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."

Comments

One Pondering Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the music from MS become integrated with my OS once downloaded it can never be separated?

Re:One Pondering Question

[TheSpoom]

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?

Re:One Pondering Question

[TyrranzzX]

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?

acitveX for moz

[linuxislandsucks]

there are activex plugins for Mozilla folks..

look in the moz project directory

Re:acitveX for moz

[David_Bloom]

one of the many reasons I and other people use mozilla (instead of IE) is to AVOID activex controls.

Re:acitveX for moz

[StevenHenderson]

Do you expect anyone using Mozilla to want to buy from the MSN music store anyways? I think most Moz users would rather die than have a drm-laden WMA file on their comp...

Re:acitveX for moz

[nova20]

there are activex plugins for Mozilla folks..

Gee, why don't I just go and install Banzai Buddy (or some such crap) and save myself the trouble?

-nova20

Re:acitveX for moz

[Oxy the moron]

I would agree with you in that I avoid ActiveX.... when possible.

However, at work I am forced into using ActiveX because of our company software. I trust my own corporate software to not hack my computer and do other nasty things, so I have no problems using the ActiveX plugin on a limited basis here. Aside from that, I leave ActiveX alone.

Re:acitveX for moz

[David_Bloom]

Your argument is completely incoherent, but ill respond anyway.

ActiveX sucks. AAC does not suck. (and WMA sucks.)

That's the difference.

Re:acitveX for moz

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:acitveX for moz

[1010011010]

Yuck!

Unsandboxed Windows-only binary executables run via your web browser -- that's not how the web's supposed to work.

Re:acitveX for moz

[alienw]

Well, Mac users don't seem to have a problem with DRM-laden AAC files, so what's the difference?

Re:acitveX for moz

[The Infamous Grimace]

umm dude, do you even know what AAC is?

Umm, dude, do you?

Apples codec is far superior to WMA...because of it's lossless charachter

AAC (Advanced Audio Codec) is the successor to MP3. It's also known as M4A (unprotected) and M4P (protected, or DRM'd). AAC is not lossless; that would be the Apple Lossless Encoder, which claims to be able to compress to half the size of uncompressed with no loss of sound quality. Mention of it is made on Apple's site here and here.

(tig)

Re:acitveX for moz

[ImaLamer]

Funny, I wrote that comment (and this one) from XP.

I'm quite happy with Windows XP as an OS. Kernel + User Land is nice.

IE is the flaw. People ask me how to get rid of spyware, two things... no more porn, but if you must use something other than IE.

IE being part of the "OS" is the problem.

I have SP2 btw... the problem. ActiveX applications that I did use won't work now and won't un-install. Seems that it's so secure, I can't even get it to run stuff I allow it to. No shit. I click "allow" and nothing. I have to keep clicking "allow". Still nothing.

If you think I'm lying lets look at how many anti-spyware/adware programs I have installed, then look at yours.

Plus, most of my problems aren't with the software, it's the practices. (For example. Diskeeper is made by Executive software, it's expensive. But defrag is also made by Executive software... why should I upgrade to something I already have? Scheduling? Got that in XP. See, it's a shell game with the features. Is it over here? Over there?)

I'm not anti-microsoft... I'm anti-badproductsandproductswhonoplayniciewithme... .

That simple.

Re:acitveX for moz

[Frizzle Fry]

It's very funny that you quote him accusing you of basing your arguments off old systems, and then reply with an argument based on old systems.

In case you didn't know, on XP SP2, the "Are you sure?" dialogs are largely replaced (mainly within IE) with a modeless "infobar" at the top of the window that you can easily ignore and that you have to explicitly click on and go through a menu to unblock whatever "unsafe" behavior just got blocked (like a file download or activex). There is no in your face dialog to which you can accidentally say Ok.

After this was first seen (as an IE feature) in the SP2 beta, Mozilla copied it. From mozillazine:

The most recent Firefox nightlies feature a new user-interface to manage the XPInstall whitelist. When a user tries to install software from a site that is not on the whitelist, a thin non-modal yellow bar appears at the top of the content area, informing the user that the install has been blocked (bug 241705). A button allows the user to add the site to the whitelist if they choose. Testers of the beta release of Windows XP Service Pack 2 will probably find the yellow bar familiar: it's almost a carbon copy of the new Internet Explorer Information Bar that appears when an ActiveX control is blocked.

Oops, are we not supposed to talk about that here? I know that acknowledging when Microsoft adds something good or fixes one of their problems violates the party line that Microsoft never "innovates" and that OSS never copies from them, so feel free to go back to bragging about how stable linux is compared to Win95.

Macs need not apply

[Anonymous Coward]

These are the minimum requirements to play radio or purchase music from MSN.

HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS

Windows 98 SE, Windows 2000, or Windows XP
Internet Explorer5.01 (or later), which supports 128-bit encryption
Windows Media Player7.1 (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)

Re:Macs need not apply

[StevenHenderson]

Funny how WinME need not apply as well... :)

Re:Macs need not apply

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it works fine under ME. However, MS has been trying to systematically erase our memory that ME ever existed.

Monopoly?

[Gilesx]

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?

Re:Monopoly?

[goynang]

Er, the iPod plays normal mp3's as well as AACs.

If you can legally download an mp3 song then you can play it on your ipod.

Re:Monopoly?

[Apathetic1]

If iTunes / iPods accounted for 90% of the music player market and if Apple were trying to leverage this market share to take over other markets, I might agree with you.

Disclaimer: I don't really fit your "Apple fan" description since the last time I owned Apple hardware was in the 1980s.

Re:Monopoly?

[Slashbot Hive-Mind]

Not to further fuel the flames, but it's not quite that straightforward.

I think part of the problem is that folks are looking at AAC as 'Apple's format.' It's not. AAC -- Advanced Audio Coding -- is an open standard; there's an ISO number for it, and it was come up with by the MPEG standards group. AAC is to MPEG4 what MP3 (MPEG1 Audio Layer 3) was to the original MPEG. AAC itself is quite widely played by software players -- more than just iTunes -- and is more or less the intended successor to MP3. (NOTE: Intended. I make no predictions about whether or not it will actually happen.)

Where you can point the finger at Apple is on their DRM implementation on top of AAC; that's not part of the AAC specification, and so means that while an un-protected AAC file can play on iTunes, WinAmp, etc., a protected iTunes Music Store one cannot. THIS is a little unfortunate; I'd love to be able to load protected AAC onto my NetMD minidisc player without having to burn it to CD first.

WMA makes me more nervous as a format, because as far as I know it's controlled by a single entity (Microsoft) instead of an open group (MPEG standards group). However, it can't be discounted that WMA's integration of DRM has made it the more attractive commercial option for folks, since it's possible to make differing players handle the same DRM-protected files.

Whether or not AAC with some form of DRM will catch on remains to be seen, I guess.

Re:Monopoly?

[dago]

because 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)

Re:Monopoly?

[mrscott]

First, I'm a technologyt agnostic kinda guy. I like Apple's stuff, like some of MS's stuff, like Linux, etc.

Second, the "monopolies commission" can come down like a ton of bricks on Microsoft because they are using their monopoly position to further themselves in the marketplace. Other companies can hardly be established, let alone successful, in certain arenas. The classic example here was MS leveraging their Windows desktop monopoly to crush Netscape.

Apple, on the other hand, enjoys no such monopoly. Sure, they don't license their DRM technology, but this is for competitive reasons in a market in which their is ample room for competition. Apple has no "lock" on the market like MS has on theirs. A monopoly is not created by a company selling a device and trying to lock you into that device. This would be a monopolistic situation if Apple had 98% market share and bundled iTunes with the operating system and would let it only work on iPods at the same time they were actively trying to crush other music services.

I'm not sure how clear this explanation was, but I hope it makes sense.

Re:Monopoly?

[abb3w]

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?

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.)

Re:Monopoly?

[rm -rf /etc/*]

Monopolies are defined by an artificially created barrier of entry to a market. In other words, apple can use whatever technology that interacts or doesn't with other types of music or hardware, that's fine. If, on the other hand, apple were to sell their iPod for $5 and make it so that after your computer is set up for the iPod no other music player would work, then that would be getting into monopoly territory. The iPod is by no means a monopoly, you have a choice. If you don't like the fact that it means you have to use the iTunes music store (which of course you don't, it's just the easiest way) then you can buy another player, of which there are plenty on the market.

Re:Monopoly?

[nova20]

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

Re:Monopoly?

[LemonYellow]

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.

Re:Monopoly?

[pkaral]

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?).

Re:Monopoly?

[JaredOfEuropa]

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?

There's no law against having a monopoly... the Monopoly Watchdogs come down on you for abusing your monopoly.

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.

Re:Monopoly?

[generic-man]

They Might Be Giants sells unprotected 256 kbit MP3s of their catalog for 99 cents per song or $9.99 per album.

Epitonic sells a much more diverse catalog and offers songs in MP3 format.

Re:Monopoly?

[Ohreally_factor]

If you can legally download an mp3 song then you can play it on your ipod.

Uh, you can play "illegally" downloaded mp3s as well. I did it once just to test it. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Re:Monopoly?

[tombuon]

Um, where did all this "only way to legally download music for the iPod" come from anyway? I can get legal music from Real to play on my iPod. Two choices does not a monopoly make. Secondly, WMA formatted music can easily be converted to other formats with a little help from third party freeware, EasyWMA is one example. What's to bother? The iPod is far more flexible than most non-pods realize.

Re:Monopoly?

[Phroggy]

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

Re:Monopoly?

[mst76]

It should be noted that while AAC is "open", it is patent encumbered. If you want to write a software AAC encoder or player, you need to pay Dolby. Although there are open source decoders, their legal status is unclear. Of course, you also need to pay Microsoft for WMA, bit it is a little cheaper.

The same applies to Fraunhofer for MP3 if I believe, although I can't find pricing information right now. Unfortunately, the most free and open format lacks market penetration.

Re:Monopoly?

[kaan]

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?

Re:Monopoly?

[twbecker]

2 points:

1) You agree to be locked in when you buy an iPod, just like you agree to be locked in to Memory Stick when you buy virtually any Sony consumer product, etc. There is nothing monopolistic about a vendor trying to lock you in.

2) You have a choice. Lots of them, actually. There are plenty of other music players on the market, and some of them are actually quite good.

Re:Monopoly?

[cwaldrip]

Sure... AllOfMP3.com. It's in Russia, but it's legit (there are legit businesses in Russia). They accept credit cards and paypal.

They have a huge library of music, albiet not as large as Real's, Apple's, or probably Microsofts.

Most songs can be downloaded in one of several formats (unprotected AAC, MP3, lossless, etc). You can even specify the encoding level (160 VBR, etc).

And the best part - most songs are $.01 (1 cent) per megabyte. The site isn't breaking the laws of its parent country (using Russian Federation Copywrite law).

Re:Monopoly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple was selling iPods.
Nobody was providing Apple with a satisfying DRM solution (DRM needed because if you want to sell music, you need the music, and majors want DRM). And let's not talk about Windows DRM, it is not standard either, and it is from Microsoft for Godsake (do we want them to have control over all things?)

iPod users were turning into big fans of electronically encoded music.
iPod users want to buy music online.
Apple sees it as a win-win approach.
So Apple decides to cater for its iPod buyers (its clients!) and creates a store, hoping (feeling) that if the store is good, more people will come to the iPod for the quality experience provided all along the chain.
(Apple has a habit of wanting to control the user experience, not to withdraw choice and lock her in, but to offer the best possible experience. Some may disagree with it, but mac users do enjoy the fact that someone has made things simpler for them to be productive and have fun fun technology. Everything has a price, the benefit of paying Apple's are huge)

Apple has no lock-in monopoly. (We coudl say: Apple has a "voluntary monopoly" on people who are making an informed choice to use Apple's products. No nasty surprise there, sorry)

If you don't like iTunes + iPod, don't buy it.
if you don't like iTMS, you might not like other stores then, they are far worse to use. Then buy CDs (and boycott protected cds)

If you like the iPod, what is the harm in buying from the best laid-out, most easy to use, and more usage-friendly DRM-equiped store? Want more music? Lobby the majors to license it, Apple also wants to offer as much music as possible to its users.

Apple has no monopoly, the potential growth for the music donwloading market is HUGE. And everybody DOES have a choice (funny they still choose to buy from iTMS in droves, and funny they WANT an iPod). Apple is just blamed for being successful this time (usually it is blamed for being an apparent failure, or already dead, so it is a nice change though)

This is fundamentally different from
- having a monopoly on an operating system,
- having in the past been judged (but not really condemned for that, by the way) as a monopoly,
- having a dodgey history of anticompetitive practises and strong arming competitiors,
- and today deciding to use that leverage for entering the music donwload market, hoping to REALLY lock in people in the future on said operating system.

I find it ludicrous that people are now complaining about a company offering a best of breed service to ITS clients.

Or maybe is this from people jealous of their neighbours' ipod, or cheapos who never understand that quality has a price, or those that are irrritated than Sony cannot stop making half baked products?

if you are just irritated of all this uncompatibility in DRM, the issue is DRM, not the various flavours of it. Take it to the Majors, lobby your MPs or else.
But letting MS have a total control on who can play what where is definitely not going to change this. On the contrary.

Re:Monopoly?

[shotfeel]

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.

Did you notice the type of available music?

[human bean]

Makes Columbia House look good. On the other hand, what the public wants, the public gets...

Re:Did you notice the type of available music?

[Dogers]

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

More info

[Saluton_Mondo]

The BBC also has some info

URL for Re:acitveX for moz

[edgrale]

The url for the ActiveX Plugin

160kbps VBR - Higher Quality ? I think not.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:160kbps VBR - Higher Quality ? I think not.

[abb3w]

The poster is overlooking the fact that he's comparing apple's with oranges, as it were.

This is Microsoft we're talking about here. Apple's with lemons is more likely.

Re:160kbps VBR - Higher Quality ? I think not.

[mst76]

> 128kbps AAC is at least as good as 192 kbps mp3's. That's not just what I think.

A 134kbps (VBR) Lame-encoded MP3 sounds almost as good as a 128kbps iTunes AAC. (In the final analysis, they're statistically indistinguishable.) I highly doubt a 192kbps MP3 can't beat a 128kbps AAC. But neither is as good as a well tuned Ogg Vorbis (aoTuV) encoding.

Re:160kbps VBR - Higher Quality ? I think not.

[getch();]

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.

Re:160kbps VBR - Higher Quality ? I think not.

[badasscat]

128kbps AAC is at least as good as 192 kbps mp3's. That's not just what I think.

Apparently, it is. You can see that LAME MP3 actually does better than iTunes AAC on about half the tests - and at approximately the same bit rate. The overall results are extremely close.

I actually took part in that listening test. This was a double-blind test (like all of Roberto's listening tests) so I had no idea what codec I was listening to, and I could barely tell any difference between any of them. It was only a little better than random chance that I could pick out any compressed format vs. the original. I almost gave up. And I consider myself a pretty picky listener.

The fact that so many of these results are up near 5 - including for MP3 - shows that all codecs sound very good at ~128k. You could argue that MP3 had a 6k advantage (the MP3 files were VBR and averaged out to 134kbps), but that's not going to make much difference. And anyway, your statement about 128kbps AAC vs. 192kbps MP3 is clearly moot. 128k AAC and ~128k MP3 both sound very good, and so close are their overall results that any difference is probably not statistically significant. I doubt you'd hear much improvement in a 192kbps VBR MP3, but you'd probably hear some, so I doubt your statement is true even in an absolute sense.

Apple likes to perpetuate this myth that the codec they use sounds better than MP3. The fact is you'd almost never be able to tell the difference even at the same bit rate. The difference between AAC and WMA is a little greater, but I still doubt you'd be able to notice it with most types of music. If you'd taken this test too you'd probably agree.

Not that it matters to me; I rip all of my own music to 256 or 320kbps VBR MP3's using LAME. That way I'm ensured of compatibility with any music player and I have great sound.

Feedback

[abb3w]

And to whom would we send feedback about the Microsoft's Music Store lack of interoperability with a Mac (even when using IE), or the tiny problem with the beta.music.msn.com Security Certificate ("The identity certificate issuer is unknown"-- probably a byproduct of the Passport Login)?

Re:Feedback

[Socket Scientist]

I actually did send them feedback already. Taking great pains not to appear trollish, I asked them why they continually referred to Apple's DRMd files as proprietary, but never used that word to describe their own system. I also suggested that their campaign (and Real's) to "open the iPod" would resonate better with informed consumers if their own DRMd files were cross-platform compatible like Apple's. For those of us who run both platforms, Apple's is the only solution that works for all of our computers.

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.

Quality?

[Del Vach]

Anyone know how 160kbps VBR Windows Media Format compares to 128 AAC?

Re:Quality?

[MetaMarty]

Allofmp3 offers you the choice in what format you would like to have your music. You can get mp3, ogg, wma and flac. So yes, they do offer lossless music. I'd rather support the russion mob than the RIAA mob.

Re:Quality?

[Graff]

I believe the iTMS AAC is CBR, so the MSN service has definitely better quality.

iTMS AAC is a type of VBR known as ABR (Average Bit Rate). Instead of the frames being a variable number of bytes they are instead grouped into blocks of a constant size. This means that you can have variable-sized frames that have a constant, dependable size over the long-run. ABR is pretty much as good as regular VBR but it is a better format for streaming because of the regularity of the average bit rate.

There is an explanation of the formats here.

Re:Quality?

[Insightfill]

AAC actually allows multiple formats, or bit-rate controls. Some folks over at HydrogenAudio's forums had taken some AAC files from iTunes and looked at the bitrate as it varied. It seemed from their observations that the AAC files were wildly VBR for the first few seconds, and then settled down to a CBR. May be some logic going through guessing a quality level off the start of the song - dunno.

Generally, you're allowed much the same as MP3: ABR with small bit reservoir, ABR with regular bit reservoir, ABR with NO bit reservoir (essentially - CBR) and pure VBR.

Hydrogen Audio Link Here

I don't understand

[and by]

Aren't the specifications of "160kbps" and "VBR" mutually exclusive?

Re:I don't understand

[David_Bloom]

No.

2 pass VBR, the average bitrate is 160.

Linkage....

[Oxy the moron]

Mozilla ActiveX Plugin

Re:Linkage....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Kerry/Edwards - so much crap, you need two Johns just to hold it all..."

You're making bathroom humor jokes when your candidate is named Bush? You're making this stuff too easy...

Re:Linkage....

[weekendgeek]

Actually, they're Bush and Dick. Not really much thought needed to make any joke about that.

Re:Linkage....

[AstroDrabb]

That link is to the Mozilla ActiveX Control. That lets you use the Mozilla browser (gecko) in your own applications. Just like you can build your own browser interface with IE, you can do it with Mozilla/Gecko using that control. It won't let you run ActiveX plugins from within Mozilla/Firefox. For that you need the Mozilla ActiveX plug-in.

IPOD Owners taking a hit?

[Alpha_Traveller]

I don't look at having to burn a CD to bring it into my IPOD a problem. I'm going to want to back up ANYTHING I download from Microsoft anyway, especially if there's any concern that virii might be involved at some time in the future.. I can eliminate any possiblity of a virus arriving on my IPOD by pushing it to CD first. Best to keep MS's Banannas away from my Apples.

Higher quality?

[Howzer]

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....

Re:Higher quality?

[timeOday]

I hope you feel better now. But since WMA beats AAC even at 128 kpbs, there's little doubt that the MS offering is higher quality than iTunes. Add to that the higher bitrate, and it's a slam dunk over 128 kbps AAC.

Commence critiquing the benchmark, but at least try to find an equally or more credible benchmark that has different findings. From everything I've seen the believe that WMA just must suck is wishful thinking.

As for the MHz "myth," MHz is perfectly fine for comparing within a single architecture (or codec), and about as fair as any other benchmark for comparing between architectures if you knock down the P4 by about 25%. The Pentium-M, AMD 64, and PowerPC are all fairly close in IPC. Most of the bencharks that sharply contradict MHz are on some narrow benchmark, carefully chosen to "prove" a point.

Requirements

[bert.cl]

After login in with MS Passport:

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: Here

Re:Requirements

[David_Bloom]

If I were an administrator, I wouldn't want my employees installing their own ActiveX controls.

Interesting Business Partnerships

[Lizard_King]

From the about page:

From radio to your library: If a particular song on MSN Radio gets your attention, you can click to download it and instantly make it a part of your music library. And if you prefer plastic, we'll connect you to several online CD sellers, including Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.com.

Amazon and B&N - those are some heavy lifters. A new Axis of Evil? =)

Interesting though, this is an area that Apple has avoided: making the connection to the hard-copy world. This could provide Microsoft with even more backing and support from some of the entrenched, big players in the music industry. Scary.

Downloading to iPod

[dschuetz]

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.

Re:Downloading to iPod

[David_Bloom]

Mp3 doesn't support DRM. Actually, there are DRM'd mp3 implementations out there probably, but no digital music player will support them. The recording industry will NEVER allow the online sale of an un-DRM'd digital audio file.

The only common DRM formats out there are Apple's AAC FairPlay and WMA.

Re:Downloading to iPod

[_Sprocket_]

Mp3 doesn't support DRM. Actually, there are DRM'd mp3 implementations out there probably, but no digital music player will support them. The recording industry will NEVER allow the online sale of an un-DRM'd digital audio file.

Meanwhile, illicit data sources for music continue to flourish. All the convenience of click-at-home without any of the restrictions that make you wonder when you'll run in to the glass ceiling that stops you from playing your favorite tune on your new audio gadget.

Sure. You can burn your own. For now - the RIAA has never shown approval to such practices. However, this involves either travel time or shipping time as well as the effort to RIP the media once you have it in-hand. Not to mention the issue of buying a collection of music of increasingly questionable quality for that one gem. But hey - at least you get to RIP it to your taste.... assuming you know how to do that.

The recording industry could have wiped out Napster, et al early if they had just thought ahead. They could still do it. High quality, professionally RIPed, fully functional files from a single source without any hassles over bandwidth or incomplete downloads. Sell them at a reasonable price.

Suddenly those illicit data sources are a lot of hassle for meager savings. They will continue to exist - there are always individuals with more time than money. But then, they weren't customers anyway. And as you pull away the mainstream music loving crowd, there are less sources to feed the illicit data networks... which in turn become less effective. Less popular. Less mainstream.

Of course, this won't happen. The success of the music industry isn't based on sales. It's based on control. And control is what DRM is all about.

Re:But I have an iPod and iTunes works for me....

[StevenHenderson]

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...

Higher bitrate != higher quality

[w3weasel]

160 kbps VBR WMA vs 128 kbps AAC... at best I'd bet they are equal qauality

I hope someone does a full listening test with a blind panel

Look at those security requirements!

[Jugalator]

Among the system requirements of the music store are these:

(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? :-P

Re:Look at those security requirements!

[gad_zuki!]

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.

Re:Look at those security requirements!

[argent]

Bad as it is, ActiveX is *not* the biggest security issue in Internet Explorer.

The whole "security zones" model is the biggest security issue in Internet Explorer. There should not be a mechanism in a web browser to run code outside a sandbox. Not just "for the Internet zone", but anywhere. Having a program (and by this I mean the whole MS HTML control, IE is just a wrapper around it) intended for safely viewing untrusted documents able to grant local user rights to that document is just asking for people to try and figure out ways to "flip that switch".

IE is like the trusting sidekick in horror movies who is stupid enough to invite the vampire into the house just before the climax. Unfortunately IE doesn't die horribly as a result... this is one of those black-humor serials where the same people get to make the same mistake over and over again.

The reason that other browsers don't have the same problem is because they don't have this "enter freely and of your own free will" escape clause. If a hole is found, the hole itself can be fixed, because there's no non-malicious software that depends on the hole.

Who cares?

[SilentChris]

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.

Re:Who cares?

[irn_bru]

They have Radiohead "Coming Soon", Whatever that means, although you can listen to five rather dull blokes talking about themselves for 44 minutes right now, this very instant, if you like....

Re:Who cares?

[pecko666]

Is ist only me, or they really have only american production ? (I searched for 4 well known artists, non-american, and no one was found on this music shop).

Re:Who cares?

[jwlidtnet]

Those're covers, either from the "True Love Waits" CD or "Anybody can Play Radiohead."

Re:Who cares?

[gad_zuki!]

Radiohead, the band, not Apple, MS, Capitol, etc decided they dont want to be part of the a la carte online music sale business. They (and other artists) prefer you buy their whole albums.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly, every country outside of the US is a myth. Everyone knows that.

Re:Who cares?

[pknoll]

Any artist who wishes this can have it that way. There are albums on iTunes which are not available song-by-song, only as a complete work, or the only way to get all the songs is to buy the album as a whole; the only individual tracks available are what were released as singles.

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.

Re:Who cares?

[wankledot]

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.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really hard to tell if you are trolling or are just really, really stupid. Please click on the links provided by the parent and then tell me how many songs performed by Radiohead that you can see.

After that, try searching for Radiohead and look at the url of the page this takes you to. Then compare this url with the one which was also helpfully provided to you above.

Re:Who cares?

[lavar78]

If it were truly one complete work of art, they shouldn't divide it into tracks. These artists underestimate the curiosity of people who are willing to pay $0.99 to sample music and buy more after hearing something they like.

BTW, Radiohead albums were available briefly when the iTMS debuted. I gained a new appreciation for the group after buying one of their songs (and seeing Selway and O'Brien play with Neil Finn at the 7 Worlds Collide show).

bitrate != quality

[eatmadust]

Also, music is at a higher quality - 160kbps VBR

no, bitrate in not equal to quality. iTMS has the far superior AAC, while Microsoft uses WMA wich comes last (or close) in most tests (except the ones Microsoft pays for ;))
two tests here:
1
2

cheaper higher quality music

[Moonlapse]

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.

The Beatles

[d_p]

Neither MSN nor iTunes has the Beatles.

Re:Blatent rip-off

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Seems that MS can't even design a retail website without plagerizing Apple's UI.

If it aint broke, don't fix it. Steve Jobs has been Microsofts unifficial director of research and innovation for years and this has been enormously profitable for MS. Why would they fire him now? :-)

Just had a look through their selection...

[sean@thingsihate.org]

... 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?

Re:Just had a look through their selection...

[mizidymizark]

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.

Re:Blatent rip-off

[garcia]

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.

Walt Mossberg's review

[XavierItzmann]

From Mossberg's review at the WSJ:

-only about 500K songs
-no audio books, gift certificates, spending limits for kids
-Microsoft runs ads on its search pages
-click the "Buy" button, it changes to read "Purchased," but that doesn't mean you have the song
- several thousand of Microsoft's songs will cost more -- some nearly $4 each
-WMP choked when tried to synchronize songs purchased in Microsoft's own format from the Musicmatch, Wal-Mart and Napster online stores, saying it was "unable to obtain license
-Overall, MSN Music is no match for iTunes -- yet.

Mossberg thinks eventually MS will catch up.
http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20040902.html

Re:Walt Mossberg's review

[IamTheRealMike]

-only about 500K songs

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.

Wow, albums are 9 CENTS cheaper@!!@#!!!!!

[JBMcB]

Got that, NINE WHOLE CENTS!!! Wow, if I buy 100 albums I can save $9!!! I'm dropping iTunes, throwing away my iPod, buying a Nomad and signing up!!!

Re:Wow, albums are 9 CENTS cheaper@!!@#!!!!!

[xstein]

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

Still, this is a good thing...

[artemis67]

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.

Re:Blatent rip-off

[stubear]

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.

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 /. hoping to score a little karma. Congratulations, you're officially a whore.

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.

Ah Irony, thy name is Microsoft

[Zygote-IC-]

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."

Those tests are old and invalid

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Microsoft != Open Standards

[failedlogic]

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...)

PC Standard?

[trawg]

Although Apple computers and Apple iPods do not support the PC standard WindowsMedia format for music...

Weird, I didn't realise it was the PC standard - surely if its anything, its just the 'Windows standard'.

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.

allofmp3.com

[milamber.net]

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).

But Penguins...

[jvmatthe]

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.

higher quality music?

[kaan]

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?

Re:higher quality music?

[DrYak]

A lot of comparing has been done :
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Recently found on Slashdot.org :

Vorbis fork AoTuV scored the highest and ranks as the winner together with open source contender Musepack closely followed by Apple's AAC implementation and LAME MP3, which improved markably since last year thanks to further tunings of its VBR model done by Gabriel Bouvigne. Sony's ATRAC3 format ranks last after WMA on the third place.

Overall the tests tends to show that :

• Depending on the bitrate, the best codec isn't the same.
• Open-Source codecs (Ogg Vorbis and MP3 Lame) did improve a lot over time. for exemple, compare conclusion from oldest studies : "Vorbis isn't mature enough", with latest : "Ogg+AoTuV is the best"
• WMA plain sucks, it's only advantage is that it comes pre-installed with Windows on the largest part of all PCs.

So if we trust these studies, we can say :
YES, you're right.
160kbps WMA are better than 128kbps WMA, but it's no way better than what you can found on concurrent services at 128kbps.

Therefore : we can conclude that microsoft's service won't that good, because you get the same quality as everywhere else, only the file will be bigger, and in the end you'll be able to squeeze less musique of the same quality on the memory of your player.

Re:higher quality music?

[YE]

None of these tests compare VBR WMA at 160 kbps against AAC at 128 kbps.

The EKEI.com test is last updated in 2002, and includes a WMA version two versions too old (v7 vs. v9); significant improvements have been made to the encoder since then.

And, about somebody calling themselves "infoanarchy", do you, like, expect them to be _impartial_ and _professional_ when judging a product by Microsoft, of all companies?

MS and Real intentionally misunderstand the iPod

[petard]

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.

That is entirely untrue.

[mcc]

the only way you can legally download music for the iPod is through iTunes?

There are a large number of sources from which you may legally download music for the iPod, for example here.

Re:This Is a Good Thing

[Ohreally_factor]

Hares should never under-estimate turtles, especially turtles with warchests wealthier than many countries.

Hares should never underestimate turtles, especially when the turtles are known to engage in illegal, unfair, anti-competitive abuses of monopoly.

or maybe you should have said,

Hares shouldn't underestimate mass murderers. Netscape was murdered.

Store UI Is Lacking

[beejay54]

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.
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.... :o)

Re:Blatent rip-off

[Ohreally_factor]

The only blatant rip off is you repeating ideas that have no factual basis. If you're going to spout bullshit, please come up with original bullshit.

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!

It's not a blatant rip off when you pay to use a technology.

Real history of the GUI

A walk in the Parc

Please try to gain a bit more knowledge instead of repeating nonsense that you've heard. There's this thing called the internet that you can use to check facts. Look into it.

Any ideas?

[wo1verin3]

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.

Album prices

[pknoll]

Most albums on iTunes are also $9.90, not $9.99 as the sumbitter suggests.

Microsoft has exactly duplicated the iTunes pricing structure, from what I can see so far.

Feedback echoes Real

[fitterhappier]

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.

aka "Competition"

[msobkow]

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.

most A3 tracks are lossy-encode *more than once*

[amyhughes]

Allofmp3 offers some tracks uncompressed, but most are compressed. Worse, they only encode in one format and at one bitrate and then transcode to obtain the format and bitrate you request. That's why for some tracks they also offer an additional-cost option to encode from the uncompressed data, implying that otherwise your encoding comes from already-compressed data.

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

Re:Their selection is not unique enough for me

[32bitwonder]

Agreed. This, combined with low bitrate files, proprietary codecs and/or DRM (in Apples' case) are but a few reasons why I don't buy music online. If I wanted the latest drivel, I'd just as soon go down to HMV and pick up the CD. Sure, the music itself is still crap - but at least it'd be uncompressed crap.

I too listen to a lot of 80's music. I've "archived" many of my own collection to lossless FLAC files and stored them on DVD+R's. That way I'm not locked into any particular lossy codec and can re-encode them to whatever suits my fancy relatively easily. That's how my collection of music makes its way into iTunes.

I typically go to used music stores and scour for used LP's & CD's to fill my collection. I often find what I'm looking for and it's typically much cheaper than what it would've cost me for the compressed online version. I rip/record - dump it to FLAC and MP3 files (whatever) and I'm done. Yes, it's more inconvenient but it's also MUCH more gratifying than clicking submit and having $0.99 added to my VISA bill.

No stand alone client

[CrazyTalk]

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?

Re:Nah

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

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.

hang on a second...

[admiralfrijole]

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.

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

Rodeohead - Re:Who cares?

[jackDuhRipper]

This Radiohead-cover track is available - Free of Charge! - and can be played on any portable music player know to humankind.

No ActiveX required.

No iPod or iTunes required, neither. Props to "Hard N' Phirm."

Regards and Yee Haw -

Sour grapes here?

[Smurfpaste]

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!

How an online musicstore should be: audiojelly.com

[pugdk]

Take a look at www.audiojelly.com if you're into trance & electronica.

It's an awesome online musicstore, you are able to listen to previews of everything (using a flashplayer) and what you're buying is 192 kbit MP3's! Not some lame DRM format which you can't play in the future / on your favorite OS / on your favorite MP3 player..

This is how an online music store should be! Screw Itunes, screw MSN music, support stores like this!

-pug

Only 160kbps? Then Apple and MSN both suck!

[freshBlueO2]

At Rhaposody (listen.com) I can pay $0.79 per song to be BURNED onto a CD as a "standard" 44Khz, 16-bit, Stereo audio track.

Then, I can rip my new song as a nicer 192kbps file and load that into my ipod/mp3 player/whatever.

Note: When I look at the songs available from iTunes, I find it ironic Rhapsody has the excat same songs available to us. How do I know that (especcially if there are thousands of songs)? I listen to trance, dance, & techno. When they release an album out on iTunes (which is rare), they've also come out on Rhapsody the same day.

Hmmm....My theory is, it's all really the same service.

Mp3 player?

[ColonBlow]

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.

Irrelevant

[SuperKendall]

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.

So sad how it *almost* works so very well

[amichalo]

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.

FUDdy Dud

[kylef]

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.

This is one of the funniest examples of FUD I have read in quite a while. It's not even worth picking apart, it's so... wrong!