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."
Will the music from MS become integrated with my OS once downloaded it can never be separated?
there are activex plugins for Mozilla folks..
look in the moz project directory
Don't Tread on OpenSource
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)
Makes Columbia House look good. On the other hand, what the public wants, the public gets...
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
The BBC also has some info
Batman: "Slake your thirst. You'll have worse than a parched sensation when we're through with you!"
The url for the ActiveX Plugin
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Anyone know how 160kbps VBR Windows Media Format compares to 128 AAC?
Aren't the specifications of "160kbps" and "VBR" mutually exclusive?
Mozilla ActiveX Plugin
Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.
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.
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
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....
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.
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.
My username does not make me Apathetic. It's irony, get it?
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.
--
We are the collective Slashbot HiveMind
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"
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.
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
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.
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.
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 $5 and make it so that after your computer is set up for the iPod no other music player would work, then that would be getting into monopoly territory. The iPod is by no means a monopoly, you have a choice. If you don't like the fact that it means you have to use the iTunes music store (which of course you don't, it's just the easiest way) then you can buy another player, of which there are plenty on the market.
I already have an iPod and I already use iTunes and I am perfectly happy with both. Plus, Apple is perceived to be "cool" (at the moment) whereas Microsoft is "uncool", so I can't see people switching.
You better bet that M$ is going to be rolling out the marketing machine on this baby, and spending money Apple could never dream of matching...
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!
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?).
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
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!)
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
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?
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 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
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.
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
The next pasture is always greener
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!!!
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
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).
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;
Those're covers, either from the "True Love Waits" CD or "Anybody can Play Radiohead."
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
Don't be silly, every country outside of the US is a myth. Everyone knows that.
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
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.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No ActiveX required.
No iPod or iTunes required, neither. Props to "Hard N' Phirm."
Regards and Yee Haw -
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.
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!