Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AOL Making Media Player, Music Store

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the everybody's-doin'-it dept.

An anonymous reader writes "BetaNews is reporting that AOL Music is ramping up its efforts to release a new Media Player independent of the AOL client software, with a long-term goal of building its own music store. The company plans to bring AMP outside its "walled garden.""

9 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Ahh... So they bought it for the name by fembots · · Score: 5, Interesting

    AOL's Media Player = AMP, and they want to win, right? So there you go, Winamp!

    Don't get your hopes up just yet, the article is quick to mention that:

    "Surprisingly, AMP is not based on AOL's Winamp platform, only utilizing Winamp's "Unagi" playback engine. Instead, AMP is built atop the company's Communicator XUL user interface framework. Communicator was first unveiled in beta form two years ago and eventually evolved into Fanfare."

    However, AOL did say "its new Media Player is not a competing product and has different audience, as Winamp users are not likely AOL users."

    Is this the knockout punch for Winamp? What did Netcraft say?

    --
    Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
    1. Re:Ahh... So they bought it for the name by Eraser_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I want to know is, will this application be a small XUL program? or will we have to download the whole XUL kit.

      IE, can we just plug this into Mozilla and have it in the sidebar, or download a few hundred K worth of stuff? Or is every download a couple megs because of the XUL frameworks being included?

      Sounds like Visual Basic hell might start up again. If it is truly written in XUL, couldn't they easily port it to any platformw here XUL runs?

    2. Re:Ahh... So they bought it for the name by cmacb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just don't know what to make of AOL. So much potential, so little action. Why did they buy Netscape and then not make any use of it in their offerings? Why didn't they ever get into broadband? How could they let so many other companies pass them by in so many areas where they should have been a pioneer?

      I know they are hated by some for letting so many of the "unwashed" on the Internet so quickly, but I think they have done more good than harm in many respects. Yet lately almost everything they do seems like such an obvious mistake. Sounds like they are WAY late for the party on this one, but I wish them well anyway.

      I participated in a focus group thing done for them (we later found out) in which it was clear they were trying to think of a way to equalize themselves with the likes of Yahoo, MSN and Google in the various things that they do from portals to search engines. All catch-up stuff. So far no hints they are actually working on such a thing though. Now after all those lay-offs I have to wonder if anything can save this company. Will they throw tons of money into a new media player, abandon Winamp, and then in the end not put a product out at all? Nothing would surprise me. I wish them luck, which is apparently what they are looking for.

    3. Re:Ahh... So they bought it for the name by e_lehman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know what you mean! Watching AOL is like watching a slow train wreck.

      For years one had to wonder, "How can a company based on dial-up service and in-house content survive in an age broadband and the unlimited content of the web?"

      Simple question, simple answer: they can't.

      For some years, while people were still coming online for the first time, AOL was signing up ever more dialup customers. But that age is over and they've still not switched tracks.

      Now it's the end of the line and the screeching and crunching of steel has begun...

  2. Interesting... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not surprising, but interesting as AOL already has several arrangements with Apple to allow AOL Music, AOL accounts, etc., interoperate with the iTunes Music Store:

    Apple and America Online Announce Online Music Alliance

    AOL Members Now Have Instant Access to Apple's iTunes Music Store

    iTunes Music Store AOL account signin

  3. AMP by Ctrl+Alt+De1337 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My parents have been on AOL since v3.0 and are finally upgrading to cable (I can't stand returning from my college T1 line to dial-up). The media player came around before AOL bought Winamp, so that explains why it's separate. I just am curious about AOL's overall strategy with it breaking up into 4 separate companies, phasing out broadband, discontinuing Winamp, making its own browser (to compete with its own Netscape I guess), and now trying to push a standalone media player when the market for them is already saturated with free programs. The only real advantage to AMP was that it could do the standard formats (wmv, mp3, avi, etc) and RealPlayer media as well.

  4. Which Business si driving which? by razmaspaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Will AOL release this to the general public or to just AOL customers. My hunch says it will be for everyone, but with some special deals for AOL customers. What can AOL bring to the table that nobody else can? I don't think anything. A name? Would anyone use the AOL service because they knew the AOL name? iTunes is certainly better known. Will this drive AOL business? Would anyone buy AOL to get the better deals they offer? Doubtful... So what is the Competitive advantage AOL can bring to the mix? This is a dumb move with no way for AOL to differentiate or leverage any competitive advantage. They should fold up shop now, before they waste any more money on printing press releases!

    --
    I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
  5. WMG != Warner by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Time Warner sold off Warner Music Group. Vivendi Universal sold off everything but Universal Music Group. This leaves Sony as the only major label that is also a major movie studio.

  6. Neato! by erikharrison · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Look, trash AOL all you want to (really, I enjoy it!), but this is built on two technologies - one is the playback engine in Winamp (which, as I recall, was a fork of a BSD licenced cross platform player) and XUL.

    That means that a major technology company is using XUL to build their apps. Is anyone putting this together with the previous announcment that there is a new Netscape - sure, it uses the IE rendering engine (triton) on IE specific sites, but thats embedded in an XUL interface!

    AOL is actually _using_ the technology it developed when it ran Mozilla. This could mean AMP and AOL come to Linux/*BSD/Haiku/Amiga whatever alternative OS supported by XUL, same as Moz already does. It's like XUL brings rich client application written using thing client technologies - which is a big win for both the developer and alternative OS crowds.

    I'm ecstatic to see XUL being made mainstream.