music YOU listen at. There are vast differences in perceptable quality between the diferent codecs depending on the type of music you listen to.
Do not judge something because someone else said so.
In my testing with both classical music and metal WMA9 comes out usually ahead.
I don't use WMA for my audio compression though, and honestly, don't know anyone that does either. My computer-literate friends and family use MP3; those that don't have now mostly switched to iTunes! I guess there must be a heap of people that just use WMP for everything though.
The best service I've found for this kind of thing is allofmp3.com. You can encode music as at any bitrate (you can pick custom bitrates and it does on the fly encoding), in any format (mp3/wma/ogg/mpeg-4/mpc/lossless) including downloading the original cd data.
It costs $10 per GB you download and is legal (because of strange Russian copyright laws).
What might be interesting is if Codeweavers makes this work on Linux with their WINE-based CrossOver product then both iTunes and MSN Music Store would be available to Linux users. While I'm not a big fan of WINE, philosophically, I am not so against it that I can't appreciate the irony of Microsoft and Apple having made products that Linux users end up having access to, despite having been specifically excluded by the creators of those products.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
It's disingenuous at best for them to claim that the iPod's a "closed" device. It plays MP3 AAC and WAV files just fine. No Digital Restrictions Management required.
MS and Real are both allowing export to a restriction-free format to enable use of music purchased from them in other devices (CD players) that do not support their DRM scheme. If they really wanted their music to play on the iPod they could do the same thing with no more ill effect to their business model. Why won't they do that? It must be a misguided gambit to increase market share. And that's fine. They're businesses and naturally want to increase their market share. But don't misrepresent your competition as more closed than you are when that's clearly not the case.
Feh. The iTMS is cheap, easy, and works on both my Mac and my PC. Its songs play just fine on my iPod, and I can easily burn them to CD. I am happy with the quality of its songs. It's going to take something more compelling than this to draw my attention. It doesn't even look like their music catalog is any better.
.sig: file not found
This may sound strange to some, but I don't think this web site will do very well at all. As a UI designer and someone who spends a lot of his time on usability. The MSN store is horrible. It is very hard to navigate and there are design logic mistakes everywhere.
:o)
But this comes to no suprise. As many of you may have noticed over the last few months images on the microsoft site have been artifacted beyond belief, they need to fire the kid that does their graphics and web UI's; seriously. Like come on, opposing gradients? WTF!?
Anyway, here is my point, the people being targeted on this MSN project are not you and me, it's mom and dad and those out-of-the-techie-loop friends of yours. Which from a designer's perspective require a very SIMPLE UI. Not to mention, these are the people that don't understand the web security stuff or DRM and will drop this fast out of frustration. I predict a major redesign over the next few months, this service will fail simply because people won't be able to find and do what they want.
Rant rant rant....
-- Bored? Check out my Portfolio
Duh. No drm, pick your bit rate, works GREAT. and CHEAP.
As a test I tried to buy a piece of music...
1) Provided my hotmail login (passport)
2) My credit card was on file (which is scary since I haven't purchased anything from them in years.
3) The credit card on file had expired in 2003 and the expiry date was correct on the MSN Music Store page (correctly showing as expired)
4) The store allowed me to purchase the music anyway, the credit card is from Canada and the address on file is from a hotel in the US. Not only did they not verify CC information but it's expired
5) When I check my account via the 'Microsoft Billing" page it shows 'Unbilled Activity for MSN Music' and shows my song purchase, so they bill after a certain period without even checking the credit card on file?
Huge potential for abuse here... It'll probably change pretty quickly.
Firms in oligopoly cannot compete on price.
If MSN undercuts iTunes, iTunes will simply lower their price. End result? Less profit for both.
Therefore, firms in oligopoly must compete on quality of services.
Get a free iPod
From Microsoft's music store FAQ: 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. source
Does this remind anyone else of Real's recent petition to whip up public opinion against Apple?
In the same FAQ answer, Microsoft offers a workaround for getting music purchased from the MSN store on to your iPod:
[I]t 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.
I appreciate how open Microsoft is to defeating their own DRM.
The aqua buttons are enough.
It takes a conscious effort to copy because there is no one right way to do anything. That is the essence of creativity. If you can't come up with a better idea that doesn't mean that the best idea has already been found. It just means you can't come up with a better idea.
Any first year design student would be embarrassed to create this design because any first year design student this would see this as plagiarism. Believe it or not, but every blank canvas does not pull itself to Apple's very strong design aesthetic.
The Quintessential Player can open an MS DRM file and save it as MP3 (or other format) -- but of course this is decoding and recoding (lossy process), not the nice "remove decryption layer" we get with hymn.
MORTAR COMBAT!
erm, so I should complain to Apple that my iPod won't work with the MSN Music Store? Or any other store for that matter? My iPod works with my Mac and my friend's PCs, and both can run iTunes, which is better by a long shot than all the other stores, and on Linux? well, that's moot because its hard enough to get my iPod working, let alone some way to access the music stores...
I'll just stick to using my iPod with the iTMS
e to the pi i plus one equals zero
They can wave their arms and gripe all day about the iPod not supporting WMA, but the bottom line is that Apple's not doing anything to prevent Microsoft themselves from supporting DRMd WMA files in Windows Media Player for Mac. If their appeals for openness were genuine, as opposed to strictly self-serving, a good place to start would be to make their own DRM compatible with their own media player on OS X.
Since MS doesn't mind taking a bath on the X-box hardware, how soon till we see an MS mp3/wma player that is significantly undercutting the IPod? It seems like a sound strategy to make the store more viable.
free online diet tracking.
1. If Apple had it's way, the Hymn project would be dead.
Irrelevant, especailly since it has been out for so long now - obviosuly Apple cannot kill it. You are only speculating when you say Apple wishes it were dead. They tried a half-hearted attempt to not read the Hymn files then gave up.
2. Hymn (and playfair before it) didn't out until quite a while after the iTunes Music Store appeared. The MSN Music Store just opened up on a beta basis yesterday. Give it time.
But MS DRM, the same DRM that's in use now, has been around FOREVER. Much longer than ITMS has been around. Apple's DRM is far more "cracker friendly" as it were. Part of that is not having the tricky stuff like support for files expiring, which MS DRM does offer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sure is sad when makeing money gets in the way of making things work.
I just came from helping a friend burn her first on-line purchaed songs from Microsoft. Too bad they will be her last. Between downloading the songs, getting them into Music Match with the rest of her songs, and then burning them on a CD (after being sure to buy the right CD-RW media that will work with her 4X burner) the songs still weren't able to be played on her portable jukebox, which was the purpose of the whole exercise.
"Next time, I'll just buy a CD", she resolved after she spent $15 on-line, wasted 4 CD-RWs along with three hours of her time (and one of mine).
This is the scenario that unfortunately awaits so many folks tempted into legal music downloading by disjointed services looking for a piece of the action.
In my opinion, it is only the complete solutions (at this time only provided by, by by no means limited to, Apple) that will prevail.
I say this because of the stark contrast of this friend's experience when compared to my Mac owning cousin of equal computer illiteracy. He, a year ago, sat down and bought a couple CD's of music from the iTunes Music Store, burned them, and was off and running in an hour, including music catalog browse time.
I don't know what the future holds for on-line music, and I know Micorosft is really gearing up for on-line video so it doesn't give Apple the foothold, but my recommendation is that if the solution is not complete, no company will be able to provide just a slice of the action and be successful.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.