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 url for the ActiveX Plugin
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
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
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)
#include "coucou.h"
Because iTunes is available for both Windows and Mac, which leaves only *nix zealots pissy. And, of course, if you legally purchase albums the old fashioned way (CD), you can put any songs you *do* manage to rip to MP3 from them onto an iPod as well.
(No, I'm not an Appleite. I use one at work; I dislike it about as much as I dislike the Windows PC and the Linux PC I use at home. If someone wants to give me a Solaris laptop, I'll be happy to add that to my equal-opportunity despite.)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
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
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
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?
Actually, they're Bush and Dick. Not really much thought needed to make any joke about that.
It would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name
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.